Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17

< 16 November	18 November >

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 keep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cachiche

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

No references, unclear notability, possibly WP:OR Veryhuman (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cachiche really is the name of a town in Peru.[1] So, if all towns are notable, do we Keep? Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is it a separated populated place, but it seems to have received some coverage, primarily due to its witch folklore. [2][3][4][5] --Oakshade (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's about witches, not the town itself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article as it currently exists does not belong on Wikipedia. However, an article about the town itself would. I think this needs to be stubified and re-written by someone who can find some good sources. The subject of the town and its relationship with witchcraft would probably merit a small mention but not be the predominant focus of the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep and stubbify per Tokyogirl79. If anyone wants to see the place, it's here: 14°05′42″S 75°44′10″W / 14.095°S 75.736°W / -14.095; -75.736. Deor (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Thanks Oakshade, Tokyogirl79 and Deor. am adding a few details you noted to the article. Page has significantly changed since addition of delete tag, so I'd say Keep now. Veryhuman (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any issues identified above can be fixed by editing rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fix and Keep: Seems to pass geographical notability guidelines Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:17, 22 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroi Oji

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

Subject has been unsourced since 2008. While his works may be notable, the notability does not seem to extend to him. ∞陣内 Jinnai 23:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=308 Check the news. This one [6] is ample coverage. This person is clearly notable for their work. Dream Focus 01:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Nobody is disputing the notability of Sakura Wars, but notability doesn't automatically transfer just because a series is notable.∞陣内Jinnai 03:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has played a significant role in a notable work, thus the person is notable. Look at how many notable things they have been a part of. Dream Focus 06:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG by making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". Sakura Wars is a core part of the gaming world, spawning manga, anime, and even a themed cafe, among other things. I'll try looking for sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: I found some articles about him, but I'll post them on the talk page of the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: No point doing anything till after the AfD, but his family name is Hiroi so the article (if kept) should be moved to Ōji Hiroi. Shiroi Hane (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robjp21019 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 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 (non-admin closure, nominator withdrew). St Anselm (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Busch (priest)

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

No independent reliable sources included to establish notability per GNG, and I'm unable to turn up any via searching. The one source provided is a link to the author's own book, which, despite the article's claim as his "most well known work", appears to have received little coverage itself. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Provisional~~ keep. While there is only one source cited, there are six sources in the bibliography, all of which appear to mention the subject in their titles. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Keep" based on further looking at the sources and on Han Adler's comment below. Six apparently reliable sources about the subject are sufficient to ward off deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reliable sources in bibliography. Strongly recommend that inline cites be added ASAP before someone starts deleting content.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read any of the sources in the bibliography, and there are no online versions - all I can see is that they may use the subject's name. I assume based on your assessment that you are familiar with these works. Can you read German? Can you verify whether the books make notable mention of the subject, and if they do, what mention it is? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 01:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are neither required to be online nor to be in English. Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite obviously, but they are required to actually be proper sources, which is why I asked if any editor could verify that they do, indeed, establish notability for the subject. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if they do. However, as it stands, none of the content in the entire article is sourced to anything, and we have a handful of books listed in the bibliography that no one has yet said they could read or vouch for. AFAIK, they could be a passing mention, or self published, or about a separate topic altogether. Assuming notability just because we have a couple effectively illegible books cited without even being used as refs seems a bit too eager for me to jump on board. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. There are obviously multiple works about the subject. The nomination seems to be based on a misinterpretation of WP:NOENG. St Anselm (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The German version of the article has extensive references. Apart from the man's large bibliography itself (which of course doesn't help to establish notability), it has six reliable sources about him. They are all in pietist publications or from pietist publishers, but pietism isn't sufficiently fringe in Germany to warrant discounting them on that account. He also made it into a (fairly indiscriminate, apparently) printed reference work, the Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. Altogether I would say this is somewhere between an obvious keep and a borderline case. Hans Adler 09:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hans. I tend to agree with your assessment, but I'm still a little on the edge since no one has directly vouched for these books. Are you able to read German, and confirm that these works are (as you say) reliable and about him? Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be all publishers of Christian books. You can look up their web sites online. I see no evidence that any of them are vanity-presses for self-published authors (for the source published in 1973, it's unlikely to be self-published). At least one of the publishers seems reputable/notable: Hansisches Druck und Verlagshaus.

Also, note that lacking inline references is not a valid deletion rationale. The fact that the references exist, regardless of whether they exist in the article, is a valid reason to keep it, however. In this case we have a bibliography that lists books explicitly devoted to the subject of the article, not merely books that mention him. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Q "are you able to read German" to someone who has at user page German indicated as mother tongue comes a bit odd.--Stephfo (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that I can smell self-published sources and similar problems pretty accurately. In this case, I am vaguely familiar with the religious movement from which this comes (it's very strong in my region of origin), and it all looks incredibly plausible. Besides, this guy didn't even have much of a chance not to become technically notable given his life. He was president of the German YMCA from 1936 till 1950, i.e. over most of the Nazi era as well as in 5 post-war years. As a surviving prominent member of the (basically anti-nazi) Confessing Church (Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller were better-known members), he must have been a welcome role model for German Protestants after the war. And he was involved in several parties after the war as well. Another indication that everything is fine is that the German Wikipedia has a link to a site that has more than 600 of his sermons online as audio files, mostly recorded in the 1960s. This guy must have been incredibly popular in his circles, which as I said cannot be considered fringe. Hans Adler 13:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... not a direct answer to my question, which is my only remaining hangup. Still, I accept that I don't have any knowledge of the topic, and those who do seem to think the subject is notable, so I'm willing to defer to their judgement. It's concerning to me, however, that we're presuming notability despite no one having read anything being cited... It would also be nice to have something (anything) sourced in the article, but that itself is not a rationale for deletion. I'll withdraw my nomination. Moving forward, if someone able to read German could skim the bibliography and add a few of the (presumably reliable and relevant) books as cites (even just for his name and birthdate), that would be helpful. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what more direct answer you want. I think it's perfectly obvious that I am a native speaker of German. As to your other concern about the sources, I am definitely not going to check them out from a library to satisfy you. I am not interested in pietists, and I am currently living in Vienna, where I would be very unlikely to get them anyway since the extremely thorough Austrian counter-reformation made sure that there are practically no Protestants here nowadays.

It's hard to find information about that guy online because he wasn't that notable after all, because all mainstream media references must have been long before digital media were invented (and Germany is extremely slow with digitisation of newspapers), and also because he has the same name as an incredibly popular author.

Besides, a Speedy A7 (no claim of notability) on an article whose infobox said "Known for resistance against totalitarian Nazi regime, Evangelizations for youth, literary works" was a mistake anyway, and we don't set a higher standard for an article just because an erroneous speedy was declined. Hans Adler 18:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean any offense, Hans. I was hoping you'd be able to confirm that the book titles at least indicated they were about him. Part of my concern is that the books aren't accessible to any editor here, so no one is able to confirm their contents. Quite obviously, I understand that's not your fault, or any such nonsense, I'm just concerned we're presuming notability despite not having any accessible sources. That was a general comment, not specifically directed at you. I'm not sure where you got the impression that I felt a higher standard should be set due to a declined CSD - obviously that would be absurd. As I said above, I'm okay with deferring to your judgement, since you know more about the topic than I do, which I intend to mean that I now believe the article should be kept. That doesn't mean I don't still have reservations, but again, those reservations aren't your problem, any more than any other editor here. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mind reading, which apparently went wrong. Now that you have clarified what you actually wanted to know: Yes, it's perfectly obvious from the book titles that they are about him. Hans Adler 19:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 20:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jess, I wonder if you read the article at all, to state "Moving forward, if someone able to read German could skim the bibliography and add a few of the (presumably reliable and relevant) books as cites (even just for his name and birthdate), that would be helpful." after clicking on just the 2nd reference as well as harping on your other points related to online accessibility of data should not IMHO be possible, even if you have no notion about German language.

Hans, I've found the information on "He was president of the German YMCA from 1936 till 1950, i.e. over most of the Nazi era as well as in 5 post-war years." for interesting to be added into the article, is there any source available for it? Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 03:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've managed to find myself: BEKANNTE MITGLIEDER DER CVJM/YMCA BEWEGUNG INTERNATIONAL. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephfo, there's not much reason to keep posting here instead of the talk page. However, keep in mind the article was very substantially different when this AfD was proposed, and indeed when I made that comment. At that time, the second reference to which you refer didn't exist. — Jess· Δ ♥ 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting here again, but it seems necessary because I made an important mistake above. He was never president of the CVJM (German YMCA). I misunderstood a complicated sentence in my hasty reading of the German Wikipedia article. Putting this here in case it makes you change your mind and to ensure that this misinformation doesn't make it into our article later on when an editor reads this page. Hans Adler 08:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination without any merit. Notability was clear even at the time when Jess added the speedy nomination tag. --Hegvald (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the article has been moved by Stepho but not it's history, I'm not sure how to fix this?Theroadislong (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stepho moved the text to Wilhelm Busch (pastor). I have restored the text of the original article and moved it (properly) to Wilhelm Busch (clergyman), which may be a more appropriate title. Wilhelm Busch (pastor) has been turned into a redirect. --Hegvald (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage of this person found to indicate notability. Dream Focus 23:49, 20 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southside Composite Squadron

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

This individual CAP squadron does not appear to meet WP:GNG. While there are Wikipedia articles on State Wings of the CAP, I don't think a single squadron inherently qualifies as notable. There does not appear to be any history or events associated with this squadron that would confer notability. Delete. Safiel (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would agree that civil air patrol squadrons do not qualify as inherently notable. That being said, the author states in one edit summary that "there will more information on this page within the week", so we will see if sources are brought forward that can establish some other form of notability, though there's not much reliable third-party references that I could find online. Cheers, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent third party references to show notability, so it fails WP:N and WP:GNG. The editor who started the article has his requested week to improve the article while this AFD runs its course. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to fail the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This articles was just created on 17 November 2011 so I think we should ask the author about it before we just arbitrarily delete it. I do think that in its current state it does not meet the criteria of GNG and probably won't. --Kumioko (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article creator has been notified of this discussion and can comment here the same as any other editor. He can also fix up and expand the article over the next week, which will affect the discussion outcome, if that happens. Also it is worth mentioning that it won't be "arbitrarily deleted", it will only be deleted because of a week-long consultation involving everyone who is interested in the article on Wikipedia and then only with community consensus. It is hardly an "arbitrary" process. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual cadet squadrons are not notable except in extraordinary circumstances. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be part of a list of CAP units, not an individual article.Petebutt (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previous convention is that these types of cadet squadrons are not really notable for individual articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anders Karlsen

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

Adeccoligaen is not considered a fully professional league, so Anders Karlsen is therefore not considered notable as he hasn't played in a fully professional league (WP:NFOOTY) Mentoz86 (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —Mentoz86 (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. No evidence of the 'Cup' appearance that could determine notability. Giant Snowman 10:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the cup game in 2008 Karlsen appeared in, was the first round against the amateur team FK Mjølner. Here is a report from that game. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Mr. Karlsen has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:25, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ostler

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Co-creator of a non-notable website and a smartphone app. No coverage at all found about HIM, and minimal about his products. --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 24 November 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. !Votes are pretty much split down the middle. The "keep" side has presented sources, and there's nothing overwhelmingly strong from the delete side that suggests the article should be deleted in the face of them. Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy_Windsor

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

Flagged for non-notability and not saved. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a primary source for information, nor a blog, all of which is threatened by this article. No evidence that this element of the protest is notable on its own, never mind part of the larger "movement". Wikipedia community has decided that Occupy "movement" is not notable enough for front page inclusion. doktorb _words^deeds 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and redirect to Occupy Canada. Joefridayquaker (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're voting to Merge. Deterence ^Talk 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my ignorant terminology. I mean delete the contents and redirect the page. Simply put, Redirect. Joefridayquaker (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy Canada. The content is largely already reflected in the destination article, but there's no reason to avoid a redirect (they're cheap!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite being small, (which can be fixed with time), this article provides informative content on one of the elements of the Occupy saga, and as such it has encyclopaedic value to anyone doing research into the Occupy movement. Further more, I am not the least bit surprised to see that Doktorbuk made this AfD nomination. He is fanatically obsessed with removing all traces of the Occupy movement from Wikipedia and, as recent discussions with him have demonstrated, there is absolutely no reasoning with him whatsoever. Deterence ^Talk 11:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Deterence has been indefinitely blocked, in part for the abusive tone towards particular users, as demonstrated by the above comment. Jim Sukwutput 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Neutrality^talk 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous reliable sources covering this. The article itself is weak; it should be expanded and rewritten from a NPOV. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per availability of numerous reliable sources. See Google news search results for some of them. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to have articles for every single centre where an Occupy protest took place. PK T(alk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Each protest is unique, with unique events. Why just "delete" the information? See also WP:ATD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be easily covered in a list article. Most of the news items cited above do not contain anything worthy of long-term inclusion. Separating this article from the rest of the occupy movement in Canada simply makes it difficult for readers to obtain information. Jim Sukwutput 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size an article on it's own has never been grounds for deletion. Stick a stub tag on it and let interested parties expand it. As for "Wikipedia community has decided that Occupy "movement" is not notable enough for front page inclusion", this isn't the front page, it's a stub, and must be handled differently. Spence Powell never made the front page, but I don't see people trying to delete his page. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything important can be already found in Occupy Canada and what's left seems to violate WP:NOTWHOSWHO - so far the importance of these people have not been shown. Zangar (talk) 16:07, 23 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? 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and leave a redirect behind to Occupy Canada. There's nothing in this article worth keeping, and it's adequately described in the Occupy Canada article already. Every individual city's occupy movement isn't automatically notable- this one happens to not be notable, even while others are.--Slon02 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We may or may not like the Occupy movement. I'm a critic myself. That's neither here nor there. We may wish that the myriad of small articles were merged into fewer big articles. That's probably in the cards somewhere down the road, but it's early days yet. There will be books and scholarly articles written and that will influence the way that we look at this social phenomenon. That's also neither here nor there. The question is whether this is an event with multiple instances of significant, independently published coverage. Footnotes are showing in the piece which indicate that this is a topic which does indeed pass the General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is currently incomplete. I've added more references to the article. Events continue to occur, more press coverage in reliable sources is written and published, GNG is further surpassed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete /merge/ redirect to Occupy Canada. Has not the wp:notability, scale or material for stand-alone. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. Adding the references currently in the article here, as many of delete !votes seem to be based upon opinion of the protest and the stub size of the article, (which is incomplete at this time), rather than topic notability itself per notability guidelines. Notice how per these references, the article can be easily expanded.

“An inside look at Occupy Windsor”, CBC News, November 11, 2011
"Occupy Windsor stands united with Detroit demonstrators". CBC News. October 24, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Chen, Dalson (October 27, 2011). "Occupy Windsor protesters staying put". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Jarvis, Anne (November 16, 2011). "Jarvis: Occupiers seeking equality". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"City dampens Occupy Windsor camp". CBC News. November 17, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Battegello, Dave (November 18, 2011). "Occupy Windsor continues despite sprinklers". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Occupy Windsor not a concern for mayor, police". CBC News. November 23, 2011. Retrieved November 25, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does indeed appear to meet WP:GNG based on coverage, including that linked above. --DGaw (talk) 04:35, 26 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Pokrass

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

This article has exactly zero independent references. I've searched and I am unable to find any. There's a cite to her publisher, and then to various blogs and low circulation magazines that she has written for. This article fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. She also does not meet any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR. MrOllie (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that this article has been speedily deleted five times (at this title and at Meg A. Pokrass, so salting may be appropriate. - MrOllie (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Writing and being published is not an automatic ticket to notability. She does not appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:AUTHOR such as winning a major prize or being written ABOUT by other people. Name-dropping notable people in the article does not contribute to her own notability. --MelanieN (talk) 21:27, 24 November 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. —SMALL JIM 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recession Wave IPO

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

WP:Original research and a neologism. The only sources are a blog that is a copy of part of this article and another that does not use the term "recession wave" and does not support the content of the article. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially invented on blog or Wikipedia, extremely bad or irrelevant sources. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:50, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasutaka Hamada

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

Fails WP:Notability (sports) Cybervoron (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 20:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability established, or likely to be. --Falcadore (talk) 08:30, 20 November 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. Consensus here being that cleanup and improvement, rather than deletion, is the way to go here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Future Is Wild

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

If nobody has turned up any sources in almost a year, the topic is almost certainly not notable. See WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:OR. Chris (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the article notwithstanding, the series does look notable in terms of significant news coverage. [7]

Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — notable enough that I found out about it independently of Wikipedia. I’ll see if I can dig up some sources, although at this point I feel that a lack of sources in the article don’t at all warrant its deletion, only its tagging for lack of sources. Maybe it could be listed on cleanup or something? — Timwi (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Though the article content is rather thin, other than a very detailed description of the series' content, the series is notable in several countries as it's a joint production of several studios. I'll extract information about its production etc from Fish in trees and elephant-sized squid - the future as seen on TV. cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ 11:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm fine with keeping the article as long as sourced information can be added. If information from reliable sources is added, then I agree that it should not be deleted. Chris (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources it does have back the article entirely. There is plenty to work with, this article can be imrpoved. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 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. Sandstein 20:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teardrop trailer

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

There has been an edit war going on for some time whether to merge the contents of this article into Travel trailer (essentially deleting this article). Some editors there are of the opinion that the two articles describe the same concept and Travel trailer already covers this article, whereas some believe the concepts are distinct. I'm opening the AfD procedurally to hopefully bring this quagmire to an end. KnightInShinyArmor (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect The two articles, and the sources cited within them, seem to treat the term as interchangeable. KnightInShinyArmor (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - keep or merge The terms are not interchangeable: "teardrop trailer" is a particular variety of travel trailer. Teardrop trailers are probably notable enough for an article of their own, but it'd be just as good to merge the minimal material in the larger article, which already has sections on other styles of travel trailers. FWIW, if the proposer had wanted to do a merge rather than a deletion then this is the wrong venue - merges can be proposed and discussed on the article talk pages. Will Beback talk 02:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get the terminology structure right before proceeding

Top of the heap (whether we non-Americans like it or not) is Recreational vehicle. Its sub-article, List of recreational vehicles, gives a reasonable breakdown, but the major structural division is between powered and non-powered vehicles, and the main articles for each of these are Motorhome and Travel trailer. Various sub-species of these have their own articles, including Teardrop trailer.
If we follow this structure (allowing for regional variations in terminology) and link the main and subsidiary articles appropriately, there is no logical reason to delete any existing article.
My gut feeling is that the disputes over what is or is not a "true" teardrop trailer will not be resolved by merging the two articles. As it currently reads, it appears that the "conservatives" have "won", or at least that the "progressives" have given up the fight.
Keep and tidy up as suggested above.

Downsize43 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish for your !vote to be considered here, please clarify what you mean—why do you think this article is about politics (conservatives versus progressives)? The problem is, so far you have not provided any sources that make the distinction; as far as I can tell you are only reporting your personal language intuitions. KnightInShinyArmor (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The modern teardrop trailer takes many variations on the basic form, most of which display innovative solutions for the best use of a restricted size and shape. Until recently many of these were included in the article, much to the chagrin of those who wanted to remain rooted in the past. They are now gone and the article is the poorer for it. My !vote to Keep, if successful, should lead to various editors (myself included) attempting do the following:

Include a summary of teardrop trailer in travel trailer, mentioning the distinction between the traditional and the modern variants.
Expand teardrop trailer to include all variants, with a clear definition of the traditional style.

Downsize43 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 20:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable and sufficiently different to a "regular" type of caravan. It has a couple of references, and is short, but reasonably detailed. I would also like to raise attention to the previous attempts to merge - these were not serious attempts, and ultimately classed as vandalism resulting in page protection - each request was a single edit by a unique IP address, which then disappeared off the face of the Earth, without raising any discussion regarding the proposed merge on either the Teardrop page or the targeted Caravan page:

1
2
3

In each case the template was added by an IP address, which I let run for 5 weeks with no comment, so I removed the template - which was subsequently reinstated by a different IP address, but again without commenting, or initiating discussion. a_man_alone (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see there have been many editors who have brought up this issue in the past which goes against your !vote, but I still don't see any reliable sources that oppose the idea of having the two articles merged, and this one effectively deleted. KnightInShinyArmor (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen any reliable sources that are for it? And when you say "I see there have been many editors who have brought up this issue in the past which goes against your !vote" I hope you are not referring to the IP vandalism I highlighted above. I cannot see any other occasions you may be referring to. a_man_alone (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm referring to those edits that you've provided which you've been reverting to prevent merging the two articles for some time now. I also can't see any vandalism in those examples. As for needing to provide sources to prove that Teardrop trailer is a Travel trailer? I can only hope that's a joke. But you really should provide reliable sources that prove the opposite, which would actually make your argument valid. KnightInShinyArmor (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology

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

Non-notable publisher. No independent sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has yet to establish a reputation. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

on what basis do you say that? DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I think we might be able to establish its conference series as notable , but I need to check that. But more important, it also publishes a journal by the same title , World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology January 2007+ ISSN 2010-376X eISSN 2010-3778, which is actually a composite of a number of sections with separate titles, see [8], , some of which I think are actually notable. That would make it a notable publisher. DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with analysis by DGG (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 24 November 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 Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. There seems to be a consensus that the club itself is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but deletion would make little sense since there is a viable target for a redirect and possibly merge. I'm redirecting it, but if anybody wants to perform a merge at a later date, they may do so, consulting the talk page of the target article if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RCSI RFC

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

WP:NN, club hasn't won any significant leagues or cups, the basic requirement for notability Gnevin (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability Gnevin (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. AIRcorn (talk) 11:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteCan find no independent sources for this club. AIRcorn (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. AIRcorn (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has provided a notable player/admin in Jonathan Raphael (or Jon Raphael). Director of Northampton and previous hooker for Leinster and benchwarmer for England a dozen times including two tours. It also satisfies point 2 of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability being that Ireland is a high performance union. Regarding a full length editorial or in depth article on an amateur rugby side, very few clubs will make this. However, I have found a few references to the club as mentioned above regarding Dr Raphael, and also about the club participating in cup games: [9], [10] and [11] --Bob247 (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to add more information about the club (history, record etc) to this article. I can't even find a website, the closet I got was this advertisement for a head coach [12]. If it is only ever going to consist of a few short sentences I struggle to see the value of retaining it. I would rather see these sorts of articles (borderline notability and no content) merged into their respective league or some other appropriate article. BTW I could not find any mention of Jon Raphael in the linked sources. AIRcorn (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't include a reference to Jon Raphael in the linked sources. Here is one. Also, one must look in books and other such material for references, not just the web. --Bob247 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can only use what they have. I am more than happy to assume good faith if you use books to add information to this article. With just three short sentences, possibly five using the references provided here, and with no obvious means of expansion I still think the best option would be to merge this into the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. AIRcorn (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer This discussion does not appear to have been properly transcluded in the AfD log. I am adding it to the current log. Please consider the delay when deciding when to close it. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:38, 4 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, slakr^\ talk / 00:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Source" doesn't establish notability. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:07, 18 November 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. Several of the keep votes are along the same line, and that raises a suspicion of multiple votes through several accounts. The primary argument for keeping has been coverage in some local media, but a more thorough examination of the material, by 74.74.150.139 and Glenfarclas, indicates that the coverage is fairly trivial or insignificant in nature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Bozeman

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

Non-notable local specialty magazine. Orange Mike | Talk 00:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implicit keep: Outside Bozeman magazine is definitely notable, for its content (which documents the Bozeman, MT culture; it is quoted and referenced widely and two libraries include it in their special collections departments), its reach (it is published locally but has subscribers around the country), and its influence (it is known, admired, talked about, and influential in outdoor-community and outdoor-industry circles around the U.S., from Salt Lake City, UT to Burlington, VT to Seattle, WA to Santa Fe, NM). I am an English major, outdoor enthusiast, frequent traveler, and avid reader of the magazine, and among those of us "in the know," Outside Bozeman is widely considered one of the very best regional journals in the country. 64.79.40.66 (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[13] — 64.79.40.66 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to improvement of sources and per Arxiloxos and Montanabw. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local specialty magazine, quite small circulation. References do not assert notability. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, since it does have multiple coverage in other media outlets (actually somewhat unusual for a paper like this one) and so passes WP:GNG (barely), and it does seem to be a legitmately significant publication in its market. I don't think "local" is a valid objection; we do (and should) have articles for local papers. Although I do favor keeping this article, I have to note that an article about this publication was deleted in April 2010; as I (vaguely) recall, that article was written (at least initially) in a more blatantly promotional style than this one, which did not help its case any. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outside Bozeman Magazine. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As notable as dozens of other articles on even more obscure topics. Undoubtably has higher circulation than most peer-reviewed academic journals, for example. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit keep: I am a Bozeman local and have read "Outside Bozeman," every quarter for years. This is the magazine that I turn to for tips and tricks for every season's activities. This magazine is very well-written and I have even gotten several of my friends from out of town hooked, I have to send them every issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonie91 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Vonie91 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Implicit keep: "Outside Bozeman" is the greatest magazine published in the Rocky Mountains. It's almost impossible to find local magazines with as much knowledge and character as O/B. GIVE THEM LIBERTY OR GIVE THEM DEATH! Preferably liberty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.103.200 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC) [14] — 174.45.103.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
These sources don't seem to hold up. Current refs 1, 2, and 4 (Montana State University Collegian, Moose Radio, and KXLF-TV) run afoul of WP:CORPDEPTH; they're all local. Current ref 3 (Washington Post)'s relevance to the subject is, sum total, the sentence "Holland was also carrying a copy of Outside Bozeman magazine for a photo at the summit as part of a contest, he said." Current ref 5 (WolframAlpha) is primary. Where are the in-depth, regional or national, non-trivial sources that would let us legitimately keep this article? Delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty much the same article as from a year and a half ago, obviously written as part of the magazine's publicity effort and carefully tailored to squeeze every last droplet of "notability" from the relative stones which are the sources here. And what are those sources? An "alums done good" writeup in a college paper, a blog post on the website of a local radio station advertising the magazine's $250 contest, a half sentence in the Washington Post, and a three-minute "local interest" interview on a Montana TV station's morning show (which, again, is not really about the magazine but about its contest). There's really nothing here that can possibly add up to "significant coverage." If every throwaway interview, day after day, on local TV stations created notability, my grandmother's quilting club would be notable by now. The keep !votes above run the range from blatant sockery to WP:WAX to an irrelevant remark about its circulation -- last time I checked, didn't they give this thing away for free? Glenfarclas (talk) 05:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit keep: The unfounded assumptions and inaccurate assertions above suggest as much of a bias against this page as its proponents may have for it. Notability is not synonymous with a New York Times article. Last time I checked, didn't Wikipedia give away its information for free? Hedgehog21 (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Hedgehog21 (talk) 19:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)— Hedgehog21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete The magazine has not achieved notability per Wikipedia's standards. Please note, Mr. "Implicit keep", that WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is against Wikipedia rules and can get you banned from Wikipedia altogether. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficiently notable, per Glenfarclas's grandmother's quilting club argument. —SMALL JIM 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wider notability primarily and spammy overtones. RafikiSykes (talk) 05:56, 27 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Novak

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

I have reverted my edits of redirecting this article into List of All My Children characters per previous AfD (see above). Now I have nominated this article the second time. Many history logs are inaccesible due to copyright violations. Anyway, this fictional character lasted for less than one year without major influence to the show or coverage of notability. I don't know any expert or soap opera dedicator who knows this character very well. Even he was mentioned in a short brief manner in the article that to I have redirected prior to revert. His storylines appear to be nothing more than involving his sister, Annie Lavery; I don't see hints of notability of his own storyline, especially from reliable sources. Even this source is not reliable to my standards. I even searched him in Google News and found none. Well, if the actor, Billy Miller, by whom this fictional character was portrayed is notable, then why not this character? Is this character worth being redirected again to any other article, such as a list? --George Ho (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's needed is to reconstitute the information in the deleted material. It was asserted to be copyvio and deleted by MoonRiddengirl--she did not specify in the log or the edit history from where it was copied, , but she is almost always correct. Presumably it can be found again and rewritten. It's wrong to judge it in this state. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 18 November 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 argument that notbaility is not inherited and that there is no assertion of independent notability is most compelling; any role he may have played in his father's political career is probably suitable for a mention in another article, but the consensus would seem to suggest that there isn;t enough here to build a proper biography. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bracks

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

son of someone notable, only "notable" due to driving drunk while being the son of someone who is notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The drunk driving piece doesn't seem very much different from routine coverage for family relations of celebrities. It's really an apology piece. The Sun piece about his acting aspirations is a couple of sentences, and his bio for Dancing With The Stars is a classic WP:BLP1E case. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, and getting arrested for drunk driving is not an exception to that general principle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete as per WP:NOTINHERITED. I'd like to see the inclusionists rescue this one. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Keep. Publicity hungry famous for being famous people are unfortunately notable in our celebrity driven era. Unlike some reality shows, the last word in the title of the TV show he was on indicates that in Australia, at least according to the TV station involved, he was considered a star. BLP1E doesn't apply as the google news search shows many different times and events that have been reported on in major Australian newspapers. The-Pope (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes for the one event. Take away this event is he really known for anything? LibStar (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have the drink driving incident, 8 episodes of DWTS, Cleo BOTY, being a model, being an event host, being a Melb C-list celebrity. Seems slightly more than 1 event. The-Pope (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we don't create articles for C list celebrities. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that the level of coverage available is sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GNG? Check. More than one event? Check. Assertion of notability? Fail. This five-line stub essentially boils down to "went to uni, crashed a car, now models while trying to break into the acting scene". The assertion of notability requirement is there specifically to guard against trivia like this. Delete.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Is believed to have played a massive part in his father retirment, which affected the Labor party and the election. A page which should be keep and improved as he has effected the State more then many Ministers. Simply he has effected history and should be keep asWikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography. Ray-Rays 19:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

that he has affected the state more than many Ministers is pure WP:SYNTH. I see no coverage from political journalists or mention in the Victorian parliament saying that Nick Bracks was the major influence in Victorian politics. LibStar (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. We wouldn't be discussing except for his dad. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:43, 21 November 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 Minecraft#Soundtrack. The content has been merged there alreasy, so all we need to do is redirect for purposes of attribution. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft – Volume Alpha

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

Everything on this page fits neatly into Minecraft#Soundtrack. Wikipedia:VGSCOPE#Inappropriate_content, particularly "Numerous short articles". Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 19:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Minecraft#Soundtrack. Salvidrim (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's been done. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 01:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - (Which, incidentally, hasn't been done. Part of the merge process is replacing the source article with a redirect to the destination article. See WP:MERGE.) The game itself has an article, so there's no reason why the material can't be merged there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 November 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 For the Taken. Deleting doesn't make much sense whn there's a viable target for a redirect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Got Life

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

Unable to find and independent sources to confirm song is notable. The charts quoted appear to be for the album the song comes from rather than the song itself. Little more than an unreferenced discography entry masquerading as an article. 'Unreferenced' tag added and removed repeatedly. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect to the article on the album. DS (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Bearing in mind the AfD has been removed 6 times, that seems a little futile.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Having dealt with the main contributor(s) of this article and parent album article myself, I'd bet that a redirect would only be a frequently abused redirect if not protected. Deletion by means of AfD appears to be the most efficient long-term solution in this case. -- WikHead (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Construction Services Pakistan

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Moreover there are no reliable sources to cite the things said in the article and thus it fails WP:RS. P.S:-I had also nominated this article against G11.One of the prime reason being speedy deletion of another similar article namely Habib Construction Services Pvt. Ltd. by user Fastily in sep 2011. Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. All of the Google hits I could quickly find were directly affiliated with the company itself; moreover, there were 0 news hits. Chris (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Crw21/Chris, and as failing WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert previously speedied. --82.41.22.244 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage to satisfy WP:CORP / WP:GNG; it's possible there are some references in another language, but I can't find them. (Please let me know if someone else does) Chzz ► 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Their is another company of the name "Habib Rafiq" which is also a construction company.See this for the google news search.But these two companies are different."Habib Rafiq" site is "http://www.habibrafiq.com/" ; "Habib Construction Services (Pvt) Ltd" is "http://www.hcs.com.pk/".Vivekananda De--tAlK 05:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:26, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wing Ka

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

no sufficient notability for an individual character. Naiveandsilly (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. We should probably redirect this to Moonlight Resonance#Characters, but that's a big old ball of OR and Unreferenced plot as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First Interstate Center (Missoula)

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

No indication of notability is given. All available sources merely confirm the building's existence, which is not the same as notability. JonRidinger (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also lack any sources that indicate notability; they simply have sources that indicate their existence and have no notable features or other characteristics:

--JonRidinger (talk) 20:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and close - Too many topics of possibly varying degrees of notability which leads to far too many "keep"-"delete" combinations. Curious that the nom claims sources only state "existence." Just a quick look at Millennium Building, the tallest in Missoula, brings up this in-depth piece. --Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or even a few "in-depth" articles in the local news outlet(s) do not establish notability. We can find multiple local reliable sources for any semi-major building in every city in the US, but that doesn't mean they have notability. Being the tallest building in downtown Missoula is also not notable (the tallest in town is a dorm on the University of Montana campus). All of these buildings are relatively new buildings, so there's going to be sources on them, but so far nothing outside Missoula, Montana. Is there local significance? Obviously, but that doesn't translate to notability, particularly with buildings, which are generally notable for architectural features, height, age, history, and/or occupants. My own hometown (a college town similar in many ways to Missoula) has had several buildings covered in multiple "in-depth" pieces (some in multiple local news outlets) recently because of downtown developments, but do they meet notability? Nope. So basically, we have sources that verify these buildings do exist in Missoula and verify some of the details about them. None of them, however, indicate nor establish notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we have notability guidelines such as WP:GNG, which at least the Millennium Building easily passes, so we don't have personal subjective opinions as to what is notable. Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of topics in cities around the world pass our standards, then we can have thousands of articles. How do you know nobody outside of Missoula finds buildings it contains encyclopedic? To questions like that we can't answer (personally I can since I do find buildings like this interesting), we have notability guidelines like WP:GNG to help us decide. --Oakshade (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much aware of the notability guidelines; that's why I nominated all of these. We do have fairly straightforward guidelines and standards for notability. None of the buildings have significant coverage other an article or two when they were built or a press release from the company that built or occupies them. Has anything been written since any of them opened? Has anyone outside of Missoula done articles on these buildings? Remember too, notability is also not temporary. And yes, it's not paper, but Wikipedia is also not an encylcopedia of everything. Simply being a building in Missoula, Montana that had an article or two written about it does not make it notable. The fact that people will find it interesting does not mean it's notable either: "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." All sources are local and all sources I have found are related to the building being opened or simply have some statistics available about it, showing that the buildings have no significance outside Missoula and very little significance inside it. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate place to mention these buildings would be in the Missoula article itself, either the history section of the cityscape/architecture section if they're mentioned at all. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're familiar with WP:GNG, then you know that significant coverage is defined as "sources address the subject directly in detail." You might not think that the 800 word Missoulian piece completely and specifically about the Millennium Building does not "address the subject directly in detail" but that is opposite of reality. That WP:WHIM guideline you linked to is about topics that do not pass our notability guidelines that at least one of these topics do.--Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of these are even close to meeting Notability requirements. How does one 800-word article in the local newspaper qualify for "significant" coverage? That doesn't even qualify for significant local coverage. The only other source is a building directory, which inclusion in is hardly a guarantee of notability (many listings are transmission towers among many other non-notable buildings). And how does this not fail WP:NTEMP? I can find multiple detailed articles about buildings all over the country in their respective towns' local newspapers. That does not equal notability for every one of them. No one is arguing that there isn't a detailed article on the Millennium Building. Significant for Missoula? Absolutely, but this isn't the Missoula Wikipedia. Please also note: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger article or relevant list." None of the articles nominated have sources that can answer the "significant coverage" and "not temporary" aspects of Notability, so there really isn't much more than can be written about any of the buildings. As I said earlier, these buildings can easily be worked into the main Missoula article in existing sections like history. None of them, however, have significance outside of Missoula. Also, footnote 5: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." --JonRidinger (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it could be a 400 word article and still be "significant coverage" as long as the "sources address the subject directly in detail." If you want to re-write WP:GNG to say "significant coverage means that there must be 10,000 words" or whatever, you need to make your case on the WP:GNG talk page, not invent your own definition on specific AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a 10,000 word article and still not be "significant coverage". Significant isn't a measure of words as much as it is variety of sources, especially secondary sources, in this case both inside and outside of Missoula. And yes, I did read the article. It's not just describing the building, it's also describing the people behind it and the company that's moving in along with other things going on in downtown Missoula at the time. That's fairly typical for small city newspapers to do when a large building is built. That doesn't equate to notability in itself even if it would be considered notable within Missoula. Bottom line is there is little or nothing more that can be written about these buildings because there is no significant coverage or notability. I'm in no way "inventing my own definition" anymore than you apparently are as I have quoted quite a bit of relevant policy from the Notability article to justify why I think the way I do and why I nominated these articles in the first place. I've taken similar articles through AfD that have just as little coverage (many that have more), among them was the List of tallest buildings in Missoula, which was redirected for basically the same reason: lack of notability not only for the list topic (tallest buildings in Missoula) but the items on the list. The only buildings with established notability are the ones on the National Register of Historic Places. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. JonRidinger (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. —JonRidinger (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the Missoulian article Missoula's new Millenium Building: Designed for the ages is significant coverage, that's fine but it's opposite of reality. Simply repeating "There is not significant coverage" won't change that. And it could be one 400 word article giving significant coverage to a topic to pass WP:GNG. If you want WP:GNG to define "significant coverage" as sources not addressing the subject in detail, then you must make your case at the WP:GNG talk page. You can't pretend "significant coverage" means something else. And since you keep bringing up WP:TEMP, the entire first paragraph of WP:TEMP states "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." Your subjective opinion that nobody outside Missoula cares is noted, but that's just your subjective opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating that it is significant doesn't change it either. And no, one article in the space of time this building has been planned and built is not significant, even more so because it's a local source. Still not sure how you can read one article and feel that it meets "significant coverage". GNG may not give a number (since it can't; it varies), but I have already used quotes from the footnotes to explain why I feel it fails significant coverage both in who has covered it (only local) and how much (one article). It was covered when it first opened. That's it. It hasn't been covered since then, but to be honest, it wasn't significant the one time it was covered anyway, so the temporary thing isn't even the main issue. Because of that, what is currently in the article is basically all that can be written on the subject. And no, I never said "no one" cares, but just because some do does not equal notability. There's a lot of things I "care" about both in and out of my own hometown (I'm a member of the local historical society) that I know others do as well. That still doesn't equal notability in the greater Wikipedia scale. And there are other places online for the people "who care" to find that information. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything and just because something makes the local newspaper or is listed on a building directory (which I already know has errors) doesn't make it notable, nor does people having a passion for a subject. In the end, it doesn't seem either of us is going to convince each other. The best thing is to get additional opinions instead of repeating our arguments back and forth. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree with Oakshade that these shouldn't have been nominated together. That being said, the coverage from The Missoulian is significant in my mind: the important place that these buildings (especially the Garlington) are now occupying in Missoula, one of Montana's first cities, means that they're going to get substantial coverage. We generally permit articles that are dependent on local information for their sources, if the local source is of importance outside the immediate area. Given the importance of Missoula and The Missoulian's circulation, it seems reasonable to see it as being sufficiently important that we shouldn't call it a local-only source; it's definitely not the local newspaper that publications such as the Record-Courier are. Nyttend (talk) 06:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Missoulian is one of the primary newspapers of Montana. As for myself, that's neither here nor there — the question isn't whether a source is local, regional, national, or international, which is more or less a matter of trivia — but whether a topic is the subject of multiple instances of substantial independent published coverage. The story cited in the Missoulian about the Millenium Building goes a large part of the way towards documenting the encyclopedia-worthiness of that topic. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI for everyone, let's keep The Missoulian in perspective. It's the third largest circulation in the state, but its circulation is around 26,000. The Record-Courier Nyttend mentions (which is actually my local newspaper) has a circulation of around 17,000 in an area that overlaps with the Cleveland Plain Dealer (circulation over 200,000) and Akron Beacon Journal (circulation over 90,000). I have always looked at Missoula compared with other cities of similar size (~66,000, metro 109,000), not in comparison to other cities in a similar ranking (like 2nd largest in a state). --JonRidinger (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement in WP:GNG that the reliable sources must have some gigantic circulation on par with the New York Times or the like. According to WP:RELIABLE, as long as the source is independent of the subject and has editorial control over its content, which obviously the Missoulian does, it is considered a reliable source.--Oakshade (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't clear: I'm not saying the circulation number matters for significant coverage on its own, but if you're going to discount a newspaper like the Record-Courier as being "local" (meaning a source from it wouldn't be considered significant coverage) you can't really argue that The Missoulian has a much greater reach when you actually compare circulation rates. Even if this building had been in New York and had an article aboutn its opening in the New York Times I wouldn't consider that "significant coverage" even with the high circulation of Times. If the consensus is that this is sufficient for "significant coverage", I guess I can start writing several articles on local buildings that have been covered here for various reasons. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not circulation rates, but regional importance: Missoula is a much bigger regional center than Ravenna, and thus its newspaper is likely to be regionally more important. Nothing against Portage County; it's simply that a comparable newspaper in the region would likely be either the Beacon Journal or the Plain Dealer. Nyttend (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like relative prominence rather than notability. Portage County is certainly not as prominent in Northeast Ohio as Missoula is in western Montana, but in terms of notability, Portage County is as notable as, if not more so, than Missoula because it has more people and is in a much larger area population-wise, so it gets coverage from more many media outlets. Simply being relatively prominent doesn't mean everything in the city is as notable as another city that is prominent in its own region. It's not about equality with notability. Heck, Akron, Ohio and Tacoma, Washington aren't exactly the most prominent cities in their respective regions, but they are a lot more notable than Missoula simply because they're much larger cities. But even then, I still don't think there is even enough to support the "significant coverage" requirement at a local level for these buildings and certainly nothing outside the region. By this logic, we could include anything in The Missoulian (or any "regional" paper) that gets a detailed article, like someone's bio, a crime, obituary, etc. It may function as a regional paper, but it is also the only regular local daily, so not everything in it is of regional importance nor is everything of regional importance notable.

Since it seems there is a developing consensus that a source in The Missoulian constitutes "significant" coverage due to the paper being regionally important (regardless of the size of the region), I want to make sure that when I decide to write similar articles, that I'm not wasting my time. I still haven't seen how these articles can actually be expanded much beyond the stubs they are, though, which is also part of having significant coverage (I quoted something from this in an earlier post above). Even if all 4 articles were combined they'd still be a stub or they'd be a small paragraph within the Missoula and/or Downtown Missoula articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Millenium Building, since it has a clear claim to notability as the tallest building in Missoula. No opinion with respect to the other three, other than to say that every town has dozens or scores of buildings and lines do need to be drawn someplace. Carrite (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So can every tallest building in a particular city have an article simply because it's tallest? Also, according to the Emporis citation in the Millennium Building article, Jesse Hall and Aber Hall at the University of Montana are both taller (11 stories estimated 157 feet vs 9 stories and 128 feet for Millennium) than the Millennium building. The Millennium is the tallest building in downtown Missoula. I think at the very least these should be included in the Missoula article and/or the Downtown Missoula article, but not stand-alone articles at this point. And that's not just because they're small now it's because the info available at present doesn't lend itself to expanding the article much further than what would be prudent to mention within the context of the Downtown and Missoula articles. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion would be that every significant town's largest building has a good chance to be notable; the defintion of 'significant town', of course, is debatable, but Missoula, as the second largest city in Montana, is reasonable enough to be signficant. That said, many of these modern "lowscrapers" aren't especially notable; that said, WP:NOTPAPER allows us to cover a lot of stuff that doesn't seem too significant, or only gets a few hits a month, because Wikipedia is, as Jimbo says, the sum total of all human knowledge. The WP:GNG applies however (like it or not); looking the non-highest buildings over, (and recalling all comments are based on the online sources I can find); the First Interstate Center seems to have no significant notability; the First Security Bank does have a few gBooks hits that may confer notability (listing in the 1984 Rand McNally Bankers' Blue Book, for instance) but they seem to be in-passing or directory entries; the Garlington Building at first looks bad (nothing gBooks), but gets a few news hits ([15], another seems to refer to the old Garlington Building). Meanwhile the Millenium Building...has at least two buildings larger in Missoula (Aber Hall and Jesse Hall) but is still a moderatly significant building. So in summary, my suggestions are to

Weak keep Millennium Building and Garlington Building (Missoula, Montana) (and if kept move to Garlington Building)
Merge and redirect First Interstate Center (Missoula) and First Security Bank (Downtown Missoula) to Downtown Missoula. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see how these articles, as currently formulated, meet WP:NN, which states in part that they should have evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers. Except for the Millennium Building, which cites one newspaper article, I do not see any sources here that seem to me to meet WP:RS. Even the Millennium Building only has one such article, and to meet WP:NN it should have multiple reliable sources (one mention does not make a building notable). I think that the buildings could be mentioned in an article on (downtown) Missoula, but do not see how they meet WP:NN now (if there are more sources, please add them to the articles). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NN does not and has never required "multiple" reliable sources to pass WP:NN and specifically WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG always refers to "sources" (in the plural) and says "Multiple sources are generally expected." with a note that says in part Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. This is what I suggested above. Even if one source is sufficient, only one of the four articles nominated here has anything like even one RS cited. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The plural is simply an grammatical affectation as to not appear to restrict the amount of sources. There is no requirement. --Oakshade (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in the this case, there are plural reliable sources giving significant coverage (addressing "the subject directly in detail") as another one has been found by Carrite below. [16] --Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I can see no great notability in any of these buildings. They're just ordinary buildings in an ordinary smallish city. Most towns have buildings like this. They're simply not notable unless they're of particular architectural or historical merit. These do not seem to be. Coverage in local media is not sufficient to establish notability, as all buildings of any size are likely to get some coverage in local media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the Millennium Building really the tallest building in Missoula? It has 9 floors, which is roughly 90 feet (27 m) tall (if you use the 10 feet (3.0 m) per story rule of thumb). The University of Montana has Aber Hall, which is 11 stories tall (again should be about 110 feet (34 m) tall).[17] Just curious about the relative heights. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if there are better / more sources for these buildings, now is the time to add them to the articles and let us know. If there are sufficient reliable soruces to establish notability, I am willing to reconsider my !vote. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, shit, let's just do this the old fashioned way. THIS ARTICLE IN THE MISSOULA INDEPENDENT calls the Millennium Building "the closest thing Missoula will ever have to a skyscraper." Carrite (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The website Neighborhoods of Missoula lists the Millennium Building among EIGHT OF THE CITY'S MOST RECOGNIZED LANDMARKS. Carrite (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add my voice to the KEEPS on the First Interstate Bank Building as well, per THIS PIECE IN THE MISSOULIAN. Carrite (talk) 07:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:19, 17 November 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. I've moved the page to List of films about class warfare, per the below suggestion. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Films about class warfare

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

Extremely incomplete list (2 items). The original editor has not edited in in the week since creating, and no-one else has added any content. It was de-PRODded with edit summary "incomplete list needs expansion, not deletion", but a list of such vast incompleteness is not an asset to the encyclopedia. Should be deleted, with no objection to its re-creation with substantial content in future. PamD 00:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of films about class warfare. The nominator appears to agree that such a list would be within the scope of Wikipedia, but believes the article is irredeemable and needs to be started from scratch. It is indeed unfortunate that the list was started with such few entries, but the entries that are there do belong on the list (and in fact fits the narrower criteria of List of films about class warfare taking place on desert islands). As Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, this can await other editors to add to it. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting, educational, and encyclopedic topic for an article. — Cirt (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (from nominator): How incomplete can a list be and still be acceptable in Wikipedia? If there was only one entry? None? And on what basis will entries be included: the term "class warfare" does not occur in the WP article about The Admirable Crichton (it refers to "Barrie's satirical jab at class consciousness", but is that "warfare"?) and does not seem to be sourced in the article on the other film. PamD 10:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'd venture to say 2. -- Whpq (talk) 14:00, 24 November 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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond knot

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

This article has been marked since September 2009 for deletion because it is not encyclopedic.It is also unsourced. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I have attempted to address the two issues flagged on the article. Regarding the general issue of howto content in knot articles: it has generally been kept in check by keeping the tone as descriptive as possible and only including a single or most basic tying method. (see WP:KNOTS#Writing_about_methods_and_usage) When objections have come up before, appeals to WP:IAR, with the caveat that editors need to follow the guidelines mentioned above, have always been sufficient. But getting back to specifics on this article, since there are several types of diamond knot, it probably makes sense to move this article to one of the (many) alt names for this particular knot and make the current article a RWP. Should I wait until this discussion has concluded to propose that on the article's talk page? Thanks. --Dfred (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable and legitimate type of knot, useful as a decorative stopper knot. Could perhaps be merged into carrick bend, on which it is based, but shouldn't be deleted. Because the topology of a knot is a necessary part of its description, a "how-to-tie" section is necessary in knot articles. Therefore I agree with Dfred that this is a perfect case for WP:IAR.
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has an entry in the definitive Ashley Book of Knots, then its Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well documented in books about knots such as this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Shadows Reunion

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

A one-off special with an apparent lack of media coverage doesn't meet the GNG. Chris (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to suggest redirecting it to a list of DS episodes, but no such article seems to exist. There might be some merit in including it somewhere in the article Dark Shadows as a brief mention, though. It doesn't need more than 1-2 sentences or an article to itself, though. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 County (disambiguation) . HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County (China)

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

Incomplete disambiguation (WP:INCDAB) which serves little purpose when the content is already at County, and elaborated on more fully. The page is also unsuitable as a redirect due to the fact it would point to two different sections. Redirecting to one could be seen as controversial. France3470 (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. France3470 (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the County article elaborating more fully, instead it refers to the lengthy article Counties of the People's Republic of China for details. There is also a disambiguation page at County (disambiguation). IMHO, the County (China) info may be helpful for some casual users, and it does not hurt. Shenhemu (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an incomplete disambiguation, this will need to be merged into County (disambiguation) if kept, and will exist only as a redirect to the appropriate section. I don't see much use to that, but I don't see much harm to it either. Merge and redirect to section. bd2412 T 02:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suppose my thought was why put it on the disambiguation page when it is already the primary topic at County, covered by the sections County#China and County#Republic of China (Taiwan)? Surely that rather undermines the concept of disambiguation in the first place. France3470 (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to County (disambiguation) (without section, if no appropriate section exists) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:07, 24 November 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 Camille Thoman. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You Were Never Here

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

Crystalballing at it's finest. An audio file is the only source, this is simply a rumor and way too early for any of the information to be useful, no less notable or reliable. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I am fine with MichaelQSchmidt's proposed redirect, see below. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 Noveupdatember 2011 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and Redirect corrected title You Were Never Here to Camille Thoman where it is spoken in context as a planned project. Films in pre-production rarely merit being exceptions to WP:NFF, and even though its "planned" filming is spoken of in a reliable source this is definitely no exception. That said, policy does allow that properly sourced information about a future event might still be included somewhere, even if not meriting a separate article. Hence, my rationale for a redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Camille Thoman per Schmidt. A stand-alone article is premature, but enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant a mention in a related article.--JayJasper (talk) 13:57, 20 November 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 Worship God. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe (Marie Barnett song)

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

Article without any references, nor any claim of notatability and tagged as such for some time. Prod added and removed. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS Richhoncho (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Worship God as a non-notable single that apparently never charted. This is what we should do with these singles. Secret ^account 05:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 18:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Whpq (talk) 17:28, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveon Rogers

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

A 19-year old former high school track athlete that competes in the sprints. Has not competed at the international level. He is not competing at the college level. References only give competition times and references to his friends. Not one reference mentions him. His competition times are out there and nowhere near elite level. Fails WP:NTRACK. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bgwhite summarizes the issues well, this clearly does not meet WP:NTRACK. Sparthorse (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Isn't an athlete competing at the highest level of his sport. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Perseil

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

Recreation of a speedily deleted article. Minor mention in a minor source, insufficient to establish notability at this point. — Racconish^Tk 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't immediately nominate this one, thinking that sources might be found. But I doubt it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources are found. The first is a great start towards establishing notability, but it's definitely not enough. CityO fSilver 00:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable as of yet. Another brand new designer with only advertorials to her name.--Aspro (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, so tagged. (If having one design mentioned in a magazine is enough to defeat A7, I give up) ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Following your nomination, the page was speedily deleted again today and immediately recreated. Going through the Afd should avoid this per G4.— Racconish^Tk 15:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the above sentiment by Racconish, I rejected speedy deletion on the article. It's probably easiest to let AfD run its course. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:03, 19 November 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. copyvio DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global hypokinesis of left ventricle

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

Declined PROD for a medical defect. Article's contents are completely taken from the comments section of a forum post in a website called MedHelp found here [18]. The "case study" is one of the commenters who said they have such-and-such a condition, and the editor has taken these comments at face value and thrown them in the article. I'm not sure if this is a case of copyright violation, but the contents of the article are not originating from reliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The copyright violation is clearly a fatal flaw. But that aside, everything contributed by the article creator Manarg forwards the idea that there is some sort of heart defect caused by frequent speculation or gambling, dubbed "Gambler's Syndrome". A page for Gambler's Syndrome was recently deleted as well and may have been related. Regardless, there does not appear to be any reliable sources supporting this claim, especially of the quality expected for medical topics. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It seems a simple case of COPYVIO; the article is also unsourced, hence fails WP:GNG. But since it's Unambiguous Copyright Infringement, can't we just do a SPEEDY DELETE under G12? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 18 November 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 Result was delete. Topic appears to be a hoax according to consensus of discussion participants. -Pete (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aspidotis victoriana

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

I spoke too soon in my AFD for this editor's other major contribution. This article is almost certainly a hoax. However, it is ineligible for quicker deletion processes, having survived a proposed deletion in May 2009.

Nothing about this article appears to be accurate. I can find no reference to Aspidotis victoriana in any sources other than Wikipedia mirrors. The same applies to the purported common name of regal lacefern. When this article was subject to proposed deletion, Sir Landmass Weevil claimed that modern sources may be considering A. victoriana a junior synonym for A. californica. That doesn't seem to be true, either (although there are synonyms missing from that article as he suggested), but even if it were, it would not warrant an article under that name.

But most seriously, the photograph used to illustrate the article is not a picture of A. victoriana taken "near Cascade Gorge, Orgeon" in 2006. Sir Landmass Weevil is not the copyright holder, and the claimed licensing is invalid. In actually, it is a digitally manipulated version (flipped and stretched horizontally) of the thumbail of a photograph of A. californica taken by photographer Michael Charters in Eaton Canyon County Park in 2003. [19] The image qualified for speedy deletion under F9 even if I've somehow managed to be wrong about the article content. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - are you doing a Speedy Delete (copyvio) on the A. victoriana image? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged now. Knew I forgot something important! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any information about this fern variety that's not a copy from Wikipedia either.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero result on google books!.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the first Taxonomic HOAX I've seen. But it's not funny. Regal Fern, Osmunda regalis, is a large, rare and beautiful plant; Lace Fern, Microlepia strigosa, also a fine plant, so that's where the name is made up from. Wonderful work by Squeamish Ossifrage by the way, especially locating the source of the image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm having trouble imagining why someone would make such a hoax... but given how the picture turns out to be a copyvio, it's not unlikely. However I recommend someone please check the cited sources in the genus page, Aspidotis. I can't access them, but it's possible that it really might be a case of a synonym. Outdated and invalid names are pretty common.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 01:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although none of this is really in question at this point, the references added to the genus page appear to be real references, they just don't support what they were added to support. Even without the hoaxing, our coverage of these ferns needs some work. The irony here is that at least some sources really do recognize species we don't mention. Just not the entirely fictional victoriana. I'll see what I can do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On basis of evidence provided above above editors seems a feeble hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Delete: Confirmed hoax. Zero mention in Google Scholar. Single hit on Google Books is a compilation of Wikipedia articles. No Google Hits at all that aren't mirrors of Wikipedia. Except for this: [[20]]. The author of that blog entry is Maz Dixon, "an artist who reconstructs the landscape using the language of postcards and souvenirs." [[21]]. Yes, someone made a little funny ha-ha, and someone thought it would be funny to put it on Wikipedia. Tsk, tsk. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, and curiously, "Sir Landmass Weevil" is anagram of "Wireless SIM Vandal", and his user page says one of his "eventual goals" is "Inclusion of historical and deprecated botanical nomenclature into appropriate articles." Deprecated, eh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Redford

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

Player does not meet notability guidelines for college players - no awards, records or significant news coverage as an individual. Rikster2 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as the subject hasn't (yet) met our notability criteria. Usual Caveats apply, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ultraexactzz, he isn't notable yet. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 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 speedied G11 by RHaworth (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 easy typical food of Peru

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

Not suitable for inclusion. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 16:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was going to AFD this myself until I noticed it had already been patrolled. Support deletion. Shrug-shrug (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, because this is obviously an initial, good faith contribution, but speedy delete; I assume we have a standard Peruvian cuisine article, so this is a duplicate content fork. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another article showing why we need a "blatant WP:NOT violation" reason for CSD. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Duplication of an existing topic, as mentioned above. Any valid content in this article can easily be merged elsewhere, and does not require a stand-alone article. -- WikHead (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tom Morris, we do need a WP:NOT reason, duplication, content fork of Peruvian Cuisine, WP:OR, I could go on. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. M Magister Scienta ^talk (17 November 2011)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (nominator withdrawal due to addition of sufficient information and notability). —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 06:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Raymundo

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

No reliable reference, little content, more likely to be promotional. Does not meet the notability guideline. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 15:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep quite an established actress, but pre-internet. Please see Google News (archives) results, which does show notability quite easily.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I expanded the article a bit to pass WP:CSD#A7, WP:ENTERTAINER, and WP:GNG. I agree with the problem of sourcing for pre-Interent Filipino biography articles. --Bluemask (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per improvements made since nomination for this new article tagged for speedy[22] minutes after it was created by an editor who was later blocked as a sockpuppet. Ouch. That issue now behind us, I offer BIG kudos to User:Bluemask for his diligence in addressing the unfortunate systemic bias toward a pre-internet, non-English star, and would ask the the nominator now consider a withdrawal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems like the article is now sufficient. Thanks go to Bluemask for his expansion. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 06:12, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Moore

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

Has not played a professional game and has now been released anyway. Echetus Xe 15:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played professionally or received significant coverage. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, never played at notable level. TonyStarks (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above, without prejudice to recreation should he ever play professionally -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:51, 18 November 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. WP:SNOW - no point in keeping this hanging around any longer nancy 10:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project N.E.O.

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

I am unable to find any independent verifying information about this project. Nothing at all on Google, and the official page is a do-it-yourself webs.com site. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Editor of this article: Did you not read it more? There is an official released document that is in MLA-styled citation! You really expect something to be done so quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.114.42 (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the whole thing in fact. The document was released by the very organization that is the subject of the article, so it's not independent. Even if it is MLA style. ... discospinster _talk 01:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not verifiable by reliable sources. Google searches only get the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note from the Editor: So you'd rather be out of date? Schools would stop using Wikipedia (They already have stopped because of outdated sources) And rather more halt any possible growth of current knowledge? For the final time... it is all under wraps... if it was meant to be completely open, then Michael Adams himself would be editing this, not me! But if you want to delete, then by all means go ahead. Wordpress will gladly take all this and not care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.114.42 (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - We'd rather comply with verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another note from the editor: Then what is your definition of verifiability? It comes from a primary source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.114.42 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - The definition is linked in my original reply above. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xero: Definition is noted, but by your definition, my article is original and therefore, is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProjectNeo (talk • contribs) 21:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage, at all. Smells like a hoax to me. Maybe even speedy-worthy under WP:A7. Яehevkor ✉ 21:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no credible claim of significance CharlieEchoTango (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable and obvious nonsense. It looks like the ravings of an otaku who has lost their grip on reality and is unable to distinguish between the real world and cartoons. Roger (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total nonsense. Probably hoax. —teb728 t c 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as soon as possible. There is no need to debate this idiocy. The author is obviously trying to see how long he can keep it online. -- kainaw ™ 22:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:BOLLOCKS. Infantile rubbish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 19 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miniweb Interactive

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

No sources provided, written like an advertisement and "Leadership" section essentially consists of unreferenced CV's Vrenator ^talk 15:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: purely promotional and deliberately, rosily vague: enables converged broadcast and broadband entertainment on the TV, with a Connected TV Services Platform allowing easy navigation and consumption of internet video. Miniweb’s Platform provides a seamless experience across all content providers and empowers the viewer with global search, recommendations, micro payments, community, and personalization functions. Note prior speedy deletion as advertising, and suggest WP:SALT. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to being spammy, I can find no significant coverage about them that aren't press releases, or perss release rehashes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are references in this[23] version before a speedy was declined, but since then all references have been removed and it has become purely promotional. Probably needs to be completely written as an article including the references rather than an ad as it is now.Vrenator ^talk 08:44, 19 November 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 as a hoax. I've also indef blocked the article creator Sir Landmass Weevil for disruption, just in case he should try to return for a repeat performance. —SMALL JIM 22:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miarritze Inscription

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

Creating this AFD is one of the reasons I've finally given up on IP editing. Hopefully I haven't botched the process!

I believe this article is a pure fabrication. I did not nominate it G3 because I do not believe it the misinformation is "blatant and obvious" but rather relatively well-crafted. However, that doesn't make it real. The only references I can find to the topic are Wikipedia mirrors. The primary "source" for the article, Antonio La Paglia's Beyond Greece and Rome: Faith and Worship in Ancient Europe almost certainly does not exist. Web searches for the title reveal only Wikipedia mirrors related to this article. Searches for the author, including under a variety of spelling variants, reveal only unrelated people. Surprisingly, Black Mountain Press is real; indeed, there are at least two of them. One publishes solely historical works related to famed Black Mountain College, the other is the publishing house for the Centre for Performance Research [24], a Welsh theatre organization. Niether would have any cause to publish a work about European mythology. On the other hand, the other cited work, Michael Jordan's Encyclopedia of Gods, is real, and I have access to a physical copy, but there are problems. It does not mention a Miarritze Inscription and does not provide any refernce for the Candus/Candamius claim -- simply put, it does not support the article in the slightest. I also have significant concerns over that book's general reliability and scholarly weight, but those are issues primarily for the dozens of other articles that cite it legitimately.

As a final concern, albeit one not strictly derived from policy, I will point out that the editor responsible for this article, Sir Landmass Weevil, who appears to have been active only intermittently in 2008 and 2009, anagrams to "Wireless Vandalism". I am in the process of looking over his other contributions. I have some concerns about his work on Aspidotis species, ~~but I'm not ready to make a case for Aspidotis victoriana as a hoax. Yet, anyway.~~ and I've nominated that one for deletion as well, especially since its illustrating photograph is a misrepresented copyright violation.

Please note that if I'm right (and I'd be thrilled to be proved wrong), additional cleanup to Candamius and Basque mythology will be required. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I'd expect Google Scholar not to draw a complete blank about this inscription if it were real. Google Books finds one hit in what looks to be a New Age text about polytheism.[25] Never heard of the publisher, and it may be derivative of Wikipedia rather than the other way around. The books cited as references do not come up as hits. Because this is a Basque name, the possibility of spelling variation may need to be corrected for. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks to be another publisher of Wikipedia content like Books LLC. At the very least, the Google preview text exactly matches Wikipedia content from Basque mythology and is referenced to the same Antonio La Paglia book that I don't think really exists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—A hoax, albeit a clever one. Basque wasn't written down extensively until the 16th century. This inscription isn't mentioned in scholarly works that focus specifically on the history of written Basque. The one that I'm pasting in below says explicitly that mediaeval written Basque isn't attested to by anything other than uses of Basque words in other documents, not themselves written in Basque: José Ignacio Hualde; Joseba Lakarra; Robert Lawrence Trask (1995). Towards a history of the Basque language. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-90-272-3634-0. Retrieved 17 November 2011. There are others besides this, as this Gbooks search shows.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Squeamish Ossifrage" is an anagram of "risqué oafish message," by the way...— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edison (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero result on Google books.--Aliwiki (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, per nom's excellent work worthy of a Barnstar. Choosing a publisher's name that is actually two publishers is kind of ingenious, it does complicate proof of hoaxing. But frankly we'd have excellent evidence on the web of any real Basque epigraph from the 13th century. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost certainly a hoax. Zero hits on Google Scholar or Google Books. Google seach hits are all mirrors of this article. Creator of the page is responsible for confirmed hoax article. See: [[26]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. He iro 16:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on lack of verifiable notability. John Carter (talk) 01:35, 22 November 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 my age-old rationale that if Michael Q. Schmidt endorses deletion, it's certain to be deleted! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pravaadi

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

The article is full of WP:OR and even the release date is not decided till now, so WP:BALL. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE': Unequivocal advert and OR. Veryhuman (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G11. Poorly written promotion for the producer and director, no real context to establish notability. —Mike Allen 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I disagree with the G11 as despite the article being poorly written and smacking of promotion, it did offer enough information so that I could confirm it being planned and its director and "animated" star,[27] and by having the clues, rewrite the thing to be more presentable, and provide a source other than Facebook. Still way too soon though. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 18 November 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. In line with comments below, I've moved the article to List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica international footballers in all times

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

A strange list of footballers, probably of Costa Rican players abroad. No context, sources or correct information. According to the article a work in progress, but the author did not do anything since 1-11-2011 Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In its current form, it isn't even clear what the criteria are for players to be on this list. The creator either needs to do some work to make it clear what the page is about and provided references, or it should be userfied. Jncraton (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers - There are plenty of reliable sources available to expand this list, although it is in a terrible state at the moment. I've begun the process of formatting and adding references, but it needs attention. That's not reason enough to delete as the list can be quite useful when completed. I also recommend moving the article because it's current title is incomprehenisble; see my recommendation above. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep providing the page is renamed, and Jogurney is able to keep up his good work improving this article. Giant Snowman 10:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Rename as List of Costa Rican expatriate footballers but suggest limiting list to currently playing abroad per List of Romanian expatriate footballers as over not-too-long-a-time this and similar lists will become unmanageably large if all inclusive. I also prefer the sortable table format of List of Israeli footballers playing overseas. List of Estonian expatriate footballers could also be restricted to currently playing abroad if there is consensus for this and anyone has a mind to fix it. Lists should also be restricted by other qualifying criteria - eg. inherently wikinotable (ie- playing in a FPL, national team player etc.) to prevent creep to unworthy information clutter of unknowns playing 4th division obscure country league--ClubOranje^T 10:01, 22 November 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. Snow keep. Reliable sources have been added establishing the subject' notability and addressing the deletion concerns. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achal Prabhala

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

Article who fails to fulfill WP:BIO, specially "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" (he has not done anything who will stay for history, he is only a worker doing his work) and Wikipedia:BIO#Articles_on_Wikipedians "their status as Wikipedian editors by itself has no effect on their notability (...) All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies" (So be a wikipedian "per se" don't give him any reason to have an article). Besides that this article has a problem of had been created by his close friend Tinu, in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Close relationships. Béria Lima ^msg 13:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith nomination after heated email exchanges on foundation-l 1 2 3. The subject is notable and widely known. I am not sure whether you can call the subject as a close friend of mine, yes, we know each other. So does the whole Wikimedia World. I understand the conflicts on the mailing list is the reason for this nomination and i find it very immature behavior of a Wikimedia Portugal Board member. Request you to kindly assume good faith -- Tinu Cherian - 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (there was a conflict of edition previously...) Actually this is not a "standard" nor a "neutral" or "anodyne" request of deletion since it comes as some sort of retaliation from the demander against Achal Prabhala, after the heated discussion that took place on the Foundation I list a few days ago... Moreover, I have personally included some additional data (among them a few references) since Achal Prabhala is clearly (in fact without the ghost of a doubt except for a person blinded by revenge) a known person be it as writer, researcher on free access to knowledge or member of any wikimedian institution... Capsot (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is rash and spiteful to nominate articles for deletion due to personal differences. The article subject is well know and notable. Thanks.MW ^ℳ 15:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really not sure whether he is really a "close friend" of Tinu, but he is indeed notable enough for a WP article. I have added Template:Notable Wikipedian on the talk page. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no knowledge of any dispute within Wikipedia, but the Google search for sources reveals not only Times of India but a New York Times article (Achal Prabhala) and plenty of other solid, reliable, independent sources to prove Notability. We have no option but Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The linked NYT article is a blog post (not, generally, of the same 'notability' strength as a regular NYT article). --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The corresponding article in French is currently also on deletion procedure. Though the deletion conditions are proper to every language version Wikipedia, a link can be useful for those who can read French : see fr:Discussion:Achal Prabhala/Suppression. French Tourist (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Surprised at this nomination. There are several Reliable Sources Veryhuman (talk) 19:02, 19 November 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 by nominator, no outstanding delete recomendations. GB fan 12:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Level

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

No established notability. Two very indifferent refs. No assertion of any significant notability (only reached no 54 in the UK charts) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This article has been asked to be deleted by the page author. However, there have been many intervening edits which precludes a G7 speedy delete.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You've too easily dismissed one of its major claims to notability. According to WP:NBAND #2, "Has had a single ... on any country's national music chart." The position is not specified, many bands would love to have had a No. 54 charting single in the UK. Certainly the article could use more work but it should not be deleted for lack of notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help Wiki people. It does look better now and I am happy to keep it on wiki, esp if i can add a photo - which the wiki commons site gave me grief over...HoloGraphica — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoloGraphica (talk • contribs) 05:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me add a photo & undo the deletion request? I have a photo sitting in the Wiki Commons data bank, but they have frozen it (?). I did let them know i owned the photo, but have not heard back. thanks again ( so sorry, I am not very savvy at computer code..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoloGraphica (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaidar cuebiyar above. References definitely need improving, but deletion isn't the right answer to this. Filing Flunky (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Withdrawn - Keep - proposal to delete withdrawn in light of improvements to article and change of heart of original author. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:26, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vale Tudo Japan 1995

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

Non notable sporting results that duplicate Vale Tudo Japan, which itself is just a list of results. Phospheros (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Just a duplicate of Vale Tudo Japan information.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK. We don't need another page with these results. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previous editors mentioned, this article just repeats what's in another article. Papaursa (talk) 00:26, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vale Tudo Japan 1994

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

Non notable sporting results that duplicate Vale Tudo Japan, which itself is just a list of results. Phospheros (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a duplicate and the the article Vale Tudo Japan is more complete, I agree with the deletion. Thanks for the work on MMA Phospheros. --Moadib2k (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Just a duplicate of Vale Tudo Japan information.--Stvfetterly (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK, just like the other nominated one. We don't need another page with these results...again. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previous editors mentioned, this article just repeats what's in another article. Papaursa (talk) 00:26, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Ecker

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

~~Not Notable~~ Arguably now notable as this (currently) fails to meet any of the thresholds Wikipedia:Notability (academics):

(All 10 refs are primary (1-7 published papers, 8,9 do not mention person, 10 is OK but primary) = No secondary sources)

~~The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.~~ No independent reliable source
~~The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.~~ None listed
The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE). - I would argue that EFMC is not a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (no wikipedia entry), ~~but seems more notable than this biography, so if anything, he should be in that article rather than his own article~~
~~The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.~~
The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. - Is EFMC considered a major academic society?
~~The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.~~
The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. Arguably as joint editor of Molecular Informatics
~~The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.~~ Widefox (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I cannot follow the counting argument (also http://www.sfb35.at/ger/mitglieder.html does mention him). Substantially, I think there is little doubt that Ecker's research has significant impact and is highly cited. Vigilius (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spelt out the criterion above to help. reason 1. the "significant impact" you claim has a threshold of "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". There are none, and your link is not one either. Widefox (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The link listed by Vigilius just indicates Ecker is a member of a group of researchers and indeed does not do anything to establish notability. It is also difficult to figure out how much his works have been cited, because there are multiple people named "G Ecker". However, Ecker is editor of a well-established scientific journal, Molecular Informatics, meeting criterion #8 and is president of the European Federation for Medicinal Chemistry, meeting #6. (That this federation has no Wikiarticle is immaterial, it suffices to read their "about" page to see that this is a major organization). --Crusio (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your reference might satisfy #8 as he is joint editor (not head editor though), good, added to the article now, and removed notability tag. Agree #6 is arguable yes. My point about wikipedia is one of "notable national or international scholarly society" which is the criterion Widefox (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Citations are a reliable independent indicator of impact, they are the currency of the academic world. Drdee (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about what you say about citations. But as I stated above, I can't really figure out how much this person was cited and none of the other participants in the debate have said anything about citations either, so I'm curious on what you base your "keep" !vote here. Could you please explain? --Crusio (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, academic citations, and/or secondary sources for this academic are lacking, and should be added. Drdee, do you know any to add? Widefox (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Scopus, this author has a h-index of 20 and has 2169 citations in total. Drdee (talk) 17:23, 21 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rony Kidd (wrestler)

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

I believe this article fails WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 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) 09:45, 10 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, Wifione ^Message 10:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jarkeld (talk) 23:56, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scars and Stories

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

WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Nominated on October 17 but never added to the list of AFDs. AFD tag had been removed from the article. Concerns may have been addressed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 3 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) 09:42, 10 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, Wifione ^Message 10:01, 17 November 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. Well it's been over a month and this discussion has generated little interest. I'm going to treat this the same way I would an expired PROD—I'm deleting it, but it can be restored upon request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Triple Album Project (working title)

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

WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 7 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) 09:42, 10 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, Wifione ^Message 10:00, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reshaped relational algebra

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

All references are to Raz or his grad students, and most of article consists of scans from Raz (1987). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: do we have copyright clearance for Raz 1987? If not it's an easy delete. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do. https://sites.google.com/site/yoavraz2/home/wikipedia-copyright-permission --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for hunting that down. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:21, 17 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, Wifione ^Message 09:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (including associated scans/images) The only independent mention I could find is in Parent, C.; Spaccapietra, S.; "An Algebra for a General Entity-Relationship Model". IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 11 (7): "Chen's approach [51], [151] includes operators on both entities and relationships, while Markovitz and Raz [131] turn entities and relationships into one single representation on which a reshaped relational algebra is applied." Too trivial to establish notability. —Ruud 14:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Too trivial to establish notability." It is quite surprising to see such a claim from a person with degrees in Math and CS: This is misunderstanding of the entire subject and the purpose of RRA. Your citation above is from an article that compares ER algebras technically, without a judgement like yours, and it does not dare to make an outrageous claim like yours: "Trivial". It is far away from being trivial. RRA's purpose was to make a useful bridge from the Entity-relationship model (ERM) to the the relational model, and I consider it a huge success: Capturing the basic structure of Natural languages and extending the the static intuition captured by the ERM to relational languages (and others). RRA fulfills its purpose wonderfully for allowing to define accurate semantics for ERROL and implement it effectively over relational databases. ERROL is very notable, and ERROL is defined by RRA. At this point ERROL does not have life without RRA! (and I wonder if ever a better alternative to RRA is found: It is lean and mean and to the point). You have missed this "minor" point. --ERfan111 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making empty statements such as "outrageous claim" and "very notable", would you consider finding and listing some independent papers discussing RRA in (a bit) greater detail than the one I managed to find above? You'll find that this approach will be significantly more successful in convincing people that this article should be kept. —Ruud 22:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Let's first clearly separate two issues:~~

~~Expertise in the area, and~~
Counting references.

In your input above you pretend to be an expert: "Too trivial to establish notability." You belittle RRA. No, actually nullifying it ("trivial"), pretending to have the authority to do so. You do not mention references count. Well, let me put some content into my "empty statements:" You do not have a clue about what you are talking, and make false conclusions from a correct quotation. I say this with all the responsibility. First the quotation does not have any negative connotation which you put. Second, though both entities and relationships are represented by relations, they have different structures (symmetry breaking by ER compatibility and inclusion dependencies) and play different roles in RRA expressions. Third, I view it as a big achievement, to produce an algebra that captures a relational complete segment of the English language (and other natural languages) and allows to express all the queries common in most other database query languages (relational complete). This was the reason for me to initiate this article (not knowing about the process of checking before and getting consensus). Thus your arguments which I call "outrageous" stem from misunderstanding of the subject. Thus, please avoid comments like "Too trivial to be notable" about subject you have no understanding in, where you pretend to be an expert, and based on this make comments to delete an article. Now to counting:
First, as you should know, academic articles cite, but at most give only a brief description and possibly a brief comparison. Only text-books expand. Based on Google scholar the count I made is as follows (excluding the original authors' articles; using respective terms from articles' names): "modified relational algebra"+Markowitz: 6 citations; "entity relationship algebra"+Markowitz: 6; "reshaped relational algebra": 2. But this is not the whole story: as I said elsewhere here RRA is a building-block of ERROL which is cited much more (ERROL+Markowitz: ~100 - without the authors), without going into its implementation and semantics, i.e., without explicitly citing RRA. Quite notable for research language+algebra+prototype. How many citations are needed to be "notable?" Hundreds and more read it at different levels of thoroughness even if not cited massively.

--ERfan111 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my comment again. I did not call RRA trivial, I called the citation trivial (merely mentioning the existence of RRA, instead of trying to discuss it at any length). I agree that academic papers usually only give "a brief description and possibly a brief comparison", but even this is not the case here. —Ruud 02:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I now see I misread your comment, and deeply apologize. To my defense I can only say that it is ambiguous, but I completely believe you. I remove the parts that reflect this misunderstanding. Regarding citing: I ~~should have~~ said "brief description at most," usually not even this.--ERfan111 (talk) 07:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've just deleted Yoav Raz at AfD, so this is next? As nom says, all the citations are to Raz and his team, so it looks like a fringe theory page without reliable, independent references, hence fails WP:N. It also looks very strange given the permission-given copying and scanning - if it's to be kept, it needs major cleanup. And it may be too technical for WP readers, would need serious wikifying and rewriting. But as it stands it's Delete. Unless anyone feels like adding reliable independent sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. As was said above RRA is an integral part of ERROL. The success and notability of ERROL is the success of RRA (see above). RRA has a separate article since it has life of its own beyond ERROL, it is very mathematical (byond ERROL; like many other WP Math article), and its article is sufficiently long not to be merged to the ERROL article (3 reasons).--ERfan111 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There are references, but they seem to all be from a team at a single theoretical computer science department. They think this formulation is important but everyone else is pretty much ignoring it. This isn't fringe (in the wikipedia sense of false and opposed to mainstream), but non-notable meaning ignored by the mainstream. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is not false or opposed to main stream. Relational tech is dominated by SQL with tremendous investment and inertia, and it is unlikely that alternatives are used in the foreseen future. Thus no wonder here that RRA (with English/ERROL) have not been considered and adopted for relational. However it has a good chance of utilization in new data management applications, for example around the Web. ERfan111 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above a citation not from the creators team. --ERfan111 (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above citation counts. --ERfan111 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete as above. If kept it needs to be rewritten to use unicode mathematics characters rather than the current images. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed vote from Weak Delete to Delete after reading subsequent discussions here. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument resulted from my misunderstanding of Ruud's comment. I apologized and removed my related text. ERfan111 (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just noticed deletion tag. Also Yoav Raz deleted. Will be difficult to remove all his important work. Not much is directly quoted about RRA (but rather through ERROL), but I consider it important since it introduces a new approach to database languages, which is user friendly due to closeness to natural language. The description of ERROL is incomplete without a complete specification of RRA. Other, more general aspects of RRA are described as well. The RRA approach is targeted on the relational model, but can be also applied to other data models. Yes, if the jpgs are a concern they can be converted manually to text (some work needed).

I see after the deletion tag daily viewing jumped from about 10 to 350 (but unfortunately not too many here). If so many people are interested, have your voice here. Anybody can add their opinion to try to keep it. ERfan111 (talk) 08:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC) — ERfan111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 to make way for move. — Joseph Fox 15:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yochanan

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

This is a bit of a mess masquerading as a dab page. Rabbi Yochanan should go here. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page not needed. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've relisted this AfD purely because the deletion !votes haven't given credible reasons that I could understand. Please add new comments below this notice providing policy/guideline support. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 09:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete and move Rabbi Yochanan to this title. Agree with the nominator, this page should be the dab. Rabbi Yochanan is a less than optimal page title as none of the items include "Rabbi" in the title, which is potentially confusing. Much better to have the page at Yochanan in a section called "Rabbi". The move also solves the need to provide a link to John (given name). France3470 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Striking out comment above to avoid confusion. After discussion, I agree with the below proposed merge and find it a preferable solution. France3470 (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Yehochanan (now redirecting to John), Yohanan and Johanan to a single disambiguation page. No reason to delete this; it is a valid search term. "This is a bit of a mess" and "Page not needed" are hardly arguments for deletion. There are plenty of Yo(c)hanans who were not rabbis. --Lambiam 17:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry could you clarify. Johanan and Yohanan are currently not disambiguation pages but rather given name pages. Are you suggesting these pages become dabs? France3470 (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I call any page of the form "XXX may refer to: • XXX-1 • XXX-2 • XXX-3 ..." a disambiguation page, including given-name and surname pages. So Yohanan is a disambiguation page. Johanan is not styled as a disambiguation page, but content-wise it is one: it tells you that the name Johanan can refer to • Johanan, son of Kareah, or • Johanan, son of Jojada. The Hebrew name יוֹחָנָן‎ can be variously transliterated as Yochanan, Yohanan or Johanan, also for the same individual. If it makes you happier, read "given-name page" for "disambiguation page" in my recommendation above. I see no problem in the same page offering some encyclopedic information on a name in the lead, followed by the list(s) of name bearers, as you can see, for instance, at Madison (name). --Lambiam 23:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. After the clarification, I'd be fine with this proposal of merging them all into a given name article with the current titles becoming redirects. Do you have thoughts on what title should be used? Page views seems to indicate Johanan might be the most common search term, but as ever these might not be the whole picture. France3470 (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting the page title is not an easy call, but following the transliteration guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew), the Hebrew name should be transliterated as Yohanan, and that would indeed be my first choice. However, in English Bible translations of the Old Testament, following the KJV, the spelling Johanan is conventional, and this also gets more Google hits in general. In current Wikipedia articles the use is inconsistent; for example, we have an article Johanan ben Zakai, but Four Sephardic Synagogues has a section Yochanan ben Zakai Synagogue and gives the synagogue's name elsewhere as "Rabban Yohanan Ben Zakai synagogue". --Lambiam 11:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification: pages with encyclopedia content are not disambiguation pages; disambiguation pages are not valid link targets, but given-name and surname articles are. Given that, I have no objection to the merger, if the name article handles all of the ambiguity without need a separate disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to one page per the comments above.--Pink Bull 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Rabbi Yochanan to this title.--Saladacaesar (talk) 12:01, 27 November 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 Miley Naa Miley Hum. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag Paswan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films" for notability of an actor. It might be too soon for an article this early in his career. Alternatively, merge or redirect to Miley naa Miley hum. Muhandes (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miley naa Miley hum without prejudice per WP:NotJustYet. While the actor currently fails W:ENT, he DOES have a lot of sourcability for his role in that film. So let's send readers to where they may read about his acting debut in context to the film in which he makes it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, did not think of that. Added it as an option to the proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with redirect or merging the information to the article Miley naa Miley hum. It is, however, quite unusual that a film debut is so widely noted by important national media. Maybe that's because he is the son of a notable politician? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would also be my guess. --Muhandes (talk) 12:32, 18 November 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. Although only a limited number of people have opined, no evidence has been provided that it might have sufficient coverage to satisfy notability requirements. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Square

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

A local shopping centre with 30 specialty stores is in absolutely no way notable. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. The only real coverage it gets is for a fire where no one was injured. LibStar (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong Keep its not just a local shopping centre. Its a combination of shopping centre/apartment complex with onsite medical assistance for the residence ... that is unusual and worthy of WP:Note. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and what WP policy says because of this it is notable? LibStar (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Notability kind ... you know ... the "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice"." Different from the norm or unusual seems to fit, like this structure is different and unusual... and by the way, its over 70 stores. Did you try looking for sources? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, how about evidence of indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. A local shopping mall with "a combination of shopping centre/apartment complex with onsite medical assistance for the residence" does not qualify for notability. Echoing Libstar's previous comment, the topic must receive siginificant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the GNG. I cannot find evidence that a small shopping mall, with some 30 (or 70 that you claim) stores meets the guideline. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it could have 500 shops, 3 medical centres and a water slide, but if it has no indepth coverage (besides mere confirmation of existence), NO article. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does have an indepth article in a international industry magazine devoted solely to it [28]. [29]. A 500 shop mall would prolly be classified as a Superregional[30], and as per Common outcomes, would prolly be Notable just for that fact alone. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://designbuildsource.com.au is not an industry magazine, it seems a website for advertising for building companies etc. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

designbuildsource.com.au is part of Mediaedge Communication (Scourceable) Pty Ltd , a division of Mediaedge.ca. Whom are international in scope and well know in the retail sector. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 04:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

designbuildsource.com.au might be owned by an internationally known company but it doesn't mean Pacific Square is internationally known. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it does mean that the Center has been the subject of indepth reporting in a country specific industry magazine, that also happens to shares industry information across borders. A reliable, published source. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search on a major Australian search engine for your beloved Pacific square. nothing indepth [31]. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and nothing in major Australian news site news.com.au [32]. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"for your beloved" stop... before you go to far please. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and I can keep searching for a lack of sources to demonstrate a failure to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another search nothing in major Australian broadcaster ABC Australia [33]. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real students of telecom

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

This is a proposed future TV show. Fails WP:NFF and WP:GNG. I find no evidence on GNews archives with any mention of this production. With a lack of any identifiable sources, this article may be a hoax. Fæ (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find any evidence that the community college where this show is supposedly produced even has its own television station. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no sources to verify this is even a real thing. There might be a local station at Henry Ford Community College, where this student-run show seems to be taking place. Even if it were to be verified, there's not likely to be evidence this show is notable per WP:TVSHOW. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally prod'ed this article. I see no evidence to show this is even close to meeting Wikipedia's standards on notability. As I Jethrobot noted above, its not even possible to tell if this is real or a hoax. Sparthorse (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I originally posted tags on this, I considered "AFD: Non-notable college TV show," but settled on just tagging it for notability and other issues. I don't think it's a hoax - but it's probably not even close to meeting the Notability guidelines. Bagheera (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Program confined solely to a closed circuit television campus network, can't be notable in the world at all if it doesn't go further than that limited range. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 18 November 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. Procedural/snow keep. No deletion rationale have been presented to delete the article. Consensus has established the subject's notability. Discussion on changing the title should take place at Requested moves. Discussion to merge the article's content should take place through a merge discussion. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian gold rushes

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

Separate articles Western Australian gold rushes and Victorian gold rush already exist and both deal with local issues in those states, which seems to be the more natural way to deal with this topic. Either move this to New South Wales gold rushes and strip out non-NSW stuff; or delete and merge content to those existing articles. Moondyne (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable as there is at least one book about it: Gold Down Under; The Story of the Australian Gold Rush. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion that the topic is not-notable - just that this method of organisation is confusing and duplicative. Gold rushes (in Australia at least) were spread over wide geographic areas and a country-wide article makes little sense (to me anyway), because there's no substantive link between each gold rush other than them being in the same country. Perhaps the current poor standard of the article is a reflection of that. Moondyne (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable topic although it would be good to reconcile this article with the other two mentioned in the nomination. The nominator's suggestion to move and strip out content would be one way to go or the other two articles could be merged here. "Delete and merge" is not suitable since there is no compelling need for deletion (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete) — however, merge and redirect to Gold rush#Australian gold rushes might be fine. Anyway, editorial process can be used and no deletion is required. Thincat (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable topic on which we should have an article and the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG are available. However, this page requires much work and compares very poorly to, for example, Victorian gold rush. Post-AFD consideration should be given to merge in Western Australian gold rushes and Victorian gold rush to form a consolidated article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs a lot of fixing, and then could be a means by which people who do not recognize the names of Australian states may get to explore the topic. Downsize43 (talk) 23:59, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zvart Sarkissian

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

While this person exists, I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of them (more than bare mentions) to support a finding of notability. Tagged for notability since August 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It wasn't hard to find five more sources which I just added. And this Wikipedia search shows she is linked from three other articles. Many unchallenged bios have far less notability. CarolMooreDC 16:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those refs do you consider to be both: a) independent RSs, and b) more than trivial bare mentions? For example, the bio at a Naxos Records page on someone else, that mentions him in one sentence, is neither an independent RS nor non-trivial, and does not count towards notability. The same with the kadmous blog bio on someone else, that mentions him in one sentence. And the school newspaper article that mentions him in one sentence does not count at all towards notability (articles in a school or university newspaper would generally be considered trivial, and this bare mentions clearly is trivial). The same with the TimeOut listing of a concert that your offer as evidence of notability. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He" is a she. Being an inclusionist I think it's useful to have some info available for people who want to find out who she is from her two most notable student's articles. The sources aren't the greatest, but neither are they suspect. I'm sure we could all go through certain categories and find people we could bring up for deletion on your criteria, but does that really help the sum of human knowledge? CarolMooreDC 23:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as to the subject's gender. My problem with the indicated sources is that they are precisely the sort of sources that -- as indicated -- are of no moment in demonstrating notability for wp purposes, per our notability guidelines. Sources that do not count towards notability, but are not "suspect", still fail to demonstrate the subject's notability for wp purposes. If you wish to have what wp views as trivial mentions count towards notability, and mention in school papers count towards notability, and concert listing count towards notability, you may wish to change our notability guidelines, and perhaps you will gain support. But as our guidelines stand, these don't demonstrate notability for our purposes. As I said at the outset, I concede that this person exists. But these refs fail to reflect the subject meeting our notability standards.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it does not appear that there are any sources that actually discuss this person. All I see are sources (and not even high-profile) that discuss her in passing, and that is not enough to establish notability. Pantherskin (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A teacher who seems to get regular passing mentions in press reviews of her notable ex-pupils' concerts. I'd suggest giving this discussion at least an extra week or so to allow interested editors to try to find more significant reliable coverage - if this doesn't turn up, redirect to Abdel Rahman El Bacha. PWilkinson (talk) 12:19, 20 November 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 Jimfbleak as G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.mahmoodkhan.net/home/index.php?q=about. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Khan

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

This article is long, and full of claims of notability. But short of references. And I had difficulty finding RSs to support its claims to notability. Seems non-notable from what I could find, per our standards, but others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fast, per above, and because this could have been a candidate for deletion: unambiguous self-promotion. It's hard to believe the creator was never COI'd. I added another search iteration that decreases false positives. Still not enough in the way of multiple, reliable, in-depth coverage for WP:GNG, nor anything approaching WP:NMUSIC. JFHJr (㊟) 08:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of [34] -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dependent ML

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

6 years old and no independent references. Notability tag removed. No claim of notability. Doesn't appear to have been used to build any notable systems. Numerous google hits seem to trace back to only a handful of computer science departments. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obvious self-promotion, single-sourced article, and obsolete too. Not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the article was created by Thorsten Altenkirch, who works in a different research group than Hongwei Xi, the author of DML, nor have they ever co-authored papers together [35], while working in the same general area of reserach. I fail to see how this is "obvious self-promotion"? Also, obsolescence is not a reason for deletion (or do you suggest we delete Telegraph as well?) —Ruud 13:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above; another that might've qualified for a speedy. JFHJr (㊟) 08:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This language is quite well known in the PLT community, being a prime example of a language supporting a limited form of dependent types. I'll try to track down a few independent citations that mention this language. —Ruud 13:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm quite happy to be convinced by evidence - all I meant by 'obsolete' was that it looked like a flash-in-the-pan wild academic idea (of no substance) that has long gone away. I am well aware that 'Notability is not temporary' - once properly notable, always notable, I agree. Are you adding the citations? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to choose a few appropriate ones, but this Google Scholar query should give a very decent sample of independent articles to select from. —Ruud 14:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. It might not have been used to "build any notable systems" but it is used for educational purposes. YumOooze (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources / references for this? In my nomination I mentioned a handful of computer science departments which appear to use it, but that's mainly for the smaller, more advanced, cources. I've found no indication of it being used widely in large-class education. Also searching for it on cheat-sites didn't get useful hits. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cheat-sites"? Why does it have to be used in "large-class education" to be notable? —Ruud 09:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it doesn't (I think Stuart was just hunting in different likely places for references...), but the article does need some citations to prove notability. I suspect you're the person best placed to add them, if you can bear to do it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "citations" surely exists (see link above). But I don't see a good reason to put any the article without them being used to attribute any facts or opinions. Notability can be established right here. —Ruud 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter on dependent types in Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages discusses DML (pp. 74 - 82). I've added this as further reading material. —Ruud 10:52, 21 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research on Globalisation

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

Contested prod with reasoning I'm inclined to agree with. Doesn't clearly pass WP:CORP, quick google search reveals nothing in the way of any reliable sources indicating notability. Four Google news hits only mention it in passing in relation to one of the members. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 06:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found one source: Ottawa’s Gaddafi fans find their world crumbling, a blog post on the National Post website. Sadly, all it exposes is that people behind this outfit are nutty, not that they are really notable. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I found more hits under the Americanised spelling, but they were likewise unsubstantial passing mentions. There's currently nothing notable claimed about this organization, and I couldn't find reliable, non-trivial coverage on which to find any WP:GNG. About the only thing this article does is tie together articles on its contributors, some of whom might not withstand AfD themselves, namely Marjorie Cohn and F. William Engdahl. JFHJr (㊟) 09:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I recently prodded this but was reverted by the article's creator. The organisation appears to fall short of WP:CORP. A naïve google search returns lots of hits from other similarly-named organisations, and some fringey blogs/forum posts &c that one would expect to see when dealing with conspiracy theories, but there's a dearth of substantial coverage by reliable sources. If nobody else takes them seriously, neither should wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 13:08, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Marsh (director)

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

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability on gnews or gbooks for this director. Tagged for notability for over two years. Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in this article that shows the notability of the director. It claims that Marsh has won several awards but doesn't list any of them in this article. The article for A Blind Perspective does list one of the awards, but it's a student award and in my experience those generally aren't considered to be notable enough to prove notability. It also doesn't help that neither of the links in the article are considered to be trivial sources at best and aren't reliable sources. A search did not bring up anything that would be considered a reliable source for notability either. He might make it big in the future but he isn't notable right now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Congratulations on a regional student award, and good luck on the career but without coverage in reliable sources, notability is not established for this film maker just starting out. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage at in reliable sources, no major award wins. Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I should mention, I've also put up a film of his at AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Blind Perspective, and discussion there may bear on the !votes here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet without prejudice for a future recreation if expandable and properly sourcable. The filmmaker himself has only two short films searchable,[36] and I have been able to verify only one of the awards spoken of in the article. He is written of, and alludes to other awards, only on the website for the production company he created... but not anywhere else... and we do not use Self-published-websites to source assertions of notability. While his film winning at least one of what could be considered a notable award might be enough per WP:ANYBIO, we truely do not have anything written about him in reliable sources upon which to build a decent BLP. Until that changes and we can actually share verifiable information about this individual, the stub article is unlikley to be improved or expanded. Let his career grow and him receive coverage and we can speak about this down the road. But for now, it's quite weak on WP:V, and THAT's the major concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 21 November 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. There does not appear to be significant coverage beyond a regional, student award which does not, in itself, convey notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Blind Perspective

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

I can't find sufficient indicia of notability on gnews or gbooks for this film. Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to pass WP:MOVIE. It's sole distinguishing feature is that it won a student award with six other films, which doesn't appear to be a notable enough award to show notability. I can't find any reliable sources that show that the film has been discussed anywhere or been reviewed by notable critics.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete I am also unable to find any independent sources that provide decent coverage of the film, such as a review. I agree the student award does not constitute a "major award" per WP:MOVIE. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. To politely disagree with the respected nominator, an award from the notable Royal Television Society, the oldest such in the world, honoring student achievement[37] is a quite decent assertion of notability. It does not matter that other films may have received awards, as we consider the award itself and what IT means: being recognized by a notable institution for one's creative efforts. That's noteworthy. This is not the winning some trivial prize in a minor contest, but verifiable national recognition by a notable organization, thus allowing the film to be worthy of note, even in the lack of significant coverage. For a 3-minute animated short, this is quite the coup. Unless the assertion is that recognition by the Royal Television Society is somehow not major nor notable, this passes WP:NF#Other evidence of notability#3. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly open to a discussion on this point, and when I have time will explore it myself. My focus, admittedly, as mentioned at the outset was as to the lack of coverage in RSs. All disagreement, and especially polite disagreement, is of course welcome. I would also be interested in the view of MQS as to whether the director here is notable -- his article is at AFD as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Marsh (director)--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MQS---I was looking more closely at the Royal Television Society awards, and it seems as through the film has actually won a regional award, not a national award. The undergraduate entries that regionally win are then selected further for "National Judging," however, A Blind Perspective did not win this national judging, nor was it in the running for nomination at the "National Judging" level. I don't deny that it has an award from a notability television organization, but I'm wary of placing a lot of weight on this regional award given that the film did not appear to survive the next "round" of nominations. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A single regional student award is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My thought is through consideration of just WHO it is that chose to recognize the filmmaker's achievement, and not toward the age of the filmmaker nor that he was a student when being so recognized, and the fact that we do have precedent where younger artists can be found notable through recognition of their achievements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And if there were more material supporting notability, then I would be swayed to opine a "keep", but with this single award, no. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gone to weak above. I do not expect wide comentary and review for a 3-minute animated film, and have only been able to verify that one award. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't had time to look at this more closely, but will say that I do respect MQS's views, and laud him for modifying (somewhat) his !vote based on the discussion. Too many of our colleagues dig in their heels, and fail to take an honest second look, once they have established a position.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks. The easy road would have been to do a complete 180, and I do agree that in-depth commentary and review of this 3-minute film would be great to have, but per the applicable SNG a film receiving a notable award by a notable organization is worth considering for inclusion, no matter its coverage or lack, as long as we have verifiability of the material in the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll match you. I'll change my !vote to Weak Nomination. Given the award. I hadn't looked at it from that angle, at the time of nomination. And frankly -- but if the regional awards were only regional awards, and there were not a national round (which it did not win), I might well have viewed even the regional award as sufficient. Kudos to Jethro as well, for his good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Considering the auspicious nature of the body making the award, I feel it may be perhaps more notable then we might consider a Regional Emmy, and then I keep in mind that not all winners of the regionals go on to win the nationals, but can be notable none-the-less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:17, 23 November 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. Cleanup here is required, definitely, and thus I will tag it as such. Closing without prejudice for another AFD in future if things don't improve. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Walker

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

No indication that Mr. Walker has attained any significant level of notability. his lawsuit appears to have gone nowhere. I have done google searches, and all i could find was a new version of one of his refs, and a ___location on yahoo maps for his business. of course, has linkedin, etc, but those are not RS(other refs here were dead links). article created by an WP:SPA, with 2 associated SPA's and a number of IP addresses that have edited only this article. Basically, pure, unreferenced promotion with no chance to be shown notable in the years since creation. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is borderline, coming close to one event status with the SpongeBob lawsuit. I did also find RS discussing the Supercuts puppets, so I guess I'd lean keep, though it's marginal. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that if the article is kept it should be edited to remove unsourced material - the article seems a bit promotional. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, i fully intend to edit down to only sourced material, per BLP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but enhance. Whether it was created by a WP:SPA and other SPA's IP addresses for this article only is not a good reason to have the article deleted. If the article gets enhanced - added references - and the text without referenced gets deleted it can be kept. Maybe this source can help to understand more about the lawsuit. For sure it meets WP:GNG, specifically has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 09:27, 23 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breast belt

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

Notability, this supposed name for a type of belt is only referenced from one celebrity wearing a large belt in a way that supported her breasts. There are no other references, and its more as if the name was made as a joke on a website listing entertainment "news". Gat0r (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources of this "fashion accessory". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be a relatively new term for clothing or at least a very underused one. I wasn't able to even find enough reliable sources to merit a redirect and a mention on the page for belts. It's just too new of a term and at the moment all of the sources either quote this article directly, they mention it more as a descriptive/joking term, or it's considered to be a trivial and non-reliable source. It might be worth userfying until better sources can be found, though. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete – Zero coverage in reliable sources. I think this could have been a candidate for WP:SPEEDY. I also think the belt would look best with WP:SNOWBALLS atop. I'm open to changing my mind, at least about snow; any thoughts? JFHJr (㊟) 08:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very, very lame attempt to redefine the common waist belt by reselling it under a different label to sucker in the easily led. It's telling that the top results in Google are inane studies about regions where breast augmentation are heavy (so-called "Breast Belts") and a belt with a message supporting breast cancer research are on top rather than this product. Nate • (chatter) 00:38, 18 November 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 Occupy Canada. The news sources brought up are local in scope and likely qualify as WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any useful content can be merged into the main article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Regina

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

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

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

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

This event has no long-term significance. I do not doubt the notability of the large-scale Occupy Movement, but I do not think the Regina protests in and of itself meets basic notability principles. I think the protest should be merged into the "Occupy Canada" article. Colipon+(Talk) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is redundant, I just wanted to plead here to the ultimate 'powers-that-be' who will sum up this discussion to look at the merit of the arguments rather than the number of votes cast on each side, in addition to, obviously, the adherence to the spirit of Wikipedia policies at WP:EVENT, WP:GNG, and WP:N. Colipon+(Talk) 00:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than meets GNG as a result of coverage in national Canadian media. This isn't the right place to be discussing a merge, if that is the proposal.Rangoon11 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you think the article should be merged, why did you nominate it for deletion? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If the nominator thinks this should be merged (and I think even !delete voters would have to concede a redirect to Occupy Canada reasonable), the nominator ought to go ahead and begin merging the prose. It's got great supporting cites. JFHJr (㊟) 08:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some day in the not-too-distant future we'll be able to separate the sheep from the goats with the Occupy articles, stand-alones here and merges there. But deletion, especially in this case, isn't a likely long-term outcome. Certainly in the short term we should keep this around -- no sense deleting material which would have to be rebuild later. Carrite (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All these AfD nominations for the Occupy articles positively reek of petty politics and POV-pushing. Deterence ^Talk 11:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox or blog hosting service. Wikipedia does not give a movement credence by inclusion. This is a non-notable fringe event which has not achieved world wide coverage. Wikipedia has shown through consensus that the Occupy movement is not notable enough for front page coverage doktorb _words^deeds 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since when do events need to have worldwide / front page coverage to be notable? And when has the community reached such a consensus? WP:EVENT says that the coverage needs to be over a "wide region" and that in terms of its long-term effects, it says that even though we might not be able determine whether the movements have lasting effects right now, "this does not mean that recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doktorb has simply cut&pasted his usual objection to any nominations related to the Occupy movement that appear in Wikipedia's In The News page, WP:ITN/C. This is why his vote is essentially incoherent and the rationale behind his vote misses the criteria required of AfD. Deterence ^Talk 21:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote here is not a copy and paste from ITN/C, as anyone can see by looking there. Your personal animosity towards me might be clouding your opinions and administrators might want to consider this when looking at your votes here and elsewhere doktorb _words^deeds 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Pray tell, what on Earth is the relevance of this to AfD?: "Wikipedia has shown through consensus that the Occupy movement is not notable enough for front page coverage". And while we're at it, WHAT consensus? Deterence ^Talk 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constant failed nominations at ITNC where balanced and reasoned argument has consistently proven that the community which takes part in those debates agrees that the "little local difficulty" which occurs at these "events" is not notable enough for front page coverage. If we extend that to these spin-off articles, we can see very clearly that the articles are essentially stream of consciousness blog posts for minor news stories. Wiki is not a blog hosting service or a primary source for news. As such, these articles violate Wikipedia rules on inclusion. This and others like it should be deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 21:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, I feel an urge to take you by the hand and walk you to kindergarten so you can re-learn your ABCs. Your lack of basic English comprehension skills is simply appalling. Deterence ^Talk 21:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you fallen on insults here and elsewhere, I think neutral observers can gather which one of us is dealing with the issues, and which one of us is dealing with personal prejudices and POV pushing. I have directed people to consider that ITN/C has discussed these issues and others, and each time has voted down front page inclusion. This consensus is enough to show that the wider community believes that there is no notability inherent in these articles. I notice that you do not disagree with me that Wikipedia is not a blog hosting service or primary source for news. I also remind you to be WP:CIVIL. doktorb _words^deeds 21:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How on Earth does the failure of a handful of Occupy-related nominations to be posted on Wikipedia's In The News section on the front page entail that all Occupy articles should be deleted? MOST nominations fail, (because ITN has an extremely high notability requirement for inclusion, unless the subject is the resignation of an American football coach who stood back and let a co-worker rape young children), and if we start deleting every article that isn't notable enough for the front page then 99.9% of Wikipedia's articles will be deleted. You're being completely irrational. Were you in the Special Ed classes in school? Are you still in the Special Ed classes in school? Deterence ^Talk 22:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I want to respond to an earlier comment that this is somehow 'POV-pushing'. I have surveyed a large number of "Occupy" articles and believe that as of now, about half of them do not meet WP:EVENT guidelines. I agree now, in retrospect, that this would be a discussion better held at the discussion page on the Occupy Movement in general, but I just thought "Occupy Regina" was the most obvious example of a non-notable Occupy event. Of course, the flip side of the same coin is that many Occupy protests are notable in their own right, such as Occupy Oakland, which has raised many discussions about civil disobedience, police brutality, mayoral authority, constitutional rights etc. Occupy Regina, on the other hand, has no apparent long-term significance, and the dust has basically settled on the event. It did not even leave as much a legacy in the city itself. Even if it were to be merged with the Occupy Canada article, it would deserve no more than a few sentences at max. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and we are not an indiscriminate collection of all events covered in the news. Colipon+(Talk) 02:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, that's like saying the Battle of Denmark isn't notable simply because the Battle of France was so much more dramatic. They're all elements of the same Occupy saga, and as such they all have encyclopedic value to anyone doing research into the Occupy movement. Deterence ^Talk 04:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I've contributed to this page and most of its content is repeated in a subsection of Occupy Canada. I think a merge with that article would be an appropriate compromise, since the Occupy Canada article certainly passes the notability benchmarks. Just my 2¢. --Drm310 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is duplicate information on this page as what is on the Occupy Canada page. Delete this page so that the Occupy Canada pages don't get out of control.DivaNtrainin (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic of local relevance, if that. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't believe this is seriously being considered. This is censorship, the occupy regina movement is unique and historic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.219.159 (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 68.69.219.159 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep - How can you tell today what may have significance tomorrow? Until the entire protest is completely over, it's impossible to say what could be important and what is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.17.23.29 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.17.23.29 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Keep - This is both separate from Occupy Canada as a whole and ongoing. The only reason to delete this article is to minimize the apparent size of the movement worldwide by deleting entries to it. While Wikipedia is, I agree, not a platform for soapboxing, it should also not be used as a tool for censorship. 50.72.52.12 (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 50.72.52.12 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG as a stand alone article, already adequately mentioned in Occupy Canada. I originally favored merge/redirect, but in light of the author's 2¢ pointing out most information is already repeated, maybe we can do without a merge. JFHJr (㊟) 16:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The three !Keeps identified as possible results of canvassing fail utterly to even mention a wiki policy or guideline. In fact, they approach conspiracy theory reasoning. I like it, you can't tell it won't become notable soon, and this is censorship of something unique ad historic! Actually, they do provide any reviewing admin three excellent reasons to !Delete, or at least not to give their votes more than a giggle. So with or without canvass tags, these !Keeps already discount themselves. And as I point out, Wikipedia isn't even losing any real information since it can all stay in the Occupy Canada article just fine. JFHJr (㊟) 16:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect only if content is preserved There's actually a lot of info in the Regina article that's not in the Canada article: nor, I suspect, would there be space in the Canada article to have this level of referenced info on the details of each notable local event. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not believe this page warrants deletion. Merging with Occupy Canada is a waste of time, as both articles are likely to expand, which would eventually lead to a de-merger later. Duplication on the Occupy Canada page should be reduced with a reference to the Occupy Regina page. Thank you for your consideration. Les Andersen (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article as it holds significant historical record for the activist movements of Regina, Saskatchewan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.3.5.4 (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — 142.3.5.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The Occupy movement has the potential to radically alter the focus of public policy for years to come. While its full impact will not be known for some time it is clear that it is far too early to either write off the movement or declare its aims and objectives realized. Canada is a very diverse nation; you simply cannot group every instance of Occupy under one banner and pretend to fairly describe the nuances of the movement. The Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northern Canada, Central Canada, the Prairies and the West Coast all have very unique characteristics that results in movements like Occupy being realized differently in each of these regions. It would be a shame to lose a chronicle of how the movement manifested itself in each of these regions by mashing it into a single parent article; this would be an over-simplification and demonstrate a glaring ignorance of the way political movements like this impact the nation at a regional level. It would be like combining the Reform and PC Party articles with the Conservative Party of Canada article because the political ideologies are similar. For now, let's wait and see what happens. It doesn't make sense to destroy information at this stage. Stephen Feltmate (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenfeltmate (talk • contribs) — Stephenfeltmate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - no need to have articles for every single centre where an Occupy protest took place. PK T(alk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable movement, which will continue to develop. Merging would not make sense since it would have to unmerge later. More developments on this site will truly make a historic encyclopedic entry. Never before has a movement been so global and localized at the same time. To delete would lose the unique flavour of this notable event.Sustainabilly 16:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Sustainabilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment If anyone would care to cite independent sources that provide significant coverage as to why the Occupy Regina movement is unique from other similar movements, that would be helpful to your case, instead of just saying it's unique. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic surpasses WP:GNG. See references section in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that this article meets WP:GNG. It clearly does not. The key is the phrasing of 'significant coverage'. I do not believe a news spike of any event amounts to the standard of 'significant coverage' that GNG refers to; this would be seemingly confirmed by WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, which clearly stipulates that the event must have some sort of "long-term impact" or was 'pivotal' or 'game-changing' in some way. If such was the case then any event that receives sudden spike in coverage on national media deserves a standalone Wikipedia article. Further, GNG gives a golden caveat for establishing standards for standalone articles, namely: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." All in all interpreting these guidelines comprehensively the WP:GNG argument does not hold water. Colipon+(Talk) 02:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Here are the many reliable sources currently in the article, which counters the above statement:

"D.O.A.'s Keithley visits Regina 'occupy' camp". CBC News. 29 October 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
"Occupy Regina protests will go on despite snow, cold". CTV News. November 5, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
Goudy, Lisa (November 9, 2011). "Occupy Regina protesters rally at city hall with no intention of leaving". Leader-Post (Postmedia Network). Retrieved 2011-11-12.
"Occupy Regina campers told to leave park". CBC News. November 10, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
"Occupy Regina protesters given eviction notice Thursday morning". Calgary Herald. November 11, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-12.
Maciag, Samantha (2011-11-11). "Occupy Regina quiet on Remembrance Day". News Talk 980 CJME (Rawlco Radio). Retrieved 2011-11-13.
"Police ticket Occupy Regina park-dwellers". CBC News. November 15, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
"Occupy Regina camp torn down by police". Leader-Post (Postmedia Network). November 16, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
"Occupy Regina: Police Remove Last Tents From Victoria Park". Huffington Post. November 16, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
"Occupy tents removed from Regina park". CBC News. November 16, 2011. Retrieved 2011-11-16.

The topic clearly passes WP:GNG — Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. The vast majority of those are 'local news' articles - with four or five lines of text, i.e., no more significant than a local traffic accident. Colipon+(Talk) 14:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:GNG doesn't disqualify local news articles whatsoever. They remain reliable, secondary sources. Upon reviewing them again, the vast majority of them actually contain more than four or five lines of text. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contrary to several of the new IP's comments above, deleting unnecessary fork articles have nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with improving access to related information. What is easier to read, 20 stubs or one article that provides all the information they contain in addition to context and introduction? Jim Sukwutput 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is small but is sourced, and it's too big to get folded into a generic "Occupy Canada" article. Every episode of "Deep Space Nine" has an article, it doesn't make sense that this is somehow less notable than a pregnant Laxwanna Troi. In all seriousness, I say it's too soon, let this ride until the movement dies out, then start folding the articles back in. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability outside the locality. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tedious local news of no lasting importance. 1 person got arrested and 9 were given tickets. Whoopee do. Szzuk (talk) 23:48, 27 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Fires Restaurant

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

Non-notable restaurant. It doesn't have reliable sources to establish notability, and of the sources cited, one is the restaurant's website, one is a promotional restaurant posting, and another is an opinion piece in a newspaper column. The restaurant has nothing that distinguishes it, and it doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources. Slon02 (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is written in an unacceptably promotional style. On the other hand, references to this restaurant as a Detroit's culinary "landmark"[38](and a favorite of various celebrities) show up in a variety of news articles, including some from outside Detroit, e.g. [39][40]. So it's possible that this restaurant might be notable and that a satisfactorily WP:NPOV article could be written here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've attempted to rewrite the article incorporating the above sources by Arxilioxos. I'm going to remain neutral in this AfD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Varying search parameters a few ways didn't yield much better results. There's a lack of substantial coverage from what I can tell. With all due respect to Vibe and especially to Jethro, these ([41] and Teairra Marí. Vibe Magazine. December 2005. p. 104. Retrieved 17 November 2011. southern fires detroit.) don't make for any sort of substantial coverage. It's like when the mayor of Boston says Clover Food Lab makes the best BLT. There's no WP:INHERITING any of that. JFHJr (㊟) 10:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JFHJr. One article in a local paper and a few minor mentions elsewhere doesn't confer notability. Can't find anything under its old name either. —SMALL JIM 17:26, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ark City (2002 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILMS; 3rd place award in the student section of a film festival does not make this notable Tassedethe (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find anything that showed notability as far as this film is concerned. A quick search only shows links to the director's website and trivial links. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete - a single student award doesn't cut it. I found no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 18 November 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 When the Sun Goes Down. If things change in the future, and notability becomes more apparent, it can always be un-redirected and expanded. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hit the Lights (Selena Gomez & the Scene song)

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

No charts, no cover versions by multiple notable artists, no awards: fails WP:NSONGS. Attempts to redirect the article to the parent album have been thwarted without explanation, unless you count "the song have a music video!" as an explanation. —Kww(talk) 01:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate This song may not pass WP:NSONGS now, I think that in a few weeks the song should have a notable atrticle. Elektrik Band 01:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per WP:GNG. I found the following sources today (which may not have been available at the time of nomination, since the video aired today) that reviewed the video in detail. There are in total, about 40 other articles like these ones.

Therefore, I think this is pretty open-and-shut case of keep here. The song is independently notable from the album. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG simply makes a topic eligible to have an article. It in no way mandates that we have one, and the relevant SNG indicates that in this case we should not.—Kww(talk) 04:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is fair, and I think an important distinction that you've made, Kww. But because I think the coverage of the song and related video is likely to grow (as it has just today since the video's release), I think it might be more reasonable to redirect and merge the article into When the Sun Goes Down for the time being, rather than outright delete the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to When the Sun Goes Down. Fails WP:NSONGS (for the time being) due to not charting, although a redirect makes more sense than a delete. Till I Go Home (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to When the Sun Goes Down (Selena Gomez & the Scene album). -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the song is new, it should stay until it has had time to impact the charts, then you can decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.101.48 (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — 194.46.101.48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, but we don't presume to know the future of whether the song will chart or not. I think we can wait until it does. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Karika

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

Slovakian author who's published books. No references, no notability is asserted. The article itself is pretty much a list of the books and nothing else. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 01:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Karika is a notable Slovak personality. He is the author of two book bestsellers (V tieni mafie I + II). He was interviewed by significant Slovak newspapers and media (SME [42], Pravda [43], Slovak Radio [44] etc), which means that his works and activities are a subject of interest of Slovak public life. There is a possibility to write an informative and well referenced article about him. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you could add this assertion of notability to his article then? Not that it's your duty but there's hardly anyone else here who's sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject and can understand the language of the sources. And we can't just leave it like that indefinitely. You don't have to write a full article if you don't have that kind of time, just add pretty much what you said right here. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted above. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted, by decree of the ansestrial gods. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sixth kingdom

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

It has very, very many issues. Delete Eta-theta 00:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any indication it has even been published. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NBOOK. I have carried out a due diligence search and have failed to find any reliable sources that would stand up notability. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. The non-notability of the book and its author, doubled with the fact that the adding editor's name is User:6thKingdom, shows me that this is a promotional move on behalf of the author. I'm going to be tagging it accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete, the "official" website shows this is clearly an amateur work with no meaningful distribution and zero real world reception. I don't think it qualifies for a speedy, but between that and WP:SNOW, meh. No way this is passing. postdlf (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - blatant advertising, no notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no assertion of notability, no sources found when checking Google except official site.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:46, 17 November 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.