Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 4

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 3 November 5 November >

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Channel (UK)

edit
Travel Channel (UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for no references since April 2009 notability not clear with promotional tone. Theroadislong (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:40, 5 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. Courcelles 23:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Valley Shockwave

edit
Big Valley Shockwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another defunct ABA team with questionable notability. Mattg82 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the author, and already I've forgotten about them-just goes to show you how non-notable they turned out to be. Tom Danson (talk) 02:20, 5 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. Per additions by Aymatth2 and WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sevilla Public Library

edit
Sevilla Public Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub article adds nothing that cannot already be found in Sevilla. Oddbodz (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. There has been no activity in the last 2 months, chances are creator does not intend to add content. Veryhuman (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we going to delete all the inactive stubs? emijrp (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure? I don't see the word "library" in Seville. emijrp (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. emijrp (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More likely the Biblioteca Provincial de Sevilla. Some similar libraries have a page on the Spanish Wikipedia (see for example es:Biblioteca Pública del Estado (Córdoba), complete with redirect from es:Biblioteca Provincial de Córdoba), but this one doesn't. Andrew Dalby 21:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for asking but how can something established in 1959 have contained a figure in the 18th-19th centuries when it apparently didn't exist??♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18th-19th centuries books. emijrp (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved by Aymatth2. Thanks. emijrp (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep certainly keep as improved. The original delete argument was never correct, even unimproved, whether it had been improved in the past 3 months is obvious irrelevant to whether it will be improved in the future. Excellent example of this principle, that stubs are acceptable because they lead to fuller articles DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It should have been obvious that the subject was notable before the article was nominated. A link was provided in the stub and a search would have shown many sources. I do not buy the argument that this proves stubs are good. This proves that the combination of a stub that gives no useful information and a nominator who does no research is to waste a lot of time in an AfD debate. "The Sevilla Public Library is a public library located in Sevilla, Spain". Indeed. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The present version of the article contains ample evidence of notability.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the excellent expansion by Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:39, 10 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. Courcelles 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Koya

edit
Helen Koya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an actress that does not have any reliable sources, specifically IMDB is not a reliable source. As this article lacks sources, it clearly violates Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living people. It also violates the rule on verifiability and doesn't provide evidence to show the subject is notable. Prod was removed without a reason being given, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 5 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 per WP:CSD#A7, and possibly WP:CSD#G11 considering the conflict of interest of the creator. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Holiday & Cruise Channel

edit
The Holiday & Cruise Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a TV series that doesn't have any reliable sources. Both the sources present at the time of nomination are press releases that are not independent of the subject and appear on websites that do not have the strong fact checking reputation required by Wikipedia's policy. The article therefore isn't verifiable and doesn't show how the series is notable. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Single user, fails notability, classic up and coming case of a TV channel. Ray-Rays 22:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. The most reliable source is a TV - anyone can tune in on Sky Channel 284, the details on this page are also contained on Sky's TV Guide online. No rael conflict of interest as the article is plain facts, similar to The Travel Channel (UK) although they have no references at all. Are TV channels not allowed to be featured on Wikipedia, as if not there are thousands which will need deleting also. Holidayandcruise 22:17, 4 November 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holidayandcruise (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all.. causa sui (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Cop on Le Rocks

edit
Le Cop on Le Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced; contested PROD.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete This creator has created a ton of episode/short pages, all with the same sources (not reliable, either blogs, or the dvd commentary). The individual shorts/eps are clearly not notable (imo). I did several google searches, and could not find refs that were not refering to the entire series. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment creator has continued to remove AFD templates from the linked pages, after being warned multiple times. I have reverted some of them as vandalism, and reported her to aiv. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • more articles there are a lot more articles from the Pink Panther series that fall in with this. 124 eps, each with a plot summary, all using the same 3 refs, most of them including the identical text on "laugh track". Here is a subset of them. Im conflicted on these, (slightly, mostly leaning delete). Pink panther is much more notable than the series(s) we have been talking about so far, as those others are essentially spin-offs. They have more editors, vs just maryane. However, the fact that they all use the same 3 refs, and have the same laugh track note really indicates to me that it is group notability, and not individual notability. I think the list/main article can be expanded with a 2-3 line summary for each episode, rather than a whole article for each episode, since there will likely not be more content on a per episode basis really.

I did not subst:afd all these articles, I want to see what others think before going through that. That may mean extending this AFD to give them a fair shake if we do add them in. Supermarket_Pink, Psst_Pink, Pink Pest Control, Pink Campaign, The Pink Phink, Yankee Doodle Pink, Dune Bug (Aardvark entry

Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain I think the Pink Panther articles should be retained, but they also need to be expanded upon. At present, a great many have just the basics and are stub articles. All the other series' (Inspector, Ant and Aardvark, Misterjaw) do not need their individual entries, as they are far less notable.Tomatosoup97 (talk) 16:00, 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 keep. Courcelles 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Holmes

edit
Andre Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, never played in an NFL game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 October 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, Davewild (talk) 21:30, 4 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan

edit
The Top 100 Historical Persons in Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously Keep, by the motives mentioned regarding many of the Greatest Britons spin-offs nominated for deletion by the same user. Rather ridiculous nomination. This TV show that got loads of attention. If doubting notability, just google the show's Japanese title ("ニッポン人が好きな偉人ベスト１００"), it generates over 30,000 results, as the show was lively discussed at the time. Just in case, I added several secondary references, and now two independent sources of the list itself have been provided. Please withdraw and do some research the next time. —Derlinus (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of 2 dozen AfDs today by the same nom, of most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [1].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."
Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the other commenting editor on this page that sufficient notability has been evidenced. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.
Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 10 October 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. Not a copyright violation, as noted on this and many other AFDs by Epeefleche and others. Notability concerns addressed by Deb per WP:TVSHOW. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Le Plus Grand Français

edit
Le Plus Grand Français (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note, as well, that this appears to be part of a series of PRODs and AfDs today by the same nom, of many of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [2].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."
Second, it is clear as discussed above that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with the consensus of the editors, a majority of whom have !voted !keep. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.
Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just as for the others.Not copyvio, as has been clearly explained above. There is no policy against these lists, and the assertion of the nom does not make policy DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer, this AfD is not transcluded in the AfD Log. I am adding it now. Please consider the failure to transclude when deciding when to close this discussion. Monty845 20:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per rationales provided by user:Epeefleche and user:DGG, and the manner in which this article provides a useful means of listing biography articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone makes the same arguments in all of these, so it'd save time if they were just nominated at once. Anyway, its not a copyvio, no policies violated, and its a perfectly valid Wikipedia list article grouping similar things together, and linking to blue articles about the people listed there. Dream Focus 20:18, 7 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. Courcelles 23:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Chilean

edit
Greatest Chilean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [3].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."
Second, it is clear as discussed at the Israeli AfD that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with Blofield. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.
Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 10 October 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. Courcelles 23:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Velikite Balgari

edit
Velikite Balgari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, possibly copyvio. cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/200 Greatest Israelis. List articles that simply reproduce lists published elsewhere are non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. First, I note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Welsh Heroes, the closer of the AfD to which the nom points objected to nom's use of his close as precedent. He wrote: "No blanket declaration about the inherent notability of such lists was made, or even implied, in my closing statement [4].... And I don't know how much clearer I could have been that copyright issues were not considered as a factor in that close."
Second, it is clear as discussed above at the Israeli AfD that there is not any copyvio. In addition, nom's last sentence is simply inapplicable. As to notability, I agree with Blofield. I also note (as wp:otherstuffexists permits) that we have thousands of lists of people from country x (or city y, or college z), which weren't even the results of polls -- just collections that random editors chose -- and this certainly has greater indicia of notability than such lists.
Finally, I note that at the 2-dozen-odd AfDs that nom made of the same ilk most commentators are expressing keen disagreement with nom's parallel nominations. The AfDs, which are running concurrently with this one, can be found at most of the national poll results reflected here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 10 October 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.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Datavo

edit
Datavo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a company that fails WP:CORP. WP:ADVERT is also an issue. The only sources I found were affiliated with the subject, or were directory or consumer complaint sites, thereby failing the requirement of reliable source coverage. Speedy as A7/G11 was removed by two different SPA IPs, so I'm bringing it here to avoid a 3RR violation. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:13, 4 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. Although the article has not mentioned it, the sources indicating possible fallout from this incident does lend some credibility to the argument that coverage is beyond "mere news". The option of merging with the airport is not entirely unreasonable either. There is no general agreement here, but since alternatives to deletion have some support, I see no consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iran Air Flight 742

edit
Iran Air Flight 742 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable incident, likely created as a response to LOT Polish Airlines Flight 016. However in this case only the nose wheels failed to deploy, which is much more common (in fact happened earlier this year at the same airport to mention just one). No lasting coverage and no indication of lasting notability. Ravendrop 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to suggest that the article wasn't created in good faith. I simply think that the author of this article saw the article on the LOT flight created (it was created first) remembered this incident, and assumed (in good faith) that it was notable and so created the article. Ravendrop 21:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining your reasons, and please be assured the work you did on the article, which is actually well done, is appreciated. It sucks to work on something and then it be deleted, but if that happens its nothing personal. It's just the subjective judgement of some others that the incident doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AIRCRASH is the relevant essay. Generally, for an accident to have a chance of sustaining a stand-alone article, the airframe needs to be written off (there are some notable incidents where the aircframe was not written off though). For other major incidents, it generally results in coverage on the aircraft type, airline, and airport (if appliccable) articles. In this case, it would seem to be sufficient to give the accident such coverage. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fars is a reliable source. No knowledge of the third one though. Mjroots (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a couple of news reports do not significant coverage make. Aircraft goes wrong, crew do what they should, aircraft gets down with no-one hurt. To use a phrase "nothing to see here, move along". GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; falls short on notability. bobrayner (talk) 09:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good points. When I !voted to merge this article JetBlue Airways Flight 292 did come to mind, and although there was arguably "more" coverage of that incident at the time, that article probably shouldn't be in WP either. An article on the effect of sanctions on parts for commercial airliners in Iran is, I think, possibly the best way for information on this incident to be presented, maybe something similar to 2006–2007 Brazilian aviation crisis. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought it up on that article's talk page. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Russavia. I would draw attention to the Washington Post story (I couldn't access it before), apparently filed 11 days after the event by their Tehran correspondent. Yes, "continuing" and "international" coverage. Still, I'm going to keep my opinion as "Merge" - I'd still be happier with not losing any of this information, but in an article of wider scope. It looks like this AfD is closest to "no consensus", which doesn't make me sad at all, especially if editors want to try to run with it for a while. JetBlue Airways Flight 292 was nominated for deletion twice [5] [6] and survived, but I think 5 years after the event there is interest now in changing that. No big deal if this is the same way. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:36, 10 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. slakr\ talk / 00:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majuba Aviation crash

edit
AfDs for this article:
Majuba Aviation crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although tragic, this aircraft crash is not notable by Wikipedia standards. First off, it clearly fails to have continuing coverage, or widespread coverage outside of narrow circles (i.e. accident databases). In addition, the relevant notability essay here is WP:AIRCRASH, which for aircraft of this size, suggests that an accident is notable if it involves somebody notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page (fail), or, failing that, if they have all of the below: people killed in the aircraft or on the ground (check), hull loss of the aircraft (check), and changes to procedures and/or regulations (fail). Given that this article, based on that, is likely not notable enough to be included in the Pilatus PC-12 article, the fact that it fails overall notability makes the existiance of a standalone article doubly unnecessary. The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 19:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a non-commercial flight, with no-one notable (in terms of wikipedia) on board. Coverage seems to have been limited to local news only (eg the links from the ASN report). All-in-all adds up to an unfortunate event but not one that adds to the sum of human knowledge as represented by wikipedia. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While tragic, crashes involving light aircraft like this are much more common than their larger, commercial cousins. Pburka (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The essay WP:AIRCRASH is a good, though rough, attempt to help us determine some threshold for inclusion for aircraft accident articles. Per AIRCRASH this doesn't meet that threshold, but it is close. For instance the Pilatus PC-12 is fairly large, and close to the arbitrary max. loaded weight weight limit set in AIRCRASH, 10,450 lbs vs. 12,500 lbs. Also, this is the higher end for loss of life. When the South African Civil Aviation Authority releases its investigation report there might be notability. If the 2004 Martinsville plane crash hadn't killed notable members of NASCAR I'd still argue for inclusion since the NTSB felt fit to issue a full-length Aircraft Accident Report on the event (NOT common). It is too bad the editor involved in creating this article isn't around; although However, at this time I don't see WP being better for having this article currently, in a borderline case such as this I would have liked to have heard their input. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Preliminary Accident report by the South African Civil Aviation Authority is available at [7] --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The preliminary report was interesting to me personally, but I still doubt that when the final report is issued that notability will be established. Again, I'd shade it to being close/borderline (for instance, the wreckage recovery operations from the ocean I think are indicative that the accident is being treated with more attention from the authorities than most civil aviation accidents). LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a draft article on the parent company [User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Italtile|Italtile]], the CEO was one of the people killed in this accident so it had a profound effect on the company. I have copied the content of this article to my draft where it will become a section under the company history. Roger (talk) 08:10, 13 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. slakr\ talk / 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Devotion

edit
Blind Devotion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article for new EP that doesn't pass criteria for music. Currently only links for purchasing the music (iTunes, Amazon) or similar links can be found. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:Music. After a quick search, the only potential RS I spotted online was a Birmingham Mail article already used as a source for the entry covering the band itself. This album is mentioned there, which seems like sufficient coverage in the absence of further sources. --DGaw (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I felt there was too much information here to easily incorporate it in the Love Fungus article. That this release seems to be digital only at the moment is not an issue - look at Category:iTunes-exclusive releases for example. memphisto 13:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying, but WP:WAX (part of the "Arguments to avoid") explains why it doesn't matter what other articles are doing. Right now, aside from track info, the totality of the article is: Blind Devotion is the debut EP from Love Fungus and was released in 2011.. All other info is already in the band's article. Track info isn't really needed (or can be a collapsed section if you must) if the EP isn't notable as a stand alone article, which is the issue here. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beyond the aforementioned Birmingham Mail article (which contains only a passing mention for this EP), I'm not finding any significant coverage for this release; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time.  Gongshow Talk 22:58, 9 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. slakr\ talk / 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby roberts

edit
Bobby roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability of an individual. Of the references, three mention "fatboy" and don't even use his real name, nor are they of sufficient depth to support a biography. The fourth is of decent depth from the Moviefone blog. No other reliable, verifiable sources found- see this google search. I'd link to the news search but it retrieved zero results.

Ultimately, Bobby Roberts is a radio host, the host of a local trivia night and blogger. The radio show was deemed lacking in encyclopedic merit, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cort and Fatboy Show, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cort Webber.

Further, it's been a source of frustration, as there are a lot of sockpuppets and meatpuppets every time the topic comes up. tedder (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm aware of the past problems but would like to do what I can to make this article worthy of Wikipedia. Roberts, who does often operate under the moniker "Fatboy," is a noteworthy and well-known media personality in Oregon. He and his radio show have been mentioned numerous times in area publications. I can track additional citations, if need be, but shouldn't the Moviefone article be enough? As it stands, there are many other media personalities who work in Portland with similar pages that are in worse states. They lacks sources and information. Anyway, please let me know what it would take to make the article work. Cheers. Amstelontheriver (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note this user is one a sockpuppet of Stumptowner: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stumptowner. tedder (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Of the 4 citations, three references (same publication) do no mention him at all, and one reference that mentions someone with a similar name that may or may not be him. Even if it was him, the coverage is pretty much local only, no real claim of notability except being notable. He started his career 6 years ago as a local DJ, it shouldn't be a shocker if he isn't notable, 99.9% of all DJs aren't. No citations for any claim of notability that passes anything close to WP:GNG. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user is one a sockpuppet of Stumptowner: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stumptowner. tedder (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article was moved to Bobby Roberts (disc jockey) per MOS:NAME. —EncMstr (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: 11/11 Additional sources and information have been added to the article. Leidencentraal (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note this user is one a sockpuppet of Stumptowner: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stumptowner. tedder (talk) 16:24, 11 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. Courcelles 23:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffar tribe

edit
Jaffar tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

created as a requested article, and approval for the article was denied as OR. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jaffar_tribe -- Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whatever the kerfuffle about procedure, the article is unsalvageable OR, a dreadful ESSAY of permanently unverifiable claims written in unencyclopedic language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can deal with the language and format through copyediting. What renders the article unsalvageable is the OR; once it's removed, we're not left with anything to work with. Sources about this group might change that, but no sources are apparent - and it might be better to start fresh anyway, if and when. The AFC decline doesn't factor, though it seems that posting a new article identical to one declined through AFC would be similar to posting a deleted article after it was deleted via AFD; perhaps we need to expand WP:CSD#G4 a bit. But that's a debate for elsewhere. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:17, 8 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 g11, book ad, author was User:Sine Timore Press, same name as publisher. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Dogs

edit
The Life of Dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

new, self published book, no references, no reviews (not even amazon reviews), creator name appears to be publisher/agent/etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 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 incubate. in the interest of countering systemic bias agains older foreign language material. Now at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pyase Panchi. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyase Panchi

edit
Pyase Panchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A bare synopsis of a film plot. No indication of the notability of this film. Because there are no reliable sources it cannot be verified by readers. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Disputed Prod, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate spelling:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment This 1961 Hindi film and its actors are verifiable. Article has now been rewritten and sectioned for further expansion. Will hope for input and assistance in sourcing this 51-year-old pre-internet film from those editors familiar with Cinema of India whom might have access to hard-copy, pre-internet sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:10, 1 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, Davewild (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. I had a look and made a few minor sourcing additions. What I saw in web searches were directory listings, blogs, trivial mentions. I am fairly convinced that (a) it existed, (b) some crew members were notable or potentially notable, and (c) that it is not a classic. Might merit a WP entry, might not. Notability here definitely requires evidence, which is simply not there yet. However, it is a brand new article and I appreciate the difficulties given the subject, so I think incubation is a better course than deletion. Happy to keep as soon as anyone can provide good WP:RS sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate seems reasonable to me. The difficulty of this topic being a 51-year-old, waaaay-pre-internet, 1961 film indicates that research might take a bit longer than the few days we have at AFD, and will require assistance from those Hindi-reading Wikipedians beter able to address the non-English topic. In the incubator it will be out of article space and yet still benefit from collaborative editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 12 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 both, g3 hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buckle Ginger

edit
Buckle Ginger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable unreleased tv series, no gnews, no gweb. We need a CSD that covers stuff like this. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 4 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. Courcelles 23:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Driver

edit
Callum Driver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not yet played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. PROD was contested procedurally, as the article had been BLPPRODED before, and because the nominator had altered the timestamp. The rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 4 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 appear to have been addressed. A significant amount of coverage has been found in reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Parker-Pope

edit
Tara Parker-Pope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has written a few self help books and is a columnist, does not meet guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. The user that created this article has a history of not understanding wikipedia's notability guidelines MisterRichValentine (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly sounds unappetising (per nom). But let's see what we can find and then make our minds up:
Smoke Bomb by Peter G Gosselin, 11 March 2011 - review of Parker-Pope's book Cigarettes: Anatomy of an Industry from Seed to Smoke (certainly not a self-help book, and not part of her column either). Gosselin writes "a useful guide to the world's most lethal legal industry, and to efforts to reduce the carnage at a time when globalization is extending opportunities for self-destruction through smoke to billions." The review is in the New York Times - impeccable source, but of course Parker-Pope's workplace. I suggest it is allowable as a reliable source here as the NYT and Gosselin cannot risk their reputation for a colleague.
There are many NYT blogs and letter also about Parker-Pope but I am unsure about citing them.
The Week 29 July 2009. "After watching the latest Harry Potter movie, I have to ask, “Does Hogwarts have a drinking problem?” said Tara Parker-Pope in The New York Times. Unlike in previous Harry Potter movies, alcohol has a “starring role” in “The Half-Blood Prince.”" A reliable source; the article has a jokey feel but a serious message, and Parker-Pope is treated as a source worth quoting.
ON LINE opinion, Australia's e-journal of social and political debate 22 July 2008. "According to Tara Parker Pope writing in the New York Times, American pediatricians are recommending wider cholesterol screening for children and more aggressive use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, starting as early as the age of eight, in the hope of preventing adult heart problems. This has followed guidelines issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics which also calls for children to be given low-fat milk after 12 months of age. The academy estimates that 30 to 60 per cent of children with high cholesterol are being missed under screening guidelines and that statins or cholesterol-lowering drugs, may be their best hope of lowering their risk of early heart attack."
Dissident Voice, a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice by Michael Dawson, 15 January 2009. "As reported by The New York Times’ excellent health columnist Tara Parker-Pope, all use of cellular telephones while operating an automobile — in both “hands-free” and hands-on forms — is as dangerous as drunk driving, research announced today shows. That means many thousands of people in the USA and around the world are being killed each year by the public’s continuing toleration of this ubiquitous practice."
Arizona Daily Star 9 December 2005. "...and trigger a brain-chemical release that stimulates a "shopping high ," health writer Tara Parker-Pope said in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal."
Los Angeles Times: Health 8 May 2010. "One of the perks of being a journalist is that it can give professional license to explore subjects of personal interest and to knock on doors closed to most people -- all in the course of doing your job. Author Tara Parker-Pope has made the most of that opportunity with her excellent new book, "For Better: The Science of a Good Marriage.""
I think that's probably enough to say KEEP - there are plenty more citations about Parker-Pope available from good sources, even if we discount the many by other columnists in the NYTimes itself. WP:AUTHOR asks us to check "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." - Yes, she is, definitely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a Bibliography section to the article. Update: and inserted these (sample) references into the article, with inline citations. If this still isn't enough, userfy it for me and I'll work on it some more - there are dozens more quotes I could cite. Seems she's very highly regarded by her colleagues. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 5 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. slakr\ talk / 00:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Sand

edit
Duane Sand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability standards of WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other convincing claim of notability is made. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:POL or WP:BIO. As he ran a few times, there's little benefit in merging this to one of the relevant election articles. Colonel Tom 03:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN criteria 2. His repeated runs at statewide office have made his name well known across the state and made him a non-trivial presence in statewide political coverage. —LinkTiger (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take your point, LinkTiger, but I don't quite see that the subject meets this - "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." He's certainly generated press, no doubt, but the references in the article don't meet this, and my quick&dirty google search doesn't find this type of article. I'm quite prepared to accept that I'm wrong on this, of course. Colonel Tom 10:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perennial candidate who has never held elective office. Currently one of two candidates vying for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate in 2012, he does not pass WP:POLITICIAN or WP:MILITARY, and his news mentions are only about his various candidacies, not about him. (I hesitated at first, because at this page, United States Senate election in North Dakota, 2000, about his previous run for the U.S. Senate, his occupation is listed as "state senator". If true that would make him automatically notable as a state legislator, but it does not appear to be true; none of his biographies (for example [8]) say that he was ever in the state senate. So I don't know how that misinformation became part of the election page.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have corrected the misinformation at United States Senate election in North Dakota, 2000. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may consider those sources to be significant coverage. I consider them to be routine, local coverage about the election - not about HIM.. --MelanieN (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They do constitute significant coverage, and they are about him. Each provides biographical information about not only his involvement in the election, but also his past history in politics and the military.
There is no reason to discount these sources as local solely because they are located in North Dakota. According to [9], Sand lives in Bismarck, North Dakota, and none of the above sources are from Bismarck or even near it. Goodvac (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of those rare occasions where a mere candidate gets over the bar, I think. That's because (a) he's been a candidate on numerous occasions; (b) he's essentially run for statewide office, there being only one House seat in his state; and (c) the natural statewide press coverage that such campaigns will generate. The distinction between "sources about the candidate" and "source about the election" is a difficult, and in my view, often unnecessary one, to draw. The real question underlying the purpose of WP:BIO is: are the sources sufficient to write a biography? In this case, the answer is yes, but admittedly only barely so. I'd add that this article seems to be largely free of the blatant puffery (or hatchet jobs) that often accompanies articles of this kind. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:03, 13 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. OR Courcelles 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of gravitational force and strong force

edit
Unification of gravitational force and strong force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is anything other than an idea dreamt up by the author of the article. The author actually said on the talk page "i am trying to give a new way of thinking about the gravitational force and strong force before the scientific community as well as the general public". No source anywhere supports this. There is an attempt to make it look like an argued-out theory, but in fact it is nothing of the sort, as it simply uses vague wording that does not in any way explain the completely ad hoc summoning up of formulas from nowhere. (For example, "For general consideration we need to do necessary adjustments to equation (2) and so we can re-write the equation as..." with no explanation what the "general consideration" is, nor how or why that "consideration" leads to the equation that follows.) The author of the article says "If we treat other fundamental forces in the same way, grand unification will be very easy". I wonder why so many thousands of physicists have struggled for decades, trying to find a solution to this problem, when achieving one would have been "very easy" had they followed this line. What a pity that the author of this aricle has not given a clear enough account that we can actually tell what this new approach is, what it means, or how it can be applied. What a pity that no sources anywhere that I can find support these vague and inexplicit claims. To say that this article should be deleted because it is original research would be to stretch the meaning of "research" almost to breaking point. (Note: I declined a speedy deletion. The article is utterly useless, and deserves to be speedily deleted, but unfortunately it doesn't satisfy any of the speedy deletion criteria, though it comes close to {{db-hoax}}.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is original research, and violates WP:NOR. The author should publish his incredible and fantastic (using the words in a very literal way) discovery in refereed scientific journals, not in Wikipedia. Besides that, it fails verifiability and notability. It cites three Wikipedia articles as references, which is not permitted since said articles are not reliable sources, by definition. Edison (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, none of those Wikipedia articles actually supports any of the claims made in the article, so they would be useless as references anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 4 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 : Debate opened in the wrong place. Non-admin closure.  --Lambiam 16:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:LvdMoosdijk

edit
User:LvdMoosdijk (edit | [[Talk:User:LvdMoosdijk|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User page is not meant as Curriculum Vitae for users. Dqfn13 (talk) 14:35, 4 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 appear to have been addressed. Reliable sources have been found establishing the topic's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Eon

edit
Modern Eon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. Not a notable band. This article was speedied (A7) previously. —SW— converse 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 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. Courcelles 23:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries under partial or entire dictatorship

edit
List of countries under partial or entire dictatorship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"countries under partial or entire dictatorship" is completely subjetive, who decides which government is dictatorial enough and which one is not? Who decides what is a dictatorship to begin with? The references are not about the issue, but about the trivial intersection of employment rates Cambalachero (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks reliable sourcing to verify the claim that each country listed is under "partial or total dictatorship." Even if some Human Rights Watch listing, newspaper article, academic book, UN or US government listing classified each of these countries as such, no source was presented to show that that classification relates in an encyclopedic way to the unemployment rate, as opposed to the lifespan, literacy rate, average temperature, national sport, height above sea level, average height, common blood types, or any other statistic. Edison (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The combination of dictatorial governments with unemployment rates smells like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. I'm not quite sure what the intended inference is, but it seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE at best. Pburka (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure the topics of political freedom and employment are already covered in other articles. No need to put them together. Note also that "unemployment" means different things in different places. Lots of people working "off the books" in the USA are making more money than 90% of the people in the world yet are counted as unemployed. So comparing the figures between countries has little value anyway. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Criteria is faulty, listing the countries by unemployment without establishing a link between unemployment and forms of govt. There is room on Wikipedia for listing countries by type of government, but this is not the right title, the right content, or the right criteria, requiring a full rewrite to properly address the topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictatorships + Unemployment = Synthesis. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:45, 5 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. slakr\ talk / 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilko Vriesman

edit
Wilko Vriesman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator. Insufficient sources exist to demonstrate Vriesman sensei's notability - online sources are either social networking sites or affiliated sources, and there seems to be nothing in gnews and gbooks. Yunshui 雲水 13:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned on Aikido websites would be OK if they were independent from his organization, but I didn't find independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 21:04, 8 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. slakr\ talk / 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season review

edit
Season review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically a dicdef, no meaningful encyclopedic content that could be added ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This type of show exists but I do not see any significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this as anything more than a dictionary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 7 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. Based on comments with respect to sources added Wifione Message 09:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bauerfeind

edit
Bauerfeind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Offer to delete this article because there are no verifiable resources which can be used for corporation(according to Wikipedia:CORP) Namalex0111 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namalex0111 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found sources independent of the subject and am adding them and rewriting and filling it out a little. The company is mentioned in several places as one of the worldwide leaders in compression hosiery, orthopedic inserts, and the like (including several Thuringian news articles and a mention as an example in Manager magazin, which is affiliated with Der Spiegel) and apparently its new HQ office building was one of the tallest in Thuringia when built. In my judgment it meets the standard for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now found and added as references a complete article on the company in Süddeutsche Zeitung (1, sadly paywalled) and a couple of substantive mentions in Die Welt (2, 3), plus an op-ed there by Hans B. Bauerfeind himself (4); there are also articles on him and the company in Frankenpost, which is a primarily local newspaper but not a Thuringian one. And the company owns a hotel that has made a splash. This meets the standard for national coverage; and I was able to add one non-PR mention in a US business publication. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 23:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lambros Tapinos

edit
AfDs for this article:
Lambros Tapinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:POLITICIAN. The subject was the mayor and is a councilor of a local council in Melbourne, not the metropolitian council, which isn't sufficiently notable. He has not had significant press coverage. He doesn't meet other notability criteria that I can see. Colonel Tom 09:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete None of the other mayors of Moreland have articles and I don't see anything exceptionally notable about this guy. Gigs (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough, the only google links his actually mention as a main topic/party is wikipedia itself, his website, council website and election results, everything else is nothing notable. Ray-Rays 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 4 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. Courcelles 23:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Cloud

edit
Kingdom Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article does not yet meet WP:BAND. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 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 Undiscovered (Brooke Hogan album). (non-admin closure) →Στc. 01:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For a Moment

edit
For a Moment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another song by Brooke Hogan which fails WP:NSONGS. Furthermore, it fails WP:N due to no reliable sources available. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 4 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. Courcelles 23:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Kibona

edit
Zakaria Kibona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that played has played at a notable level .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG TonyStarks (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 4 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. Courcelles 23:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dehaene-Changeux Model

edit
Dehaene-Changeux Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self published NEO. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is innocent until proven guilty. While its deletion is being discussed, many third party scholarly references to the "Dehaene-Changeux Model" will be provided. So far it s then not proven that this article is about a self-published subject. besides, I already took care to provide one third party reference.GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a bit surprised to see a contribution from a newbie nominated for AfD within a few hours of creation, without any attempt at discussion. I agree with Gaijin42 that the article at this point lacks some secondary/tertiary sources, but knowing Dehaene and Changeux, I'd be surprised if these don't exist (it's bed time here I am, so I'm not going to search for them right now). I suggest withdrawing the nom and moving the article either to the creator's userspace or to the article incubator, where people can work on it until it is ready for prime time. --Crusio (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a perfectly valid alternative to let this discussion run its course. Pretty sure we can trust the reviewing admin to accurately judge whether any early delete votes were submitted prior to additional sourcing, should additional sourcing be supplied. Either way, I'm not voting on this just yet. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of references: Zigmond, Michael J.(1999) Fundamental neuroscience, Academic Press p1551 refers to the Dehaene-Changeux Model and Levine, Daniel S. (2000) Introduction to neural and cognitive modeling, Routledge p332 refers to the Dehaene-Changeux Models (Msrasnw (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • The Google Scholar search results are mostly just from Dehaene, but are any of those places published in notable? [10] I know nothing of such things, so I won't comment. The Wikiproject for Science doesn't have a place to list AFDs at. What other Wikiprojects could be contacted for this discussion? Dream Focus 23:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you click the link to Google Scholar at the top of this page, the very first hit is a 2005 book chapter by Dehaene that has been cited over 700 times (and book chapters normally get very few cites in this field). Dehaene and Changeux are prolific authors, but I don't think they have published 700 articles since 2005, not even together. Ss surely you don't want to argue that these are all self-citations? These two people are among the most highly cited neuroscientists. Changeux is listed in ISIHighlyCited.com. Just have a brief glance at Jean-Pierre Changeux and Stanislas Dehaene. According to the Web of Science, Changeux has been cited almost 50,000 times (h-index of 113) and Dehaene over 18,000 times (h-index of 74). These are not people that engage in excessive self-citations. --Crusio (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their work is, in general, well-cited, but very few people apart from themselves seem to refer to the "Dehaene-Changeux Model(s)." The 726 citations is not to the paper introducing the "Dehaene-Changeux Model," but to follow-up work: it is not the case that the model is being cited 726 times. And I'm not an expert in this area, but it seems the "Dehaene-Changeux Model" discussed in that chapter might be a different model from the one the article is talking about: it seems to me that Dehaene and Changeux collaboratively produced several different models, and that this article is conflating them. -- 202.124.75.21 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)— 202.124.75.21 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Persistent ad hominem remarks will eventually get you blocked from editing. And apart from that, undiscriminating railing against "deletionists" is not productive. Some people are more inclined to !vote delete than others, there is room for legitimate differences of opinion. But even the most ingrained "deletionist" will !vote "delete" from time to time, because some content we get here is clearly non-notable even upon first delivery. To weed out "false positives" we have mechanisms like WP:PROD and WP:AFD, so that before an article actually is deleted, the community can weigh in and, if possible, provide arguments to avoid deletion. If you want people to listen to you, you will have to present your arguments calmly and without "playing on the man". If every time somebody disagrees with you, you start screaming "deletionist", "non-expert who doesn't know what he's talking about", "uninformed judgment", and whatnot, you will in the end find out that your opinions will not be taken very seriously. Just some advice, you're free to take it or not. --Crusio (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you exagerate my position here; besides my comments where not ad hominem but ad populi. Giving metacritics is not my systematic attitude, and you haven't discussed my arguments: de facto speedily rejecting stubs puts an entry barrier on wikipedia, we cannot deny that. I value your opinion though. --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for now at least. Give the original contributor a chance! I gather he is still working on it, geez. The original nomination was clearly hasty in my opinion. It's a complicated and highly technical set of ideas which deserve more than deletion because it doesn't conform to the style guidelines yet, forsooth. As a user I would much rather see a somewhat baffling set of sentences that nonetheless express something that might be groundbreaking,than some other Wikipedia pages I have seen. If we can have pages about railway bridge architecture in Bulgaria in the 1930s or whatever - this topic certainly meets *that* rather low bar. Or will, I think, if it's allowed the time to do so. Come *on* people. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles that have some flaw or other that languish uncorrected for years. The author should also get his mind around the inevitability of peer review, btw, and possibly quite scathing review at that.
I do not know whether 202.124.73.63 is correct in saying that the contributor confuses two terms, but if he does, he needs to address that. I would however like to point out that while the article may be about work in neuroscience, that work in neuroscience appears to have important implications for cognitive science, an interdisciplinary field where the authorities may be a little hard to come by, especially on writer in a different language. But the article should be added to the portal for computer science. Artificial intelligence would be better if there is a portal for that. Also philosophy or better yet epistemology. (Again, if there is one...). Maybe linguistics if Chomsky is citing him. Maybe education since one of his books is about learning mathematics.... so... guys. Duuuudes. Chill.
I just want to say that the fact that I don't quite understand the article as it is today does not mean that its topic is not notable. The same is true of you. I once watched a 60 Minutes interviewer jeer, yes, jeer at Eric Drexler, clearly thinking his tin foil hat was screwed on too tight. But twenty years later, we ALL know what nanotechnology is, even that interviewer. Well, maybe that interviewer, snicker. But sure. The article needs work, and the reader should not have to impute the importance of its topic. But we All that. I can't assess the science. But -- I took a very quick look on Google. I found this: an article than has been cited more than 200 times. That usually means that people in the field think it's authoritative, or at a minimum, worth debunking. There are many others - that's just the one I grabbed from a two-minute google. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0010027789900061.
Wikipedia.fr seems to think Dehaene is notable btw, look at this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislas_Dehaene.
They have him categorized as a mathematician, interestingly. I don't have time to translate just now, but the page indicates that he chairs a department at a university that looks important, and belongs to some academies that look pretty mainstream. So I don't think he is a whacko. Noam Chomsky, a well known and even famous linguist, cites him here: http://books.google.com/books?id=G0lJqbM15gsCs. Several times, even. Chomsky doesn't seem to quite agree with him, though -- a super-fast skim gave me the impression that he thinks Dehaene represents conventional wisdom, and interprets his data too narrowly. Just an impression -- I could be wrong. But a further indication that he's not a wild-eyed fringe wingnut.
My fast fast assessment is that Dehaene in and of himself likely meets 1, 3 and 5 of WP:SCHOLAR and maybe some other criteria as well. Just one criteria is potentially enough, right? And I didn't even look at the other scientist, nor the specifics of the model. But I saw enough to make me say we should at least not rush to judgment. Some of the problem may be a language barrier, maybe? If so, I am willing to pull in and translate some French language material. But I have other stuff to do and have already said I'd help rewrite a software topic that's been edited into incoherence in a similar dispute. Let's not be those people. I'm leaning to "not notable" in that case, incidentally, so don't think I am just tender-hearted ;0.
I have a couple of thoughts for the original contributor but I'll do put them in a new section below below as they or may not be pertinent to the topic and don't so much apply to notability. I'll take a stab at improving the categorization somewhat. I would appreciate it if someone could add it to one or more of the portals I mentioned, or point me at set of instructions. Thanks Elinruby (talk)
Realized later that I did not quite spell out my logic, which is that if Dehaene is notable, it's not incredibly unlikely that a model of his (assuming accuracy; I realized that that's been questioned) would be notable in itself. And the article is only a few days old. Table for now, is my thought. If it's abandoned as-is six months from now I may have a different opinion.
  • To me saying "n to erase information entirely from a digital encyclopedia" implies an assumed intent to damage this project. That's not the same as deleting content that does not belong here. Every day people create articles like "Joey is cool". You're certainly not implying that we should keep this information about Joey. So proposing articles for deletion is in and of itself not an activity damaging to the project. Insinuating more, is calling somebody's motives into question. We don't do that kind of things here. --Crusio (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Nom Those that did, thank you for assuming good faith. While my quick nom may not be up to regular standards, I still see only self-references in the article, which was my initial and continuing concern. I'm not an expert, but if we can't verify using reliable sources that are not primary sources, there is a criteria "concern" at the very least. Most of us have seen many articles pop up that are based only on primary sources, some are likely fine, others are beyond fringe. The purpose of requiring wp:v and wp:rs is so you don't have to be an expert to know the difference. We don't make exceptions because a few editors claim it is important enough for inclusion without verfication (even if they are correct) as this would be a rule ripe for abusing. Putting all personal issues aside, there is a legitimate concern about the lack of verification from 3rd parties, and this has not changed since the nomination. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article has some clear errors, e.g. confusing a neural network with a Multi-agent system. That lends support to the hypothesis above: that the author may be conflating unrelated models by Dehaene and Changeux. The solution is not to rely on primary sources, but to find a reliable secondary source. If there is no reliable secondary source, the article should be deleted. -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demonstrate that these are errors then. The Brain is a decentralized swarm of neurons and glial cells with an evolving connecting rule, synaptic lability and possibly neural darwinism with self-organized patterns being determined as early as through the waves of spontaneous activations in utero. The DCM is merely a set of I&F neurons which are connected in a decentralized way in an attempt to have the set display holistic, self-organized behaviors. since I&F are integrative units they are intelligent. Since there is no rule defining the group behavior while it is composed of intelligent systems it is a Multi-Agent System. Since neurons are programmed in a decentralized way and with a connection rule (just like fish schools by the way) they constitute a swarm. Some neural networks can be multi-agent systems, you have not demonstrated that the two sets do not intersect (and you will not actually). I thus challenge your statement and beg you demonstrate it. --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
references and proofs. So far you said I was confusing a MAS with a neural network. This is like saying I am confusing a square with a rhombus. the DCM is a neural network which is also a MAS and a Swarm, just like a square is also a rhombus. Here are other references about neural networks that are MAS:
  • Roya Asadi, Norwati Mustapha, Nasir Sulaiman, A Framework For Intelligent Multi Agent System Based Neural Network Classification Model (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009 [11]
  • Ying Xu; Mural, R.J.; Einstein, J.R.; Shah, M.B.; Uberbacher, E.C.; GRAIL: a multi-agent neural network system for gene identification Proceedings of the IEEE Oct 1996 84 Issue:10 1544 - 1552 [12]
  • Yong S. Choi, Suk I. Yoo , Multi-agent learning approach to WWW information retrieval using neural network IUI '99 Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces p23 - 30 [13]
  • Minar, N., R. Burkhart, C. Langton, and M. Askenazi. 1996. The Swarm simulation system: A toolkit for building multi-agent simulations. Working Paper 96-06-042, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe.
  • K.G. Jolly K.P. Ravindran, R. Vijayakumar, R. Sreerama Kumar, Intelligent decision making in multi-agent robot soccer system through compounded artificial neural networksRobotics and Autonomous Systems Volume 55, Issue 7, 31 July 2007, Pages 589-596 [14]

Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to have a MAS containing one or more agents which are neural networks; but individual neurons are not agents. You appear to have misunderstood the literature in that list. I suspect you might perhaps also have misunderstood the Dehaene-Changeux literature, because the phrase "Dehaene-Changeux model" has been used for their Wisconsin card sort model as well as for other work. If those different models are fundamentally the same, the article should justify its title by explaining why. -- 202.124.72.1 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why we require references from secondary sources and can't rely exclusively on primary sources or the opinions of the editors themselves, in relation to contentious facts. In general, when the addition of any contentious fact is disputed and no secondary sources can be found to back up the claims of the fact, said fact is removed until it can be verified. Unlike a court of law, the burden is on the individual who is introducing the fact (or the article) to demonstrate that the information can be verified by an outside, reliable source. But that is really an issue for the talk page of the article, not here at AFD. This is another reason the article is problematic as it has been shown to have no secondary references, thus every addition or change has the potential to degrade into a pissing contest. The sources you provide may or may not prove your point on one singular fact, but are not relative to the notability of the article itself. Again, please take this type of content discussion to the talk page of the article, it isn't related to this AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:55, 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, Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows that the Three parietal circuits for number processing by Dehaene and others has 730 citations. Two non-Dehaene GS results on page 1 show 21 to 36 citations each. This topic has great academic importance based on the numerous citations on Dehaene and Changeux-related works. I see 228 citations, 131 citations, 67 citations and so forth on various, reputable academic presses. GuterTag (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is the numerosity model referred to in that paper the same as the model described in this article? -- 202.124.73.39 (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not. The PLoS paper from which the diagram in the article was taken confirms that this model is different from the other models ("In previous neuronal modeling studies and computer simulations, we illustrated the possible contribution of spontaneous activity to tasks that involve a random search, such as the learning of a temporal sequence, the search for and selection of the correct rule in the delayed response and Wisconsin card-sorting tests, or the discovery of a multistep solution in the Tower of London test.") Most of the citations listed by "keep" !voters apply to those previous models, not to the model described by the diagram in the article. -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I currently have no time to check that PLoS paper myself, but the phrase you cite does not in any way indicate that a different model is being used. All it means is that in that paper this model is either described or expanded upon. It doesn't say anything like "we abandoned that model and developed another one". --Crusio (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dehaene and Changeux do explicitly say in the PLoS paper that, although they build on past work, the model in the PLoS paper is a new one. The article would be a clear "Keep" if it was about their work generally, since it is notable as a body, but at present the article relates on conflating different things. -- 202.124.73.69 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. there are plenty of reliable references available. The article itself is well supported with citations. The subjects Dehaene and Changeux appear to be highly reputable scientists, more than Notable. The Topic is surely worthy of Inclusion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 4 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. Courcelles 23:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYNL-TV

edit
DYNL-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax.Does not meet blatant hoax,but it might be a hoax. That's me! Have doubt? What I done? 06:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 4 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 as copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water storage

edit
Water storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

That's me! Have doubt? What I done? 06:30, 4 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. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violations JohnCD (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Rao

edit
Stanley Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A businessman. It is hard to understand what he is/does because the article is purely promotional and full of puff. No independent, reliable sources in the article or that can be found. There are a ton of PR releases out there. The creating editor/COI added a comment section at the top to not add unreliable sources. This is probably because there are unreliable sources saying not too nice things about him. It appears he also goes by Shubhakar Rao and Shubhakar Rao Surapaneni. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing promotional stuff in this article, Stanley Rao is a very popular B2B industry CEO in India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Himanishsaxena (talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 4 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. Courcelles 23:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpon.TV

edit
Viewpon.TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a minor, local TV show. The references are not reliable so the article is unverifiable and does not show how this show is notable. Prod contested without comment, so brought here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 4 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. slakr\ talk / 00:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aron Blankenburg

edit
Aron Blankenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced WP:BLP. I'm unable to find any reliable sources to support the claims on notability (e.g. a top 10 hit). The links provided in the article don't mention the subject at all, even if they were reliable sources. Article was PRODded in 2010; an anonymous editor removed the PROD. Pburka (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 4 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. slakr\ talk / 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Chen

edit
Juliana Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this magician sufficiently notable? Nothing here indicates that she is. A Google search doesn't show definite notability, as far as I can tell. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of undecided, to be honest. A quick search did bring some links up but many of the links are either stories where she's one of many mentioned or they're pages that were probably created by Chen or at her request. I'm going to link the best of the things I found here so they can be weeded through. I'm leaning towards not notable and delete, but I wanted to list there here anyway. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. I think that most of these are puff articles, but I wanted to ask to be sure. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 October 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources cited by Tokyogirl. A couple of them are keepers, a couple borderline keepers, one a fluff piece, but that should be enough to tip the teeter-totter to the "keep" side right there, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 28 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 4 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 my head asplode looking at this thing. - I mean, G1 speedy deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 16:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chance (logic)

edit
Chance (logic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is unreferenced and, it seems to me, entirely nonsensical--not quite gibberish, but just this side of it. ShelfSkewed Talk 04:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:34, 8 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. slakr\ talk / 00:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Fantasy Game

edit
Fashion Fantasy Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The website has no notability. |=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — frankie (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:30, 24 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The game/website is not needed with an article because of no notability!

|=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 00:12, 29 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 4 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. Courcelles 23:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rite (album)

edit
The Rite (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is not any information regarding the chart and the CD cover. It does not meet notability criteria Coekon (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 04:23, 4 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. slakr\ talk / 00:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individualized Auditory Stimulation

edit
Individualized Auditory Stimulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two hits in Google Scholar for this and zero in Google Books. Does not appear WP:notable. Most of the references cited are not about this procedure. Only one wp:primary source appears to be covering it. Uʔ (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with primary sources, non-WP:MEDRS; this is probably something related to Tomatis and should be redirected, but I can't find a target article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I was unsure of it when I moved it out of [{WP:AFC|AFC]], I wasn't aware of WP:MEDRS though.--SKATER Is Back 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of a mess-- neither does it appear notable, nor does it appear that any sources deal directly with it, much less in secondary reviews as required by MEDRS. I guess it should be a redirect to Tomatis, but that is a redirect to the man-- probably because the whole thing is kinda bogus-- but there might be another target article if anyone can identify it. The dates on the alleged sources are another clue that this is going nowhere, as well as the fact that most of the sources cited are by the "inventor" of the notion, and at least ten years old-- no other significant mentions. This is a redirect, to somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand WP:MEDRS correctly, in order to be mentioned in a medical Wikipedia article this procedure must have been discussed by at least one wp:secondary source, even briefly. It's not clear that even that has happened in this case. A redirect with no mention in the target article is probably not a useful one. Uʔ (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after more research, I think this is a delete. The primary author is chunking in a lot of general text, non-specific to this topic but general background info and poorly sourced at that, but there is still nothing of note (that is, not related to the fellow who coined the term) that I can find under any of the names given for this business. I can't find any target redirect, and can't think of what it would be (but if someone finds one that rolls this whole bogus idea and all of its names into one article, I'll reconsider). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it's not wp:undue, perhaps it could be mentioned in auditory processing disorder#Remediations and training? [I have changed my username by popular request, by the way.] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe in dyslexia interventions? I don't think it suitable for the main dyslexia article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still a delete; although the primary editor continues to plop in sources that aren't directly related to the topic, I still haven't found any indication that it is a notable or enduring practice, and don't think even a redirect is needed-- it's just not a term anyone is likely to ever search on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very much about auditory stimulation remediation and training as well as support for dyslexia.I was hoping for assistance in expanding and supporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karidone (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Karidone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article seems to be promoting the work of a single individual or group. I could find nothing in peer reviewed journals that directly supports this technique. I would oppose any redirect for three reasons: No target article seems really appropriate (Alfred A. Tomatis? Auditory processing disorder?). Also, this concept/technique does not appear to be in widespread use and its claimed effects are not verified. Finally, this seems an unlikely search term for anyone looking for information on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 8 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. Mkativerata (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hats Off to the Bull

edit
Hats Off to the Bull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future album without a reliable source. We really need a speedy delete category for this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - An article on Loudwire[20] confirms the release date of the album on December 6th and mentions a future appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live. Amazon [21] also has a listing for the album (with artwork) and gives the same release date. The first single from the album has already charted on Billboard. Track listings have not been released yet, but the album has been mentioned on several websites already. [22], [23], [24] It might have been a bit crystally to create the article this early, but several sources point to the same confirmed release date. Cyrus Andiron 14:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Forgive me, but I'm not sure what point you're arguing here. I listed five separate sources that gave the same release date for the album. The band is notable. Their six previous albums are notable. The first single from the album has already charted on Billboard. I don't think it's a huge stretch to assume that this album will be notable as well when it's released in a month.
  • Comment Here isn't in the article since the article still doesn't have any third-party sources the article may still be deleted. Also, your five sources are not all reliable. Just because the band is notable doesn't immediately confer notability on all of their works.
PS. You're forgiven. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative solution: Temporary redirect to the band's article until sufficient sources can be found to make the article notable by itself. Spidey 104 02:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to what documentation or policy? In all of the future album AFD discussions I've participated in, demonstrating notability in the discussion was sufficient and the articles were kept even though they weren't improved or updated. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wow, you've gotten off easy then. The issue is that the article doesn't demonstrate notability. Until it does, it can be deleted. Maybe in other future discussions, someone's put your found sources into the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. That is wrong. Articles are not deleted if sources can be shown to exist even if those sources are not immediately added to an article. See WP:BEFORE: the crucial wording of which is If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I don't delete an article in such circumstances and don't know of any administrator who would. And if I saw such a deletion occur I would take it to WP:DRV where it would be resoundingly overturned. There is no 'must' or time limit to update the article. See WP:DEADLINE and similar pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:39, 10 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 consensus is clear enough: that the sources presented do not demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angolan Consulate General, Houston

edit
Angolan Consulate General, Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the GNG - there is not significant independent coverage of this topic in third-party, reliable sources. Of the sources listed in the article, 4 are the embassy itself (not third-party), 1 is a map that verifies the consulate exists, and one, a NYT article, it focused on the city of Houston and links with Africa in general, with only a few sentences that mention this consulate. That is trivial coverage at best. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/23/business/energy-of-africa-draws-the-eyes-of-houston.html
  • Has the following sentences:
  • "When Angola recently opened its only consulate outside New York, few people here were surprised that Houston was chosen."
  • "The interest of energy companies in West Africa is encouraging ventures in a variety of fields. EDI Architecture, like dozens of other companies here, is betting its future on strengthening ties to Africa. It designed the Angolan consulate here, a luxurious corporate suite discreetly decorated with the burgundy and gold colors of the nation's flag."
  • "EDI Architecture was among the more experienced participants, having already built American-style residential compounds in Angola for Exxon Mobil and Angola's national petroleum company. It is currently building a 20-story office tower in Luanda."
  • I believe that demonstrates significant coverage. The article shows the consulate opening as part of an ongoing trend in Houston's international relations.
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last bullet isn't even referencing the consulate. In that one four-page article, there is a sentence that verifies that Angola put a consulate in Houston, and one saying that EDI Architectchure designed the offices and what they look like. The article is ABOUT the "ongoing trend in Houston's international relations"; the consulate is simply one example used. I classify that is trivial. I also couldn't find any other independent reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the example used by Wikipedia:Notability#Notes:
"The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1992/jan/06/usa.martinwalker
Let's look at the significance of the "jazz band" thing on the article itself. The article doesn't mention the jazz band as being a significant turning point or being a significant effect on Bill Clinton's life.
While in the article, the Angolan consulate is seen as a significant escalation of Houston's diplomatic relations with Angola and other African countries.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you completely - it's listed as an example, not a "significant escalation", as you put it. Some of the other examples given got paragraphs more coverage and a lot more text on their importances. If you want to nitpick, the guideline also says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." The depth of coverage here is tiny and I haven't seen any other coverage in independent reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. The Angola Press says:
"Angolan Consulate Highlights Country's Challenges for Development." Angola Press. 7 November 2006.
"All Africa" is a website that houses news content from many sub-saharan African publications.
The Angola press site is at: http://www.portalangop.co.ao/motix/pt_pt/portal/capa/index.html
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide access to that article? I can't see the full text, and the synopsis makes it sound like the article is discussing a speech an official at the consulate gave about Angola, not the consulate. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me post a Wikipedia:Resource request for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Resource_request#Angola_consulate_of_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WhispertoMe, for finding full access to that so quickly. I read the article, and it says nothing about the consulate - it's a brief description of a speech about the Angolan economy. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright - I'll see if I can find another source in English and... if that doesn't work, in Portuguese... WhisperToMe (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
consulates are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 11 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, m.o.p 03:50, 4 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. Courcelles 23:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mahboob Alam

edit
Mahboob Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. There are several hits in GoogleNews and GoogleBooks for others with the same name, but not this gentleman. GoogleScholar does confirm that he has been published but the papers that have been frequently cited for which he is the primary author are either systematic reviews or meta-analyses, not his original work, so I do not believe WP:PROF is met either. J04n(talk page) 03:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 4 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 g11 advertising, a7 nonnotable. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Me Mike

edit
Spike Me Mike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 4 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 Critical path method. v/r - TP 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Duration

edit
Crash Duration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:DICTIONARY There is no other information available on this topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? I'd do better with this if there were some context provided; given that I suspect this could be simply redirected into a main article. Mangoe (talk) 02:11, 28 October 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, v/r - TP 01:49, 4 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. This was endorsed at DRV only a day or two ago. Restoring it to mainspace is an abuse of our procedures and disruptive, Do not recreate unless a draft has been approved by DRV. Deleted G4 Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies

edit
AfDs for this article:
Romsey Town Rollerbillies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AfD. This article was previously deleted and the deletion was upheld under review. Sources have been added since then, but the question is whether or not the article currently has any notability it was deemed not to have under the previous discussion. Attempts have been made to establish inclusion criteria for Roller Derby at WP:NSPORT, but nothing concrete has been established at this time. Trusilver 01:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per original reasons. The team is has not competed in any international bouts. The team does not have any members on the national team competing at the roller derby world cup. The team appears to have competed in zero notable intercounty bouts. (As roller derby does not have an established hierarchy to determine quality levels of play, bout notability and attendance are ways of assessing that.) As a league, the article does not appear to be the proposed guidelines for roller derby. Beyond that, the article probably does not meet WP:GNG. Same reasons as the original AfD: They have not been fixed in this article.
  • Comment: User:Dualus has said he was improving this article based on an e-mail to the gendergap list requesting it be fixed. Incorrect. The e-mail was dated 11 October 2011, written by me, and read: I don't know if this has been mentioned on the list before, but there is a roller league derby article up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies . I don't particularly care about the outcome either way, but there is an issue of setting precedent for future roller derby articles that may be nominated and that's where I care: However it ends up, it would be nice to have it make sense. So yeah, that. :) End quote. --LauraHale (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the only discussion of roller derby on the gendergap mailing list. Dualus (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It absolutely is, until you can share the e-mail that you're referring to. You won't, and I've searched all my sent e-mails to see where else I might have mentioned it. I will repeat: This is the e-mail the User:Dualus has referred to multiple times and it does not advocate improving the article to keep it from deletion. --LauraHale (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • [30], [31], etc. Do you think it would help if you and I had a talk about this on Tinychat? Dualus (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Links do not support the claim that you were improving this one as it was mentioned on the list. Links do not mention this article. If you invite me to privately chat with you again, I will report you to WP:ANI for WP:HOUND. I will include the fact that you showed up to IRC to continue create drama involving me.--LauraHale (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the contrary, I invite interested parties to read the links for themselves. How do you propose that we resolve the animosity issues here? You have been canvassing people with whom you have no interactions independent of your interactions with me, and you nominated one of my recently created articles on a completely unrelated topic for deletion, then blanked three sections of it. I feel that you are being retributive and wonder whether you would be willing to participate in a third party mediation session, perhaps with Sarah mediating? Dualus (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted, please place it in my user space. Thank you. Dualus (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Dualus (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete although they are reliable sources local newspapers and a radio station for a small town + a feature from a military focus web-zine do not confer notability. If they did every school sports team and every amateur dramatic group would merit their own article as such sources could easily be found for them to.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were true (and what school teams get written up in Stars and Stripes?) this would still be considerably beyond the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria with a half hour radio interview, a very detailed write-up in Stars and Stripes, two independent newspaper secondary sources, and thirteen additional sources. Dualus (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article on Stars and Stripes is accurate, it is a daily newspaper with a considerable circulation, not a "web-zine" - an excellent example of the sort of source which can establish notability. Warofdreams talk 03:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the sources above were in the article when it was first deleted at AFD, including the one in Stars and Stripes, and all were when it was endorsed at DRV. No substantial change to text. Should not have been restored to mainspace. Speedy delete. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 05:45, 4 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 Complete Works of Shakespeare. v/r - TP 02:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare: The Complete Works Annotated

edit
The Globe Illustrated Shakespeare: The Complete Works Annotated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable edition of Shakespeare. DePRODed with the comment that a merge to Howard Staunton, who is named as the editor, might be appropriate, but it seems that this is not Staunton's book but rather a recent publication that happens to use Staunton's edition (and include the commentaries and illustrations of other authors and artists who likewise did not actually produce this book). Amazon ratings do not confer notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 4 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympus

edit
The Olympus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no sources, and does not meet notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those sources. Most of them are pretty good. Tinton5 (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 October 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, v/r - TP 14:29, 20 October 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, Davewild (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In general, student activities and organizations at primary and secondary schools are not independently notable. If mentioned at all, relevant information should be included in the article on the school. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:03, 27 October 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, — Joseph Fox 01:43, 4 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.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Cornfield

edit
Susie Cornfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete no references for livign person, in current state article seems like promotional piece, although it seems likely author could pass notability test if proper research were done. 78.26 (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 October 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, v/r - TP 01:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable in reliable sources. Number of books written is not a criteria for inclusion. Having lots of line item listings in google books and a single weak citation in scholar (without reference to the actual book being referenced) falls short. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:34, 4 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/redirect. May not be a common word for it, but redirects are cheap. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archenemies in professional wrestling

edit
Archenemies in professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meaningless drivel. References in article are mostly dead links, not a good thing for an article which has only existed for barely more than a year. Even if the topic were encyclopedic, it's yet another article which treats professional wrestling as if nothing which took place prior to 1996 matters (see WP:RECENT). To give an example putting it into proper perspective - The Rock 'n' Roll Express and The Midnight Express were still having matches against each other nearly a quarter century after the heyday of their feud, but aren't listed in this article. In comparison, the Kurt Angle and Jeff Jarrett thing has been going on for what, two years, maybe? Just because someone can watch it on television now doesn't necessarily make it encyclopedic versus any other event. RadioKAOS (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professional wrestling. I believe that's the best solution in general to these sorts of halfhearted attempts at a sidebar to a major article. Once the community of authors at any large article conclude that there is sufficient high-quality material for a separate article, they will split it out, usually after considerable discussion. Also would support outright Delete. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a more appropriate redirect would be to Feud (professional wrestling), which appears to have much the same content as this article. This article is another example of what I see on occasion: create another article with duplicative, gratuitous mentions of high-profile and/or recent events, while OTOH, properly covering the breadth of the topic would make the article a little too unwieldy.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:58, 28 October 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, v/r - TP 01:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nobody uses the term arch enemies in reference to wrestling fueds so it's not even worth a redirect. There are also only four examples listed so the content does not need to be merged into fued either. Deletion is the best course of action here. Cyrus Andiron 14:41, 4 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. DGG has accidentally voted twice, which leaves him the sole dissenter. The point that notability is not temporary is taken, but the question is whether the character has ever been notable. From the article, none of the sources appear particularly independent, nor do they seem to contain any analysis of the character. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Montgomery

edit
Lily Montgomery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable character suggest delete or merge to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters Wlmg (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pending — Either this article's subject, major or minor, is not notable, or her notability is not established. To prove its non-notability, this article has not improved into the depths of either Olivia Richards, Erica Kane, or Pauline Fowler since its creation. In fact, its current version is the best of all and absent from real-world perspective: the casual editors either do not know this fictional character or do not have interest to improve this article. However, this fictional character has suffered from autism spectrum disorder, according to the article itself; therefore, there may be some hints of notability. Too bad the current news do not cover this fictional character. The potential primary sources are periodicals of soap operas and self-published episodes; the third-party and independent sources should mention relatively this fictional character and autism spectrum disorder. Unfortunately, without proper sources as of this state, this article cannot prove this fictional character's notability to either stand on its own or merge into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. And IMDB, the user-submitted website itself, is not reliable at any means except for self-references and self-publishings. --Gh87 (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC) This article should not be the substitute for websites that dedicate to soap operas and their entities; unfortunately, it only contains plot summary which is against what Wikipedia is not. --Gh87 (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 19 October 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, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 26 October 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, — Joseph Fox 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This discussion has been relisted twice. What gives? Anyway, no one knows this character, and the current news do not cover many fictional soap opera characters anymore. Why is an article of this non-notable character created in the first place? To substitute websites that dedicate soap operas? The fact that she has autism spectrum disorder does not even help meet WP:GNG, even if it meets guidelines of WikiProject Soap Operas. I don't know a soap opera dedicator who is an expert of the article's subject, and I don't even know some casual editor of Wikipedia who is an expert of this article's subject enough to improve the article itself. She is not Erica Kane or Pauline Fowler; she should receive sufficient coverages from reliable periodicals and print materials, like Olivia Richards. --Gh87 (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Why is it possible to preserve history and redirect to List of All My Children characters, while copyvio has become intact? --Gh87 (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What does not being in the current news have to do with it? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia , not a tv guide. We cover what was notable at any previous time, including the earlier history of the medium. As a significant character in a major fiction, there should be an article, or perhaps a part in a combination article--which however I am reluctant to combine because that's usually the prelude to gradually removing the information. That we have no current editor who wants to expand it is absurdly irrelevant--editors come and go, and , while they're here, they add information, and the information stays. That's how we have built, the encyclopedia from the beginning. There will always be new hobbyists. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lost of copyrighted websites copy/pasted from another website. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 19:28, 11 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. Community consensus has not accepted the reliability or independence of the sources provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Swift

edit
Sidney Swift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTABILITY; no claims that meet WP:NMUSIC guidelines, no relevant gnews hits, checking the first few pages of ghits, there are none conferring notability (the results are a mixture of self-published material by the subject, database listings, and other individuals of same name (or at least non-music-related invocation of people of that name.) Nat Gertler (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All but two references are credits databases, which do not indicate notability. Of the other two refs, one is a Wikipedia article (i.e., an inappropriate ref), and one is a store blog interview. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the interview is not a store blog, its a well known music conference / production website, of the database listings, allmusic & albumcredits are of the upmost highly noted credit sites on the internet. i will take off the wikipedia reference now... how many people must i get to vote "do not delete" until the page is validated, i know many others who would agree that this article is wiki worthy.
There is no set "vote count"; you should read the page on WP:CONSENSUS to understand how decisions are reached on Wikipedia. You should not be reaching out to people who you think will support your opinion -- see WP:CANVAS to understand those guidelines. And the question is not one of the quality of the databases, but that listing in a database - particularly a good (i.e., comprehensive) one - does not connote notability. They can be handy for showing that someone did something specific, but not that that makes him particularly worth of attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on "store blog"; I misread the site's description of "production shopping experience" as being where producers do shopping, rather than where one shops for producers. However, a single interview, particularly on a site where they are selecting interviewees from among the site's members, is not a sufficient indication of notability. Again, review WP:NMUSIC for guidelines of what denotes notability in musicians. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added more references — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.214.185 (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added another referance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.98.112.38 (talk) 01:28, 24 October 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, Davewild (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.89.44 (talk) 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how is the video, where producers talk about Sidney as their engineer, not a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.107.204.24 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 01:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable engineer. Delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. Cyrus Andiron 14:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Notable engineer. references justify engineering and production on major label releases. Do not delete per WP:V and WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.203.122 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - notability hasn't been demonstrated per WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Example - References to the engineer as having worked with a non-notable group, The Renegades, do nothing to increase the notability of the engineer. They merely demonstrate that he is gainfully employed, not that he is notable when compared to other professionals and Wikipedia's notability standards. Colonel Tom 00:23, 12 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 but evaluate the names on the list (non-admin closure). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political families of Pakistan

edit
Political families of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has deteriorated into the most egregrious listing of assorted non-notables, and relatives and friends of editors, and is now an embarrassment to Wikipedia and has reached the stage where it is impossible to maintain WP:MOS or any other Wikipedia policy or convention. Almost forgot that for most articles we have a habit of suggesting that references might be useful for an article mentioning living people (presumably some are unless they have been invented) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with that thought; after that, we should also check to make sure that the people left are actually family members; just because they share the same last name doesn't necessarily make them closely related. A quick look through seems to show that there will be enough left for a valid article. Also, a quick glance at the history seems to show an awful lot of IP additions; it may well be that once this is cleaned up, we can 1) semi-protect the article, and 2) add an edit notice to both the article and talk page that clearly indicates that the page requires all listed people to have an article or a ref verifying the office held and that the person is related to others in the same family (try editing List of shopping malls in India for an example). Assuming this is kept, I am happy to help with the editing, although it may take me a bit to get to it. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:37, 28 October 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, v/r - TP 01:11, 4 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. causa sui (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dalton (All My Children)

edit
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2
Mark Dalton (All My Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is tagged for copyright infringements; it's already reported in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 October 19. With the article short right now, this is the 2nd nomination for the article as AfD. Right now, this character is not notable. Probably he was in the 1980s to promote awareness of drug addiction, but this article does not receive interest from casual editors and experienced Wikipedians. Even those who dedicate soap operas did not address the problems of copyright infringements that I have seen lately and did not have interests to prove and establish this character's notability. Right now, I cannot propose a merge to either List of All My Children miscellaneous characters because of recent reports of copyright violations or List of All My Children characters because it is a brief list with inadequate summaries. If this article cannot be deleted, then what will we do with the article's introduction? --Gh87 (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 19 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to appropriate character list; whether there have been or are currently copyvios on certain lists is irrelevant to whether the lists as topics should ultimately exist and whether this should be merged there. I don't see a valid deletion rationale at any rate; the nom appears to state that the character probably was notable in the 1980s, but "right now, this character is not notable". As with all of his other recent AFD noms, I don't see any indication that he has followed WP:BEFORE but instead nominated this purely on the current internal state of the article, and on his perception that no one has been working to improve this article. It's additionally a bad idea to have listed this here before the copyvio issue has been resolved, as that just muddies the waters, because whether an article currently is a copyright infringement is a completely separate issue from whether there ultimately should be an article on that topic. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. With no sources, I do not believe that a merge is justified. Jfgslo (talk) 03:21, 31 October 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, — Joseph Fox 01:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Right now, this character is not notable. Probably he was in the 1980s to promote awareness of drug addiction..." If he was notable, he is notable, no?--Milowent • hasspoken 14:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just made probably some sarcasm. He is to me non-notable, even with an actor's award for this character. There have been no experts and no non-fictional coverages on this character as far as I know. Even one documentary of All My Children is insufficient to help this article stand alone. Recently, I have realized that notability should not be temporary, which this character is no longer after the 1980s. --Gh87 (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a significant character in a major fiction. Certainly at least it can be merged to a combination article, which should be more than a mere character list. NOT PLOT refers to our overall coverage of the work as a whole--obvious articles of particular elements of it will discuss those elements. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is he significant? He has no children himself, and he hadn't adopted a child for life. The only significance would be his failed fling with his sister, Erica Kane, and drugs that hurt. Even the current producers do not want to introduce him again since 2005, and veteran casual viewers do not remember him as anybody other than a brother of Erica Kane. The fact that this article violates copyrights does not help matters. --Gh87 (talk) 08:22, 11 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. I strongly suggest that discussion of a possible merge continue on the relevant talk pages. Given the valid point this paradox only exists in fiction it could be argued that this is a WP:FORK but since no participants brought that up during the debate it was not considered when closing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap paradox in fiction

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bootstrap paradox in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination for editor. They should post their reasoning shortly. I am neutral. Ravendrop 01:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about the whole article, the main article it is attached to lists a few examples from fiction in order to demonstrate Bootstrap paradoxs, but this child article is just a list that serves no purpose than a reposistory for fandom to put everything they can find into it, I might as well start a list of "real world cities referenced in fiction" it would be equally useful/pointless and would be equally endless for no apparent gain Jasonfward (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the topic is notable, and the main Bootstrap Paradox article covers that, so why is a huge list that will grow forever and increasingly irrelevant examples of any use? Jasonfward (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not really what an encyclopedia should be about, however it serves a good purpose of providing an outlet for fandom from the other page. No one is forced to wade through all the examples. Borock (talk) 05:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is an elaboration of the list in the article Bootstrap paradox, and provides a place for people to add new examples, rather than adding them to the article itself. I've heard the term used to explain the more proper term, "ontological paradox", but don't have a source other than the Heinlein short's title. It's fascinating to draw out the timelines and activities of the lives of the characters in that and in his ... All you Zombies. htom (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe what Im reading here, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of everything, the article you refer to is illustrated very well with many examples already, I just don't see how there is any need at all for a place for fans to keep adding more, how or why is an ever growing list of examples from fiction in anyway noteable Jasonfward (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the meanings of "encyclopedic" is "comprehensive." Provided this is limited to notable works of fiction that make some substantive use of this paradox (i.e., not a mere reference or disposable Family Guy-style cutaway gag), then it's not only a good complement to Bootstrap paradox, but an index of articles that make use of the same concept. I see no good reason not to expand that from the few examples given in the parent article, because this isn't so commonplace as to make the list completely trivial, indiscriminate, or meaningless. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I just don't see how the article contributes anything, it neither explains the paradox, its too long to illustrative and I cannot for the life of imagine how anyone would find the article useful, it is as far as I can tell, just a place for fans to post their latest spot of the paradox in their favourite fiction, nothing anyone has said here addresses why or how the article is notable at all, and right now I really don't think it is. Jasonfward (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness would be to an author, trying to create a new form of the paradox; a list of forms already used would be very useful. htom (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A serious problem with this list is that it is mostly original research. The list should be pruned back to notable examples only: examples that are discussed by reliable secondary sources and identified by these sources as being instances of the bootstrap paradox. Pruned that way, the remaining list will very likely have a manageable length and can be put back in the main article where it came from, Bootstrap paradox.  --Lambiam 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentSecond party reviewers that you want to cite probably won't mention that the bootstrap paradox is involved because it would be considered a spoiler. They have different rules than Wikipedia has about spoiling mentions. htom (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, reviewers routinely give away the plot. For the notable examples on the list, it isn't that hard to find secondary sources explicitly stating that the plot hinges on a time-travel paradox; for example, for The Technicolor Time Machine, in the book Harry Harrison by Leon E. Stover, and for The End of Eternity, in the book Isaac Asimov by William F. Touponce.  --Lambiam 19:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comment above. I don't agree with Lambiam that it should be pruned only to those works whose use of this concept are noted in secondary sourcing. If the work of fiction has an article and it is verifiable that it makes substantive use of this concept (even if only from the work of fiction itself), then it belongs on the list. But that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve, because AFD is not cleanup. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can see, everything at the entry for Back to the Future after the one reference given there is original research. The speculative resolution of the paradox offered there that possibly Chuck Berry was not directly inspired, or that the creator is a Chuck Berry of another universe, has an ubernerd quality to it. We should keep such OR out by only allowing content that can be sourced to reliable secondary sources.  --Lambiam 19:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as violation of WP:SYNT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is literally a random list of junk. Jtrainor (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate unsourced lists of "X in fiction" are better suited to TV Tropes than to Wikipedia. This is a mere collection of trivia, not an encyclopedia article. Besides, while the Bootstrap paradox may be notable, the topic of "Bootstrap paradox in fiction" is not.  Sandstein  21:32, 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, — Joseph Fox 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge (with culling) to Bootstrap paradox - if it's not WP:INDISCRIMINATE not notable original research, it's an unnecessary WP:UNDUE WP:SPLIT
  • comment The Bootstrap Paradox, as far as it is known, exists only in fiction. One person's mere collection is another's informative, useful, discriminated data collected into handy list form. There are no real examples of the Bootstrap Paradox to put into a list, they're going to have to be fiction. htom (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seconding Serendipodous' argument. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge So what's the point? Numerous fictional examples were given here [36] to describe the theory. No further martial from works of fiction is needed. The article appears redundant, meaning far too much of the "same". I would comment that the sources presented do appear noteworthy as second and tertiary sources for the material, though works of fiction. Perhaps more material needs to be added of a scientific nature to support the article bootstrap paradox. Your contribution(s) has not gone unnoticed. I would like to thank the Arthur(s) for their determined and persistent thorough efforts that might be applies elsewhere.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is I don't want to spend the rest of eternity pruning other people's additions and then having to justify my completely arbitrary selections on the talk page to affronted contibutors. And don't say "Then don't", because if I don't, all that will happen is the original page will just get AfD'd again. Serendipodous 18:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one example: the paradox involving Chuck Berry is described here. -- 202.124.72.36 (talk) 07:49, 13 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. Courcelles 23:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Whistle Magazine

edit
Final Whistle Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A publication that was launched two months ago that isn't notable yet →Στc. 01:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems unlikely that an "amateur/grassroots football magazine for the Coventry and Warwickshire region" that has published exactly one issue will have generated sufficient coverage to be considered notable, and web search bears this out. Zero Gnews hits, and general Ghits are primary or otherwise non-independent, directory listings and other routine notices, and just a faint bit of notice in the fandom/blogdom world. If in time they achieve notability, then an article would be welcome, but it's far WP:TOOSOON right now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there appears to be no coverage in WP:RS, and as indicated above might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kinu t/c 22:08, 4 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 we should redirect this doesn't really make any sense because of the lack of an obvious target article. If somebody types in these words and finds themselves at the main article on Los Angeles all that is going to do is confuse them. Those arguing to redirect apparently agree that the subject does not merit an article, and so deletion is the only remaining option. Note that the sock votes, including the nomination, were not considered when making this determination. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schaefer Ambulance Service

edit
AfDs for this article:
Schaefer Ambulance Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; abusive Splitjack (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Splitjack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No notable distinction other than to invite criticism from a disgrunted party. Ugly. Needs to go away. They shouldn't advertise here.

*Delete This is plain company information with no distinction. Contains elements of self-promotion and advertising. Many attempts to include and delete critical POV material. Doubtful and questionable references. Astrometre (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Astrometre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Self promotion, no distinction, bad links.Wihnoe8033 (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Wihnoe8033 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Delete - not notable, not interesting, undeserving. Ptenski 18:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Ptenski (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 26 October 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, — Joseph Fox 01:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

&Delete I do not see how we can redirect--there is no specific community to redirect to, DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Their Headquarters & Corporate Office's are located in Los Angeles California, redir it there. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 09:10, 11 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. Courcelles 23:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Kollar

edit
Harold Kollar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by AlexAutographs, he added refs and contested the PROD. Though it is sourced, I believe he still fails GNG and BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep five unique non-statistical sources. The subject is not the primary topic of most of the sources but that's not a requirement of WP:N. — KV5 • Talk • 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sourcing and accomplishments. Alex (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KV. Spanneraol (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete (plus plagiarism problem) If the national articles about Keith Lieppman weren't enough to keep him from being deleted, then I don't see how the generally routine local coverage in this article passes GNG. Beyond that, this is yet another example of Alex plagiarizing himself between here and Baseball Reference Bullpen. This article is a direct cut-and-paste from, or was cut-and-pasted to, Kollar's BR Bullpen page. Aside from the AfD trolling, this is another Alex specialty; I've seen it 50 times. (They complain about it at BR Bullpen, too.) — NY-13021 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bullpen is also a wiki and it is allowed to copy from one to the other without plagiarism concerns. Spanneraol (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's plagiarism if I wrote it both on that Wiki and this one? Who knew. This NY character is raging. Alex (talk) 11:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The material can't be presented as original at two different sites. Either the Wiki page needs to credit BR Bullpen or the BR Bullpen page needs to credit Wiki. People have been complaining about this at BR Bullpen for a long time and Alex knows it. — NY-13021 (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they haven't said anything. In fact, my contributions are wholly welcomed. I'm not the only member who does it either. Do you even ever go to the BR Bullpen? Alex (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're reading different pages then, because I've seen repeated requests at Bullpen for you to source your contributions, as required when cutting and pasting from here to there or from there to here. But you obviously don't think any of these rules apply to you, so there's no sense arguing about it anymore. I guess there's one set of rules for Alex and another set for the rest of us. — NY-13021 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm surprised at the Keep votes above claiming that the article's sourcing is adequate; would any of the editors so voting point out the sources which - as the GNG requires - discuss the subject in "significant detail?" None do, and the subject receives passing mention at best. Ravenswing 16:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I only found trivial mention of the name in source. Fails GNG with lack of significant coverage. WP:BASEBALL/N does not assume notability have career minor leaguer.—Bagumba (talk) 19:13, 17 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 23:54, 18 October 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 26 October 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, — Joseph Fox 01:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three relists? Come on, at least one admin have balls. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles fails WP:BASEBALL/N and the sources do nothing to satisfy general notability guidelines. Nothing beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage has been presented. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 00:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reviewing the non-statistical sources mentioned above, they all appear to consist of routine coverage. As there's no question the subject fails to meet WP:BASEBALL/N, the only question is whether the subject meets WP:GNG, and I say no. -Dewelar (talk) 22:12, 9 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. The nominator's objections to this article seem to be related more to how it is named than anything else, and nobody has supported their position that the name is so flawed that we must delete the entire list. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom

edit
List of articles about local government in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lists must be notable, just like other articles. This is a list about Wikipedia content. Unless someone has written about "How the UK government has been covered in Wikipedia", this is not a notable topic. If someone wants to make a Portal or Outline with similar information, that may be plausible (if it doesn't exist already), but this is not a valid mainspace topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copying over the following from the other deletion discussion I opened at the same time with the same problem): I just want to clarify on (at least my interpretation) of how lists work. We can have lists about "things of type X" in the real world. We cannot have "lists of articles about things related to X." The former is an actual list of content; the latter is solely a navigational aid, a kind of crude table of contents. I have no problem with lists that duplicate categories; I have a problem with lists that are "self-referential". As far as I can see, nothing in our policies covering lists allow us to have any type of article titled List of articles about .... And it shouldn't. We have so many different ways of categorizing information, both reader-facing (lists of topics, portals, outlines, glossaries, overview articles, dab pages), editor-facing (Wikiprojects, noticeboards), and dual-facing (categories, and the search box)...why do we need, in just a select few instances, yet another type of organizational tool? It's simply the mark of a bad product to have too many different organizing schemes. More than one is good (I'm thinking here of how a textbook has a ToC, an Index, and a glossary; or how help for Microsoft products has a search box, a glossary, and an Index); too many is redundant. Too many guarantees that one list or the other isn't fully updated. Too many guarantees that one list or another gets to be used for POV pushing (consider the problems with had with Ethnic categories and Wikiprojects aggressively pushing themselves onto articles). Maybe I'm raising issues that go beyond one (or two) deletion discussions, and need to be raised in a larger forum. But I think that we have to consider these things as we make these individual decisions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 26 October 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, — Joseph Fox 01:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but Zangar's suggestion to change the name is a good one and it provides the key to all this. "Index of...articles" are very well established and thought appropriate (see Category:Indexes of articles). These are navigational aids rather than articles and they are kept in main space. Whether any particular list is appropriate should be discussed on its own individual merits. In this case the list is well organised and so is more helpful for many purposes than an alphabetically ordered category. It can be wholly appropriate for lists and categories to co-reside (WP:CLN). Portal:Contents/Lists provides a good way into this area for those interested. With relatively little development it could become an outline — substantially more would be needed to meet portal guidelines.Thincat (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to do justice even if a little convoluted. Jab843 (talk) 22:48, 12 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. causa sui (talk) 18:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.)

edit
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is all repeated information. There are already long-standing number-ones lists, for various countries and several U.S. Billboard charts, that are arranged by year (most notably Template:USNumber1s). This does nothing but combine 2010 and 2011 together. Looks like incorrect use of decorative flags (WP:FLAG) and an ongoing, unecessary tally of current pop artists at the bottom. There really is no need to have this article in the encyclopedia when we have this data elsewhere. If anything, attention should be made to improving the by-year lists already in place. - eo (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, basing it partly on the similar series of articles for the UK Singles Charts mainly because in my opinion there is substantial advantage in presenting all this data in one table in a more reduced manner in order to enable our readers to go over a much larger amount of data faster and have the capability of sorting all this data automatically and quickly. In addition, in my opinion this article has also a substantial advantage in that it also contains various statistics for the entire decade which is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the advantage. The UK lists are the only ones (to my knowledge) that group things by-decade, as opposed to by-year. The colors, the flags, the tables, the statistics all seem excessive, unnecessary and against WP:NPOV. A simple, neutral layout with a week-by-week table has been in place for years now, with most recent years (approx. 2000-onwards) having a concise intro paragraph and a few small images added to the top of the article. I think we need an enhancement to the 1940-1999 by-year lists rather than yet another way to present the same information. - eo (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Wikipedia is being overrun with micro lists slicing and dicing the same content a million ways. It is unneeded. Add the content to the existing pages, or get rid of the old ones if you can build consensus that this way is better. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy. I see nothing wrong with a combined list for decades like the UK ones, but this should be done through discussion. Put this in your user space and come up with something people will agree upon. For now, this is just duplicate information found in other long-standing lists. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the article has gone through numerous edits since the delete template was originally placed on the article and that the duplicative yearly overview section was removed. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It still has created a redudant content fork with identical information from exisiting articles presented in slightly different ways. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:30, 29 October 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, — Joseph Fox 00:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Phoenix B 1of3. There is no requirement to have a discussion before creating an article. And any content fork concerns will be mitigated over time, as 2011 turns into 2012, etc. While there may be benefit in improving the 1940-1999 lists, that is not an argument to delete this one. And Wikipedia is hardly being "overrun" by anything. Rlendog (talk) 20:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't see most recent comments addressing the issue of duplication. It may meet most of the qualifications for WP:LIST, but the point is there are already-existing lists that have this information which also meet the same qualifications. Why have multiple articles displaying the same thing? - eo (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some overlapping information, but there is information in this list not in the others and vice versa. And those differences will grow as the 2010s continue. In any case, if the issue is duplication, then a merge would be the solution rather than deletion. Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire thing is an overlap. The only difference is that this article groups together a decade, so it's basically overlapping info that will be present in ten individual by-year lists. - eo (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is not a duplicate, combine 2010 and 2011 together. It has qualification for lists.--Kaspo (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complete duplicate. Both show when the song went to number one, in what order, how many weeks it was at number one, and who performed the song. If one is updated, the other would have to be updated with the same exact information and would most likely use the same exact source. Although, the newer 2010s list doesn't even source any item in its list (except one to verify a Britney Spears credit). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:02, 9 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. Courcelles 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infotention

edit
Infotention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The original version of this article described "Infotention" as a neologism, and that's what it appears to be despite coming from an illustrious source, Howard Rheingold. The only references given relate directly to the term's inventor. There's almost nothing on Google Scholar despite this being apparently important from an academic perspective. Fails WP:RS, WP:NEO. andy (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 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 Indyfans and the Quest for Fortune and Glory. Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Kleyla

edit
Brandon Kleyla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor/director who might reach Wikipedia's notability threshold someday but isn't quite there yet. The article was tagged as a BLP-proposed deletion but that was removed after the addition of a couple of references. I disagree with that move: one of the references is to the subject's website while the other is to a fairly shallow interview on an Indiana Jones fansite so neither qualify as reliable sources. I found two other interviews online ([37] and [38]) and here also, I don't believe this should be considered significant coverage in reliable sources. Mr. Kleyla's career as an actor is not significant since all his roles were very minor (some are in fact uncredited). He has also directed a feature film (The Road to Canyon Lake) which, as he put it himself, was shot on a very small budget. As far as I can tell, the film was not distributed in theatres. He has also directed a feature documentary about Indiana Jones fandom which, again as far as I can tell, was never widely distributed. All in all, the subject fails to meet both the general notability requirement and the actor-specific one. Pichpich (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 October 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hardly someone will compose such information for any reason. Common sense is good enough evidence. If someone will be interested in person - let them get information. Some more refs and material - it will be fine. (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment The article will definitely benefit from a sandblasting... but it's sourcable. For example, his 2008 fanfilm Indyfans and the Quest for Fortune and Glory has screened and received coverage[39][40] and informaton about this fellow's background can be gleaned from and sourced by such coverage. His work as a Disney Imagineer does not catch the eye of the press, and I agree that his career is short. But as the coverage of his film work just barely tweaks at WP:CREATIVE, perhaps a solution would be to suggest the creation of an article about his film to which this BLP might be partialy merged and redirected. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this comes anywhere close to what we need in terms of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. What you're pointing to is extremely weak coverage that's barely concerned with Kleyla himself. One of the reasons why we very much prefer coverage focused on the subject itself is that tangential things are never properly fact-checked. Based, perhaps, on the sources, our article writes that "Kleyla then went on to star as Bobby Fricker in the film Now and Then". I'm not sure where that came from but Kleyla certainly did not star in that movie as anyone who's seen it will tell you. According to IMDb (which is usually pretty good with such things), the role is in fact uncredited and it's at the very least clear from Now and Then (film) that his part was very minor. Now maybe this is taking the cue from this USA Today article [41] about the Indiana Jones movie which writes that Kleyla starred in Gods and Monsters. Under any reasonable definition of "starring", this is demonstrably incorrect and I'm pretty sure the USA Today would have fact-checked this properly had the article been a profile of Kleyla. Pichpich (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying at all that the fellow passes WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE, only that sources that might be used to creative a stub article on a minor film contain information about this fellow's work. I'm a believer in WP:WIP and WP:IMPROVE, and try to seek reasonable alternatives that build the encyclopedia. Toward his fanfilm... when we guage it against coverage of a major studio blockbuster, his film barely tweaks the meter... but while a minor indie project, it does have coverage that address the project directly and in detail. Sure Kleyla fails WP:PEOPLE... but a case can be made for his minor film meeting WP:Notability (film), even if just barely, and that unwritten article could include some information about the filmmaker being contextually included. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (per below, now fine with redirect) Even assuming it could be verified, I don't see anything that meets WP:NACTOR or WP:DIRECTOR. The coverage of the one documentary doesn't seem to meet DIRECTOR #3, nor does it seem to qualify as a "well-known work, or collective body of work". And the coverage of him generally is not substantial enough to meet WP:BASIC. Novaseminary (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the new article Indyfans and the Quest for Fortune and Glory, the one place where it currently makes sense for this fellow to have a sourced mention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Redirecting "Brandon Kleyla" to Indyfans and the Quest for Fortune and Glory seems reasonable. I am not a huge proponent of redirecting people's names to articles about group projects like films (group members redirecting to band names or the like, though, seems fine and different somehow); the search function will bring up the article anyway without the implication that the person is so much associated with the project. But this film really is mostly his (written, directed, edited, etc.), so the redirect wouldn't be misleading or do any other harm. I would still delete the current article first, though, and then create the redirect because so much of this is unsourced, possible BLP material (though not negative, it doesn't seem). Novaseminary (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm basically ok with that compromise. (See Michael's talk page for what still bugs me) I also agree that the article should be deleted first and then redirected. I suppose I could retract my nomination but that wouldn't allow the delete-then-redirect option, right? Pichpich (talk) 04:21, 9 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Pointer

edit
Canadian Pointer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a breed of dog that is not officially recognised, no evidence of notability. Peter E. James (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 28 October 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most Ghits are mirrors of or sourced by this WP article. The few that might not be are blogs or other non-WP:RS sources. Gbook hits are false positives, or are one of those recent WP-based slapped-together things. I've removed from the article the claim of recognition by the American Rare Breed Association, which is contradicted by their website. Given the lack of evidence, I suppose that this could be a hoax, but I suspect that it's just a non-notable, failed attempt to create a new breed. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? - I am not any sort of expert on this, but a straight Google search gives:
Chicago Tribune - Jan 26, 1957 -"A Canadian pointer owned by Richard Papa of Toronto won the national amateur shooting dog championship today. Tyson's Sky lull Flash. a 6 year old, ..." (google cache text)
and a whole lot more entries in newspapers from 1957 (The Baltimore Sun), 1920 (Schenectady Gazette) "Dogs, Birds Poultry . of genuine Saskatchewan Canadian pointer pups, natural mothers for fox or rabbit.", ... these certainly can't be from Wikipedia, and they certainly aren't newly-invented. Whether "Canadian Pointer" is a generic description or a known breed is beyond my knowledge, but we can't dismiss it so hastily. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am sure that neither the article, nor this AfD, nor my own web searches have unearthed the substantial coverage from reliable sources needed to satisfy the notability requirement for an encyclopedia article in WP. A couple of points:
  1. There are plenty of false positives in the Gnews searches. One of the biggest causes seems to be bad OCR misidentifying articles containing "Canadian painter", e.g., here and here.
  2. The real breed of dog, while often referred as the English Pointer, is actually called just "pointer"--see Pointer_(dog_breed)#Name. The effect of this is that there will be plenty of false or ambiguous hits that reference a pointer that happens to be from Canada. Take your first example, from the Chicago Tribune. The NY Times item on the same story calls the dog a "Toronto pointer". The Sports Illustrated version identifies the dog as just "pointer" and the owner from "Toronto".
  3. I can't actually find the 1957 Baltimore Sun item that you mention. I will concede that the Schenectady Gazette link is likely to be a real hit, however (a) it is a solitary classified ad--hardly substantial or WP:RS, and (b) the phrase "cheap to introduce the breed" and its date, 1920, is perfectly in line with the picture painted by the Canadian Pointer article itself--that a small group of enthusiasts attempted to develop a new breed "in the late 19th century", with their attempt ending in failure when the "American Kennel Club...refused to recognize the Canadian Pointer" in 1937, and forever afterwards, or so it (mythically?) says.
  4. If anyone can find substantial coverage from reliable sources, I will be happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge I think this should be merged under Pointer (dog_breed), I do believe this article does have its place on wikipedia, despite the lack of sources. Jab843 (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only hint of a reference (here) does not appear to be reliable. The site, along with the article, are the only two mentions I can find concerning " Canadian Pointer Club of America" which might indicate some information was used from the site. Following a link, [42] leads to a Kennel site with the title; "ENGLISH" POINTERS. A link here mentions "Canadian Pointers" but refers to Pointers from Canada and not a breed. A suggestion to merge the article to Pointer (dog_breed) would do nothing but degrade an article that already struggles from multiple problems including a very short lead, advertisement (here), lack of citations (tagged), and other problems. The end result would be a bigger problematic article with a section that totally fails notability. The main problem is that I read somewhere that if an article (or section) does not have a source or reference it does not have a place on Wikipedia. I can look this up but I am sure it is known. I keep running into articles on Wikipedia that do not have any references, some created as far back as 2001, with many that have antiquated reference tags, and can't help but wonder if policies are an intended criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia or just a suggestion that is negated by the policy to ignore all rules. Otr500 (talk) 12:54, 13 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_November_4&oldid=1142636888"