Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 10

< 9 October	11 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Quirk (presidential candidate)

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

A independent presidential candidate for US President that declared on October 5th. Unelected political candidate, fails to meet criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Unable to find significant, reliable references, but he has a common name. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I favor a low threshold for inclusion of articles about presidential candidates, and would not limit coverage only to "major" candidates. However, a Google News Archive search shows zero coverage in reliable sources of this candidate. I would not oppose recreating the article if reliable sources actually cover this candidate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although the article asserts that the subject's claim to notability is as a 2012 presidential candidate, none of the sources cited mention his presidential candidacy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per my original PROD: concern = Unelected political candidate, fails to meet criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Totally unreliable sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above comments. Quirk has not had enough reliable coverage; simply being a candidate does not provide enoguh notability. If he becomes more notable later, then the article can be recreated. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failing WP:POLITICIAN is the least of it; I can't even find confirmation that this person exists. All sources provided are to things like facebook, comment pages on blogs, etc. I could find literally NOTHING in a reliable source about this person. --MelanieN (talk) 22:54, 16 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rawalt Research Center

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Googling "Rawalt Research Center -wikipedia" turns up 1,100 results, none of them meaningful content. It should be noted that much of this is close copyvio. Five years ago, the creator of the article said he/she had permission, but some of the copyvio has been removed. Raymie (t • c) 23:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:RS. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ADVERT. Article only makes mainly unsubstnatiated promotional claims. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is overly promotional and no reliable sources to suggest notability have been presented, nor can I find any. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:41, 12 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Majah Onna Trakk

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

A rapper. aka Tharnell Bullock. aka Majah Tha Producer. Unable to find any significant, reliable sources about him. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:MUSICBIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources under any of the various names that he goes by. -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no reliable sources which suggest enough notability for Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: reinserted removed AfD header from article.
Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also reinserted the AfD header, removed by same IP. I've left a message on the user talk page. Hard Boiled Eggs [talk] 16:22, 15 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. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barnett (video game designer)

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

Multiple issues: Limited notability WP:GNG WP:NTEMP, Poorly sourced references WP:SOURCES WP:QS WP:DEADREF, CV like WP:COI, Poorly written, Random Trivia, lacks independence/autobiographical WP:COI. See Talk page for more details TheEvery (talk) 23:06, 10 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) 01:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rescue - A lot of the issues you mention are about the writing style and, therefore, can be fixed. The main issue for me here is notability - is Paul Barnett notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. A great deal of the sources used are problematic - they're either unreliable or are reliable but do not provide sufficient notability. It does seem that this and this, however, are reliable enough and provide notability. I think that this article needs rescue (and I will tag as such), but not deletion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do those references count as primary sources? Is that interview just self promotion? TheEvery (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! I'm not sure, he's best known for Warhammer Online, however in less than a decade that will be forgotten along with Paul. Not "encyclopaedic" enough. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary TheEvery 194.74.155.52 (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is not temporary doesn't mean the subject has to have ongoing coverage. It means that if he's notable now, he will continue to be notable. Even if he's forgotten and never given additional coverage again in the future. So the question is "Is he notable now?" Reach Out to the Truth 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Interesting - how do you test for that? I know games designers/producers/directors, with far more impressive careers than Paul that are not in Wikipedia. Should they be, probably not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.155.52 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to apply: "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Is his career notable, or just the part where he worked at Mythic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.155.52 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really an event, there doesn't seem to be any event here. But his position at Mythic alone would indeed not satisfy notability requirements. To establish notability, we'd need coverage of him, not just stuff he happened to be involved with. I haven't gone searching yet, but the article in its current form is extremely lacking in that regard. If we can't find significant coverage of Barnett himself, the article will likely be deleted. That is the real problem, he doesn't seem to meet the GNG at all, regardless of NOTTEMP. Reach Out to the Truth 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the notability is not temporary policy to mean that if someone is regarded to be notable at one period in time, they are always considered notable. I think it both prevents someone in a small news story from being considered notable but also allows notability for people who do something that is notable but then falls out general coverage. It seems to me that Paul Barnett has had significant coverage, so that would qualify him to be notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is where I disagree. You need to prove significant coverage. By significant I mean more so than any average head games designer. Any mainstream media coverage? TheEvery (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into the WP:DEADREF issue and found only one dead link, which I've now tagged. Reach Out to the Truth 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG

Why does this article meet the general notability guideline? Are there any references in "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals"? (see WP:GNG#cite_note-1) Is there anything he appears in that does not qualify as self promotion (or of the company he represents)? WP:SPIP TheEvery (talk) 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post, RockPaperShotgun, OnRPG, Joystiq, Joystiq 2, Gamasutra. These are not simple interviews about the latest gaming update; they are commentary about the person himself. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are much better, but I'm still not sure that he satisfies the GNG. Perhaps you should consider re-writing the article based on the facts in those articles, if it survives deletion. Washington Post and Gamasutra are definitely reliable sources, but I'm not so sure about Massively or Joystiq. Is there enough with those to qualify as notable. I think if we can find a few more of the quality of the former, the article should stay. 194.74.155.52 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not believe that those sources satisfy the GNG? That seems like more than enough to me. I understand and agree with your point that the article is not written well; however, I do not think that this merits deletion. Rather, the article needs to be rescued and improved, using the sources that have been found. I will work on rescuing the article later. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some extensive changes to the article now in an attempt to rescue it. I rewritten lots of it to keep it in line with the MOS, as well as policies - particularly WP:CRYSTAL and WP:PEACOCK. I've also removed a lot of the unreliable sources that were in the article and added all of the reliable sources that have been found during this discussion. It's still not perfect - I've not managed to use inline citations for a few of the sources and I'm still not quite happy with how it's written - however, I believe that it now sufficiently asserts notability and is more in keeping with some of the policies it was having problems with before. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, this may be the most appropriate action. My objection is that the vast majority of Paul's peers will go unrecognised, as they don't have the EA/Mythic PR machine. TheEvery (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but it's out of our control. Though there may be many other game designers who deserve notability, only a few are actually notable. We need to be neutral and so we really have no option but to accept that those with strong backing will end up more notable. I don't always like it, but we have no real alternative. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just alter the ever changing notability guidelines to include a list of what makes a game designer notable. Some people right now, insanely enough, believe even if you made a billion dollar earning game, that doesn't make you notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dream_Focus#Making_a_billion_dollar_game_doesn.27t_make_you_notable.] Dream Focus 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced he is notable. The only articles that really support notability are the one in RockPaperShotgun and the Gamasutra one. And the Gamasutra one is really, really borderline. He was interviewed by the Washington Post. That's cool, but I'm not sure it supports notability per the GNG, but does per common sense. The rest of the articles don't really have any support for notability, and since the ones that do are so paltry it's hard to say this article should be kept. If he really was that notable, people would be writing about him. He'd be all the over the place. I'm not seeing that. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage has been found. Dream Focus 22:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
specifically what coverage? why is the coverage good enough? TheEvery (talk) 19:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage that has been provided is accessible from the list of sources on the article. Seeing as you are finding the quality of the coverage a problem, would you like to tell us which source you have an issue with, please? At present, just telling us that you do not think the sources are reliable or of good quality without any reasoning is unhelpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref1 is an interview, Ref2 is PR, ref3 is dead, ref4 is an interview, ref5 is an interview, ref6 deals with the video game not the person, ref7 is very short but perhaps supports notability, ref8 is promotional material, ref9 is an interview podcast. The only one that supports notability is Ref7. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews of people count as notable coverage of course. The first one is in the Washington Post titled First Person Singular: Paul Barnett, creative director of a video-game company [1] How does that not prove the man is notable? Dream Focus 20:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Is that a primary source? Is it independent of the subject? Just one article, which is an interview, probably isn't enough. 194.74.155.52 (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources are already mentioned in the article and above in the discussion. And it is clearly a reliable source, third party, independent of the subject. Dream Focus 08:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? 194.74.155.52 (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ones listed in the article. Dream Focus 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not count interviews as supporting notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. They are primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.155.52 (talk) 09:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, in this case, they do. They seem to be from reliable, third-party sources. If they were self-published interviews, I'd agree; they are not. An interview is not a primary source, as it is not published by the subject. What is it about interviews that you believe does not establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable publications often bring out heads of PR departments to discuss the latest add-on to the new gizmo. I don't think this makes that person notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you who don't know what primary sources are, look it up at WP:PRIMARY. Interviews are NOT a primary sources. Dream Focus 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR: "Further examples of primary sources include .. interviews .." Interviews have always been primary sources. They can be reliable, if published by a reliable entity and there's no reason to believe the interviewee is dishonest. But they are still primary, because the material comes from the subject themselves. Personally, I consider reliable interviews to further subject to pass WP:GNG, because a reliable entity has bothered to interview them in the first place. So that has to be indicative of "media attention". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just last week that was removed and re-added back again[2]. Oh well, my mistake. Anyway, I agree, interviews have always counted as significant coverage, and thus pass WP:GNG Dream Focus 09:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG States, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources" TheEvery (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources by Odie5533; cannot see how this does not pass WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG States, ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources" TheEvery (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Books

I've searched google books and I can't find anything referencing him. Whereas if you look for Raph Koster you can find plenty. Raph's article is shorter than Paul's. Raph is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEvery (talk • contribs)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable game designer who has worked on high-profile games, and has enough sourcing, from reliable sources, to be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The blanket statements on interviews at various pages are wrong (read the various talk pages). Enough sources exist for this subject. So keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 19 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 delete; no evidence that he passes the GNG. Big Dom 07:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Adams (baseball)

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

Non-notable baseball player, fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. I'm surprised it passed its first AfD, as my thought was PROD when I came across it. Winning a title in the minors does not establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.- William 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I voted keep last time... I feel his accomplishments as a minor league manager are notable. Spanneraol (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think winning a championship in a Class D league is notable, not much in GNG. Secret ^account 20:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a league championship at any professional level is, or should be, borderline notability; winning two establishes notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But BASE/N doesn't say anything like that. In terms of publicity, minor league championships often don't generate much more than a typical game story. — NY-13021 (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bushranger I'll agree with you on higher level minor league (at least Single A Advanced or C league), that winning multiple championships are notable, but D-league is the equivalent of a very low level rookie league standards back then, wasn't really considered "fully-professional". Secret ^account 04:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Secret. WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N are pretty clear on the matter, and a D-league manager isn't enough for me to IAR over. Trusilver 22:32, 17 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Wroe

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

An actress. Her acting experience is three episodes of TV, one movie and one short. Fails WP:NACTOR. No significant, reliable sources about her to be found. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The most substantial item is stuff like this which mentions her gymnastics background. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No evidence of any notability.Vincelord (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:34, 15 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Gang Music

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

Very few internet hits. Not notable Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to meet WP:BAND, has a list of non notable persons per WP:LISTPEOPLE, and notability is not inherited. Note: The Billboard link fails to load.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is this article even legit? I tried a Google search of "Fly Gang Music" "Bow Wow" (considering the article states the artists are closely linked) and found bugger-all apart from a few mirror sites. Not even the forum/blog mentions that one would expect of a non-notable group with some minor success. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:35, 15 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 delete. causa sui (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of motion and time sequence analysis related concepts

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

Contested PROD. This is an index page copied from the CVOnline web site then partly linked. Except many of the items aren't linked. Many that are linked aren't to an article that matches the link text but are piped to another, often more than one link to the same one (I count five to video tracking, four to optical flow, etc.). Even if all the non-links, surprising targets and duplicates were tidied up it's not clear what it's for: a page that links to both photographic mosaic and linear motion is not a useful navigation aid for any topic on Wikipedia. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment _ I have no opinion substantively, but I deprodded it because I though that its deletion would need to be discussed in a wider forum. It could be useful as a place to search for related articles. What do you folks think? Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's copied from this, which is one of the top level 'indexes' for CVonline. I have no particular interest in computer vision but first looked at it when dealing with link spam by this article's creator, as described on that editor's talk page. It is organised very differently to Wikipedia, with less than twenty indexes for the whole content (though each link is to a database query rather than to an article). My own view is it's a poor way to organise content on their site but is an even poorer fit here, as CVonline's 17 or so indexes are far too broad to be useful here, never mind the duplication of links, excessive piping and many non-links.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to meet GNG and is obviously an example of plagiarism. Chris (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete due to WP:COPYVIO. --Kvng (talk) 14:26, 18 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 keep. NW (Talk) 22:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gavrilo Princip

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

See WP:BLP1E. This guy is basically only notable for assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria -- the rest of the coverage is basically just window-dressing for basically one event. Essentially an attack article. Subject is not independently notable. Perhaps merge into Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked Gavrilo Princip is not a living person and hence not covered by Biography of Living Persons policy...For that reason alone this AfD doesn't look like it's going to get anywhere.

In fact, the wrongly quoted policy also links to this, Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event

"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

Case closed. ChiZeroOne (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. The large coverage by reliable sources of Anthony Bologna devotes significant attention to the individual's role but that is under question in its own afd. Furthermore, the content of this piece really should be merged into the Assassination article anyway. This piece is essentially an attack article sourced by the media of his time. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as one of the most absurd proposals ever to come to AFD. He's not living. He's a historical figure. GMAFB. The guy's actions led to WWI. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comparison to the copy who sprayed protesters in New York is inane. This man touched off World War I! And yes, that's right, he's dead. If he was alive, given how old he would be, that would certainly make him worthy of an article. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep ONEEVENT doesnt apply in such major cases as this, and your proposal is ridiculous- Paticulary since this is a highly sourced , historical and controversial article it could even be treated as vandalism. Besides Chizero pretty much sums it up - it even mentions Princip's NAME in the rules! Goldblooded^{Return Fire} 22:41, 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons (pinball)

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

A completely unsourced five-year-old stub for a pinball machine with no evidence of notability. Just because a thing exists does not mean it deserves a place in Wikipedia. If there were some notability or significance to this particular game, I could certainly see keeping it, but as it stands there is basically no content. And with the article already being five years old, I would assume that if there was anything important to say people would have already done so. Obviously The Simpsons is notable, but most of the merchandise bearing their name will not be. Dragons flight (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a trivial topic. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment My understanding from previous discussions is that pinball games from major manufacturers see reviews in trade publications and nearly all are notable. Seems likely to have sources enough to meet WP:N Hobit (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I notified the relevant wikiproject. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep I'm not finding a slew of sources right away, but I'm at least able to verify that the game exists. Hobit is correct that pinball periodicals would have been around at the time the game was released, and probably would have covered this game. There are also lots of pinball books that have been written that aren't searchable online; maybe those could help. The fact that something has been a stub for five years should have no bearing; there's lots and lots of much more important stuff that isn't getting done at all. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the surface, this machine is just yet another piece of Simpsons merchandize, but I dug a bit deeper and found that it is a pretty important machine in the development of pinball machines (read my recent additions). --Maitch (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made by Maitch. Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed the prod because I though it's likely to be controversial, and having seen so many, I assume it's popular and thus likely to be sourceable. It has been sourced, and thus improved per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Footnotes showing independent coverage and text asserts award-winning status. Article contains significant content which would be lost by deletion; no benefit to the project commensurate with this loss for making this go away. Needs improvement through normal editing process. Carrite (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per several reliable sources added to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:35, 13 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 delete. Currently fails GNG and NFOOTBALL; can be recreated if/when he becomes notable. Big Dom 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Hoxha

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not actually made an appearance at a fully-professional level yet. Lack of significant media coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —Futbollisti (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Subject still fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 if applicable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Nominator tried to G4 this 10 minutes after the article was created. I declined the speedy because there was claims of being on 2 teams in leagues of fully professional players to potentially meet criteria 2 of WP:NFOOTY (the specialty criteria) that derails the previous claim in the AfD made 2 years ago). I notice that the nominator has not tried to contact the author to help them improve the article. I would like to see the WP:BEFORE test applied. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no professional debut in competitive game. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Matthew_hk t c 21:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell, this player has only played football for Inter at a youth level, then was loaned out to Piacenza without making any first team appearances.[3] He signed for Varese in July but he's not listed in their first team. There's no verifiable evidence that he has played at a fully professional level nor at a full international level (again, only youth), meaning he fails WP:NFOOTY at the moment. There's also no evidence he passes general notability guidelines neither. —BETTIA— ^talk 09:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has a professional contract with Inter (and I brought the sources [4]). He also meets WP:GNG: lots of articles about him being the future of Albania's national team, and I brought some online ones. Much more in print, unavailable for me now, since I currently am not living in Tirana.Futbollisti (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having a professional contract doesn't make you notable. Neither does rountine sports coverage. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The five sources that I brought cannot fall under WP:ROUTINE, because that would be for examples such as sports scores. I brought articles in well quoted sports websites which cover football in Albania and Albanian footballers abroad. It seems like you are misinterpreting WP:ROUTINE for sports, probably because you don't know Albanian. Is there anything you would want me to translate? Four of them (out of five) cover exclusively for Fabio Hoxha. The fifth is an interview of his coach, who praises him to be the future of Albania national futball team. If that doesn't satisfy GNG... Futbollisti (talk) 20:25, 16 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 deleted. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 00:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 THE WAR AGAINST ISLAM

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

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, contested PROD. Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 21:21, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Night Mannheim

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

Regional sporting contests without lasting notability. Does not pass WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks independent sources and is about a minor organization that has done 4 events since 2006. Astudent0 (talk) 18:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion with a few minor events--nothing significant. Also, lacks good sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete clearly fails WP:SPORTSEVENT . LibStar (talk) 13:43, 16 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 redirect to Vaccine controversy. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccine critic

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

Neologism, not in wide use (only a mere 5300 ghits, when put in quotes, 7 book results, no news results, 10 google scholar - and these are trivial mentions in every case I looked at. These are paltry numbers for a neologism article). The article further has little to no actual content, not covered by, say, anti-vaccination or similar. The article itself admits that it's poorly-defined. Further, while claiming to be a separate term from anti-vaccinationist, many of the people who are supposedly separate from the anti-vaccination movement are, in fact, the leading lights of the anti-vaccination movement, which makes the distinction extremely dubious. Probably Original research.

Long story short, there is no evidence this term has any notability as a distinct term, nor that it has ever been consistently used (and it's not been used very much!) to make the distinction the article wishes to draw. I'll buy that someone, somewhere, might have tried to make the distinction - but it hasn't caught on, and I can find no evidence that anyone accepts this definiton.

Nonce words are words that are created for a very specific purpose, that are unlikely to come up again. For instance, one muight create the unlikely term dechickenization in your story about a mad scientist who stuck the hero's brain in a chicken. It wouldn't appear in a dictionary, but the meaning is clear. I suspect that the few uses of this we do see are mere nonce phrases - de novo combinations of "vaccine" and "critic" in order to quickly describe someone in simple terms for newsprint and such. 86.** IP (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to vaccine controversy; anything notable can be covered there. It's not clear what the encyclopedia would gain with a standalone article, particularly given the dearth of specific, non-trivial sources. MastCell ^Talk 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to vaccine controversy per User:MastCell. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with MastCell Shot info (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I created List of people associated with vaccination to hold some of this stuff, but am not strongly attached to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to vaccine controversy...the above arguments cover it. — Scientizzle 15:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Clearly non-notable neologism. Clearly violates WP:CFORK, as content is already covered in Vaccine controversy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article be merged with the article on vaccines? I agree that this does not really merit its own article, but I think that it can be merged quite safely. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources for its content, so, no, not really. 86.** IP (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that if one types "vaccine critic" into the box on the left, one now gets redirected to vaccine controversy anyway. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why that would be: It's not been redirected. You sure? 86.** IP (talk) 11:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried typing "vaccine critic" into the box on the left just now, and still got redirected to "vaccine controversy", so it seems as if it has been redirected. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, now, but that hadn't happened at the time. 86.** IP (talk) 17:08, 18 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 delete. v/r - T P 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meole Brace Municipal Golf Course

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

I don't see any evidence that this golf course is notable. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor golf course, not used for competitions, of local interest only. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find any reliable sources of the subject that offer significant coverage. Non-notable golf course. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:46, 17 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. Non-admin closure, nominator withdrew AFD. Keresaspa (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Guerreros

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

Not notable. Being the daughter of someone doesn't mean your notable. Also there is a real lack of references Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 20:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep but only once the article has been reverted to this version. An article about the wrestling stable, which is what this was until User:Supermhj8616 suddenly changed it, is definitely notable unlike the current revision which is not. I would suggest revert to the version I have linked to and then speedy close. Keresaspa (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now restored the version linked above. Keresaspa (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that is the case please cancel this AFD. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 03:05, 11 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perchance to Dream (Batman: The Animated Series)

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

In-universe trivia, no secondary sources. Somehow kept at last AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that these particular episodes are individually notable (no awards or secondary sources to demonstrate coverage). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:38, 15 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 merge to Two-Face. Courcelles 21:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Face (Batman: The Animated Series)

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

Mysteriously kept at last AFD. Spammy, in-universe, trivia-laden, no out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The A.V. Club reviewed it,[5] in fact they're going through doing episode-by-episode reviews for the whole series. There are probably other sources commenting on these particular episodes, regardless of the current state of the article (and AFD is not for cleanup), given that it was a highly popular, acclaimed, award-winning, and influential animated series. It looks like Cinefantastique, for example, published an episode guide to the series, from the citation [in this source], though I haven't found an online copy of it. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two-Face already discusses the Animated Series version in some detail; could we not merge this to that article? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant content to Two-Face and delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 17 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 Withdrawn. postdlf arguement is quite convincing. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Six

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

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for musicians. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies GNG. Did you just base your deletion nom off the current state of the article, or did you follow WP:BEFORE? Because I found significant coverage with little difficulty,[6] including, among others, a dedicated entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Sixties Music ("This respected beat group..."). And they appear to be integral to the history of Deep Purple, such that this book about that band has at least several pages just about the history of Episode Six. And Episode Six has a biography in AllMusic.[7] postdlf (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it does appear that there are two books with several pages on the music groups. They appear to be good quality sources. I had done a search, and there didn't appear to be any sources that were specifically about the group. The books you link above are on the Deep Purple article. This group appears to have a role in Deep Purple's formation. My concern is on whether or not this article warrants a separate article. There doesn't appear to be any coverage apart from Deep purple. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the decision whether to maintain separate articles for related things or phases of something's history is a normal editing decision, not a matter for AFD, but my opinion from what I've seen here (I'd never heard of this band until seeing this AFD) is that a standalone article is appropriate. The AllMusic entry and the various music encyclopedia entries I found through Google Books are all about Episode Six in its own right, not merely within an entry on Deep Purple, and even within the Deep Purple book the content about Episode Six is very substantial. More importantly, Episode Six didn't become Deep Purple though some of its members later formed that band and it may be most of why they are remembered now; Episode Six was a separate entity, with different and additional members, that performed and released albums and singles under that name. So kind of like Mother Love Bone's relationship to Pearl Jam, though Episode Six even kept going for years after Deep Purple formed. postdlf (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it needs citations. Two former members who have never been in Deep Purple (Mick Underwood and John Gustafson) are also considered notable enough to have their own articles. Furthermore, I recall reading that the band were commercially successful in the Middle East during the late 1960s, though I don't have the source to hand. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:06, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkadiy Abramovich

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

Individual of questionable notability. Main claim to fame seems to be being the son of a rich businessman. A Google news search shows zero recent news results, and only 19 in the archive. Little significant coverage of the individual on his own merits - most are tied to his father's money. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Roman Abramovich.--Cavarrone (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete the BBC source doesn't mention Arkadiy, so we are left with a rumour reported in the Telegraph. Sources do not establish subject's notability. Maybe redirect as suggested above.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Business activities of this person (not of his father) are a subject of interest of multiple mainstream media not only in UK, see the G-News search result for Arkady Abramovich. It means that Arkad(i)y Abramovich may be a subject of interest for our readers, and we should provide neutral and encyclopedic information. I've added missing citations. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment almost persuaded to withdraw delete. But the vast majority of the gnews hits are about the Copenhagen takeover, which did not happen. The article is improving, but I'd like to see one or two more good sources on Aradiy's independent activities.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just the FC Copenhagen takeover, but also the investments of the ARA Capital (Zoltav Resources PLC, Crosby Asset Management). I agree that his father's name plays an important role here, however, the information could be important for tracking economic activities of one of the wealthiest families residing in the UK, and it is verifiable by reliable sources. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic passes WP:BASIC, per [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Ongoing coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, you've talked me out of it.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that topic notability is based upon available reliable sources, and not references in articles themselves. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Google news archive results include some rather impressive coverage. Dream Focus 20:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its short but long enough to be a proper stub article, it appears to be well cited, seems notable enough, no reason to traunch. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:15, 15 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 delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Saint Pierre and Miquelon

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

0.2% out of a population of 6,000 is what, 10 people? There are more people living in an average block of flats than there are Muslims in SPM. This article has no potential for further expansion. I suggest redirecting it to Saint Pierre and Miquelon#Languages and religion. Ultimate Destiny (talk) 16:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—there are two reliable sources (so far; i added one) which have found it relevant to discuss muslims in st pierre and miquelon, so it seems to me that the subject satisfies the gng. who are we to say that it has no potential for further expansion? that's not a reason for deletion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, you could write a little biography for every Miquelonais Muslim and the article would still be a stub. That's why I think it has no potential for expansion.--Ultimate Destiny (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and i will if there are sources for it! why does it matter?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's more like 12 people, rather than 10. Even so, this information should be in the Saint Pierre and Miquelon article, if it's anywhere. Though it's dubious that 12 people (two families?) makes it notable enough even there. First Light (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i would think that it's coverage in rs that decides notability, rather than existence in the present day. surely you don't want to delete all the articles on north american dinosaurs?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no - coverage alone isn't enough. Significant coverage is required. Merely being mentioned in a reliable source doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. Even with significant coverage, it's "not a guarantee" that the subject is notable. In such cases, "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article". Read WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fair enough. i didn't mean to suggest that the notability of the topic was obvious on the basis of the sources. clearly it's arguable, and arguing it is what we're doing here. i merely meant to point out that it's the coverage in rs that should be the basis on which the decision is made, rather than the number of people involved.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the Islam by Country series. The information is referenced. The fact there is little to talk about in terms of numbers is (IMHO) irrelevant. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal of !vote after consideration, examining of the series as a whole and unsuccesfully attempting to find sources with any info to add historical information to article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The numbers isn't the issue, even though it has been raised. It's the lack of significant coverage, which means that the article will never be more than a "fact", which is not the same as an "article". First Light (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~An encyclopaedia is a collection of facts. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

An encyclopedia article is a collection of facts, with explanation, based on significant coverage by reliable sources. This single fact belongs in an "article", namely Saint Pierre and Miquelon. By itself it's just a "fact" and not an "article". It would be like having an "article" titled Nachos at Chiquito (restaurant), with the entire article consisting of "There are nachos at Chiquito (restaurant), with x number served every day." Without significant coverage, that "fact" wouldn't merit an article. First Light (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh Lord, not THAT bloody restaurant again!! But I can assure you, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that Chiquito's do indeed serve nachos :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The number of Muslims in Saint Pierre and Miquelon is largely irrelevant to notability. What matters is significant coverage. What we have is simply a demographic facts and not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY:

"Rather than merely writing "Original research", or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability", consider writing a more detailed summary, e.g. "Original research: Contains speculation not attributed to any sources" or "Does not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability – only sources cited are blogs and chat forum posts"."

Closing administrators are likely to ignore !votes that have no justification or explanation. First Light (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reliable sources available; merging to either Saint Pierre and Miquelon or Islam in France would be WP:UNDUE, for obvious reasons for the former, and because there is no #by department section in the latter. Makes a part of a series on 'Islam in the Americas' (see navbox); if Islam in the Americas is ever written as an actual article as opposed to what it currently is (which is about to be speedied...), it could be merged and redirected there, but until then, keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The current article is a demographic fact with no likelihood of possibility to expand into an article. If and when an article on Islam in the Americas is created, this fact demographic fact can be added to the article, but that does not require us to keep an article around to hold onto this fact. A link to the source document could be added to any of a number of places such as at the talk page of the Saint Pierre and Miquelon to note that the document exists and could be used for Islam demographics. -- Whpq (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not a collection of demographic information of very small subcultures. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not? why not?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Demographics of Saint Pierre and Miquelon#Religions. Given that there are fewer than a dozen Muslims in this area the article cannot possibly ever amount to more than a one-sentence stub. This topic deserves at most an entry in a table rather than a separate article. Hut 8.5 22:37, 18 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 redirect to TMNT (film). (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (deliver) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Santino

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

Secondary character with no established notability. Unfortunately, {{db-person}} only applies to real people? Frietjes (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TMNT (film). Article is simply character description with no idependent notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-No independent notability at all. A one off character. Redirecting such a generic name is is unneeded; it ties up a potentially common term for no good reason. oknazevad (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That issue is resolved by setting a redirect for Colonel Santino (fictional character) or Colonel Santino (TMNT). The redirect result still being the removal of this unsourced character description and the sending of readers to the one place where the character has context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thise are exceedingly unlikely search terms though. This is a decidedly minor character in the franchise as a whole, and not even the primary antagonist of the one and only work in which he appears; the chances of anyone searching for the character are rather low. We can't create double redirects, so what's the point of having the existing undisambiguated title at all if there's near zero chance of the character's name being searched. It's not a bad thing if someone winds up at the search results instead of an article. oknazevad (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That someone created the article in the first place indicates that it is a just likey enough search term. I agree that although sourcable,[13] the character descriptive has no independnt notability. What we disagree on, is how to best serve readers who may wish to search for this TNMT character. And to be clear, I was not at all suggesting a double redirect... simply leaving "Colonel Santino" as a redlink AFTER this article is deleted, and creating a new one from either of my suggested ideas and in order to guide a reader. Redirects are cheap. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the articles is a plot-only description of a fictional work. I also believe that it is an unlikely search term because it is a secondary character not firmly associated with the TMNT film . Jfgslo (talk) 04:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TMNT (film) - redirects are cheap, and keeping a redirect, as I recall, actually takes up less space on the servers than deleting does. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 17 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 delete. Clearly no sourcing for these. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W34CR

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

Contested PROD; for some reason after a first contesting it was re-nominated, which cannot be done. There are no sources outside of the FCC for this silent low-power station; it does claim a former Annenberg Channel affiliation, but is a very small satellite repeater of such networks really that notable?

I am also nominating the following related article:

It's the same reasoning as with W34CR; outside of the differing technical and call sign information, the two articles are identical. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- Non-notable, low-powered stations, with no sources (other than FCC records), and no evidence of them ever being on. -- azumanga (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both -- The stations are licensed by the FCC. Many small low power silent stations have articles on Wikipedia, so these two should remain -- someguy23475 —Preceding undated comment added 00:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Even if they were licensed by the FCC, creating an article only on that fact is not good enough for Wikipedia atandards -- its notability, the programming it offers, sources of the station's existence beyond FCC records and even whether or not it went on the air at all must be taken into consideration. -- azumanga (talk) 04:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The station had been on the air before, this is from personal conversations between myself and the late owner's daughter, and a member of the school district where the tower currently stands. Using your criteria, WXON-LP in Flint should be deleted as well, since that runs at very low power and hasn't been confirmed on the air. Someguy23475 —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Nevertheless, more tangible information, other than conversations, is necessary. Unless it is documented and accessible, we simply can't take your word for it.-- azumanga (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then what exactly is the harm of leaving it alone? There are certainly more articles that are deemed less important and less relevant than this one. Someguy23475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.123.9 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the main fact that there are absolutely no sources available, other than what the FCC says. In the case of WXON, there are some sources (such as michiguide.com) that gives more detail on its broadcasting history, but for those two articles in question, there is almost absolutely nothing. -- azumanga (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Michiguide lists and has pages on both W34CR and W41CK. (Someguy23475) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.123.9 (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, which requires multiple reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The FCC's website is one source. Michiguide.com also has a page on these stations. Hence, multiple sources. (User:Someguy23475) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.24.245 (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But Michigiude does not say much other than what the FCC site says. You can Google W34CR and get plenty of hits from many sites, but all of them draw the same info from the FCC. There is nothing out there that gives the same info beyond what's already available from the FCC. -- azumanga (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Merge a group of the low power stations. Otherwise they fail WP:GNG. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both/create and redirect to List of low-power television stations or List of defunct low-power television stations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both suggested articles do not currently exist on Wikipedia, as they show up as red links. -- azumanga (talk) 01:51, 17 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. Some notability shown. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mizz Nina

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

Delete. Notability not established in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Several claims made in the article are unverifiable. Recommend deletion due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since I found some sources: one from AsiaOne, one from New Straits Times, and one from Utusan which I unfortunately cannot find an english version of. §everal⇒|Times 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There appears to be plenty of coverage. In addition to the above noted articles, there is this article about her, and this article and her marriage was apparently a big deal. There's muany more hits in Google News that I dind't bother with as these sources are sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Shows some notability. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:19, 16 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Haywood

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

Spammy article about a marketing and PR guru. No reliable sources, heavily promotional content. The article claims that "As the world’s first issues analyst, he is regularly quoted in the media" but there are zero news hits on Google. Relatively few other hits on Google, either. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little or no reliable, independent coverage that I can see.
And watch out, same editor (Seb1990 contribs) has tried to spammify [14] a related article and seems poised to try again -- see (and please watchlist) Talk:Issue_management and User:Seb1990/issues_management.
Actually, I'm not sure Issue management is notable anyway, but I'll leave that to others. Oh... just noticed there's an incipient editwar brewing too, now that another SPA has joined in: [15].

EEng (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE non-notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can confirm that he is quoted in the press. But that doesn't establish notability. The most substantial coverage I could find was this very short bit. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. I couldn't find any reliable source covering him in any substantial manner. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:01, 17 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 redirect to Meghann Shaughnessy#Personal life. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Font de Mora

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

fails WP:Notability both as a player (fails WP:NTENNIS - ITF and ATP/ATP have no record of him) and sports coach or executive Mayumashu (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meghann Shaughnessy#Personal life as it seems all the information I can find refer to him with respect to his relationship with Shaughnessy as coach and romantic partner. In particular, Sports Illustrated and New York Times. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meghann Shaughnessy#Personal life. This person is not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:44, 14 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; the original author blanked all the substantive text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buysubzi

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

Speedy (A7 and G11) and PROD tags removed by possible sock of page author. No sources, no claim to notability, entirely promotional in tone. Yunshui (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page author has now admitted to removing the speedy and PROD tags using an alternate account. The article has thus been re-tagged for speedy deletion. Yunshui (talk) 13:00, 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. Nomination withdrawn. Goodvac (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Winder

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

Non-notable. It has been deleted before back in 2005. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the social history of disability in online communities, more than his journalism. This deserves expansion - it was a significant incident in the evolution of UK online communities and their maturity to deal with such issues. Just because something happened outside the US and before most WP editors were born isn't grounds for non-notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow can we stop with the assumptions please, I'm not from the US. Two people voting for a keep is enough to rest my concerns, so I'm withdrawing my nomination 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already has one solid reference, and the potential for expansion is excellent. I agree with Andy. Personal disclosure: I met my wife, who is deaf, through a teletype conversation in 1980, so I can relate to this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle (Nelly Furtado album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL violation. There's no confirmed release date, no confirmed tracklist. The "recorded songs" list is not a list of songs reliably targeted for this album: it's compiled from things like this and two year old vague articles. There's certainly an album coming out someday, and the working title is certainly "Lifestyle", but this does not cross the threshold of certainty needed for an article about a future topic. —Kww(talk) 11:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - eo (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking notability as per WP:NALBUMS. It's nice to see that some sources are provided but none of them actually confirm anything concrete about the album itself. Twitter sources are also unreliable, as usual. §everal⇒|Times 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:08, 16 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kontejner

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

An art centre in Zagreb. Clearly written up by someone with a COI. Lots of external links but do any demonstrate the notability of the centre? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 15 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 per WP:G11. --Gh87 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Invest

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

No evidence that this meets the notability guideline. The only reference is the company's website and a search doesn't find significant coverage from other reliable sources. Peter E. James (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No minimal claim to encyclopedic importance and unambiguous advertising: The aim is to find the perfect mix of companies that deliver good profit and dividend and companies with a potential growth. So tagging. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 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 Closed due to artilce having been speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilverBuildIT

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

No evidence that this meets the notability guideline. The only reference is the company's website and a search doesn't find significant coverage from other reliable sources. Peter E. James (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Article about a multinational IT Company that tells us that was started by building web applications for companies but expanded to making applications for iPhone and Android... and Facebook and that the founders of the company are a team of entrepreneurs with more than 10 years of experience from IT, Telecom, Finance and Customer Service. Yes, but what do these things do? Unambiguous advertising and no minimal claim to encyclopedic importance. So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dive-able World Heritage Sites

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

Aquatic World Heritage Sites would be an interesting topic, to be sure, but we'd need to see it discussed in reliable sources; this list is original research (water volume deep enough to scuba dive in, etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not even accurate WP:OR - surely diving into the Victoria Falls is suicide? And I wouldn't favour diving into the Island of Mozambique (at least not from a greater height than a couple of inches).
Joking aside, the article is primarily a collection of locations where one can (allegedly) swim and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:10, 15 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Patel Theory of a Negative Hole

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

Smells like WP:OR. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 06:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORIGINAL - page was created by a user with a name similar to the author of the theory. It's clearly orignal research. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research per WP:OR and as the above. The references provided don't support the claims made in the theory. §everal⇒|Times 16:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, probably WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete—the scherezade theory of a positive hole proves that time and space are wasted by this article and it will be a net positive force on wikipedia should this fall into a hole. (meaning per above, of course)— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be covered in reliable sources. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 01:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original PROD: concern = Seems to be original research violating WP:ORIGINAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—none of the sources suggest this isn't completely made up by the author. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have to agree with everyone here. As stated previously, the article is violation of WP:OR and probably WP:MADEUP. Chris (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No scholar hits, books hits, etc. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:OR. Academic searches show nothing. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:09, 17 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, no dispute that WP:GNG is satisfied, and WP:POLITICIAN is conclusively met by her tenure in the Louisiana House of Representatives. postdlf (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Clarkson

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

Wikipedia is not an election soapbox. Being a city council member, the subject does not appear to have the customary level of notability/status for a WP article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her candidacy added with her daughter's fame makes her notable enough for an article. -- Evans1982 (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is NOTINHERITED, so it doesn't matter who her daughter is. She doesn't seem to pass WP:POLITICIAN as she hasn't held any post above city office. Yunshui (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POLITICIAN isn't met as far as I can see - she was a district councillor. I can't see that a redirect to her daughter's article would be of any use. Colon el Tom 12:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Longtime well-known New Orleans figure (former state legislator, city council president, highly visible activist) on her own merits. Article has sources, plenty of additional coverage is available[16][17], she passes WP:GNG and (as a former state legislator) unambiguously passes WP:POLITICIAN. However, the current article is out of date and its tone is inappropriately promotional (the version in place before January 2010 was less so[18]), and I would also have no problem with cutting down the long list of local election results. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've updated the lede; the article needs work and more citations but I think notability is established.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives she does meet WP:POLITICIAN. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and Mark Arsten--Cavarrone (talk) 20:38, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VAD 43 MRC Klang Chapter

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

Non-notable local sub-group of an organisation. Not independently verifiable. Clearly written by members of the group as self promotion ("our team" and also Committee section). Probable copyright violation (direct copying of the Attributes section). Extremely high results in the Article Rating feature means this article is very likely written by and for the groups' members. See also Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. Witty lama 05:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 - unambiguous advertising or promotion, unless I'm misreading the criteria. Colon el Tom 12:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 03:00, 15 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 merge and/or redirect to List of All My Children characters. As per previous AfDs on this subject, most of these articles are unsourced and fail WP:GNG. There is some evidence here that Brooke English may be independently notable, but as pointed out the current state of the article's sources does not appear to support this. Therefore, I suggest redirecting all except this one, which I will place a merge tag on. If such 3rd party sources are found, then the merge can be cancelled. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of All My Children, volume 2

(View AfD)

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

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

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

These above articles could not establish notabilities for their fictional characters of cancelled soap opera All My Children. Also, the entries must have resembled the pages of fan dedication websites to soap operas and been full of plots and fictional in-universes and empty of factual perspectives. Most of them were previously PRODded; they were contested for possibly the reasons that may become less reliable, such as "editing them later". In fact, soap operas of the United States have been less discussed recently than long ago. Some editors of Wikipedia are so dedicated to soap operas that they want soap-opera-related articles, such as them above and the "see also" notice, saved.

Recently, there have been editings of cut-and-paste in List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, while the AfD discussions were running; therefore, I prematurely closed those discussions after the cut-and-paste editings by other editor(s) took place. So as long as this AFD discussion is open until it is closed for results, there shall be NO (and I mean... no) cut-and-paste editings and redirects and any other actions during the timing of this AFD for the above articles. Instead, I demand that issues be discussed here, and I mean it! --Gh87 (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it is highly inappropriate to make demands of this nature. This is a community run by consensus. Please keep your personal opinions and futile assertions to yourself. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for forty-one years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this show. postdlf (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. None of these characters needs her own Wiki page, none of them pass WP:GNG. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brooke English and Myrtle Fargate. Gh87 has shown more of his or her inexperience by nominating a group of articles without sufficiently checking for their notability. Character articles should not be nominated in a group like this, where the ones that are notable may be overlooked (as is clearly the case judging by the two editors' "votes" before me). There are various reliable third-party sources discussing Brooke English and her portrayer. Not just trivial mentions either.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] Finding these sources was as simple as searching under Brooke English All My Children. Likewise for Myrtle Fargate. Go figure. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the overly-detail storylines? How do one of use condensate the storylines? Also, you have brought up the sources; why can't you add them? --Gh87 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The storyline sections are irrelevant to this discussion. That is a matter of following WP:PLOT. In other words, that is a formatting issue. We are talking about notability, and both of these characters are notable. I shouldn't have to add the sources to the article when I have provided them in this debate. The closing administrator should know not to delete these articles by having read this discussion. I don't have to fix these articles up just to save them. All I have to do is show notability. If they are deleted, even though this debate has shown they are notable, then that is what WP:Deletion review is for. Or recreation. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a recreation of a same article, you must need approval from administrators first. If they decline, then what's the point of recreating, which is possibly against policies? Do you intend to use WP:Deletion review, or what are you up to? And how do you show notability? Also, the storyline sections from an article of a fictional character do matter for the AfD, even when you don't believe so. Without fact perspectives, such as "Reception", and without fair use, the article would appear to plagiarize or violate copyrights. --Gh87 (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! Just how new are you to Wikipedia? An article can be recreated so long as it provides notability that second time around. There is no process of going through administrators to do so. Do you think I am some new, naive editor? Well, I'm not. My knowledge of guidelines and policies should have proved that to you by now. I may intend to use deletion review if the two articles I have provided notability for above are deleted. What the heck do you mean "how do you show notability"? You show notability by providing reliable third-party sources, something you have been citing in all these deletion debates. If you have been citing that without knowing exactly how notability is provided, then that is even more reason that you shouldn't be nominating any article for deletion.

No, the storyline sections do not matter in AfD. WP:Notability is what matters. Get your facts straight if you are going to attempt to direct me on something. Character articles are not supposed to be nominated for deletion based on how much plot they have. It's supposed to be about whether or not they are notable. Storyline and reception sections are a matter of building and formatting the article. Not a matter of whether the article should be deleted. And saying "Without fact perspectives, such as 'Reception', and without fair use, the article would appear to plagiarize or violate copyrights." is also a no 174.137.184.36 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AFD should not have been bundled. Note that All My Children was created around the character of Phoebe Tyler. When the show speaks of "all my children", they are referring to her descendants. While some are major characters, others are minor and would appropriately be merged. Based on the format of this AFD, I recommend the articles kept. If the articles were unbundled, my recommendation would differ. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Phoebe Tyler Wallingford now sourced. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if the one source you provided isn't enough to establish notability, which could be argued (since Wikipedia typically wants multiple third-party sources showing notability), there are several books in the Further reading section listed as sources that the character is also discussed in. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the catch on the Further reading section. That said, books are valid sources for establishing notability. Accordingly, nine new sources have been provided to sufficiently establish notability beyond that which already existed. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 21:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it all right to withdraw a bundled nomination and then re-nominate separately? --Gh87 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I am unable to quote a policy which supports or prevents this, but in another bundled discussion the nominator withdrew a single recommendation using <strike> </strike> ; the discussion continued, and the closer noted the single withdrawal in their remarks. Dru of Id (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters: None of the characters seems to meet the general notability guideline as stand-alone subjects and the content of their articles is a a plot-only description of a fictional work in all of them. While I personally favor deletion, in order to generate consensus, I believe that redirection is acceptable. Jfgslo (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: The articles are almost completely plot oriented with a few fansite sources thrown in. There aren't any reliable outside source. None of them meet the general notability guidelines. Rocksey (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL The articles all focus on very notable characters. Now the writing can be improved but don't nominate them for deletion, instead nominate them for clean up. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two -- Brooke English and Myrtle Fargate. That anyone would claim that there aren't any reliable third-party sources for any of these characters after the above display of reliable third-party sources is baffling. I also concur that this AfD should not have been bundled for the reasons given above and is therefore invalid. Flyer22 (talk) 20:13, 18 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 delete. causa sui (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of male action heroes

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

List fails WP:LSC. The list has no defineable criteria for inclusion, save the claim that each is an "action hero". The list is largely unsourced and simply a listing of names in many sections. The whole designation of someone as an "action hero" is fairly POV and opinion anyway, but without reliable sources, it's OR. The list goes even further by breaking entries down to subjective POV classifications like "old school action hero". In the end, little more than a random list of characters editors decided to put on the list. See the related WP:Articles for deletion/List of female action heroes Niteshift36 (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:IINFO. Ipsign (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sb617 (Talk) 10:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic appears to qualify for inclusion per WP:LISTN. Per these guidelines, the topic appears to have been discussed as a group, by reliable sources. One reliable source, in the external links section of the article is: *The Lost Action Hero - The Washington Post. Another, in the further reading section of the article appears to be a reliable source: Osgerby, Bill, Anna Gough-Yates, and Marianne Wells. Action TV : Tough-Guys, Smooth Operators and Foxy Chicks. London: Routledge, 2001. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list has no criteria for inclusion, very little sourcing and appears to consist largely of opinions from editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for inclusion is obviously whether or not a character has been described as an action hero in a reliable source. This article is likely doomed to be a mess of original research, but that's not to say an article with this topic and scope should not exist. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned in the related AfD that it didn't appear that anything short of gutting this article and starting from scratch would really solve it. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:20, 22 September 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 - T P 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Comment Note that Northamerica1000's rediculous assertion that WP:NOT is somehow notability criteria had nothing to do with my decision to relist. I feel a list such as this needs more discussion before being deleted.--v/r - T P 23:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As synthesis. Completely arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria. Fails both WP:LSC and WP:NLIST in every respect, since RS hasn't been applied or even asserted. I also don't understand how User:Northamerica1000 can so completely misread WP:NOT as WP:NOTE. BusterD (talk) 11:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable being covered in books such as:

The action hero in popular Hollywood and Hong Kong movies
Man-of-action heroes: how the American ideology of manhood structures men's consumption
Cartooning action heroes
The Action Hero Handbook
The Real Action Hero Manual
Television in Transition: The Life and Afterlife of the Narrative Action Hero

The extent to which this topic is divided between this and related articles such as action hero is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Deletion is therefore inappropriate. Warden (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You can Google news archive search for the names of anyone on the list, and the word "action" and see what appears. ~~http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1558141/steve-austin-leaves-stone-cold-behind.jhtml mentions he doesn't want to just be an action star, having done 50 action films already all of them blockbusters.~~ Google news archive search shows 14,400 results for "action hero". Some of those mention actors who are "action heroes." Inclusion can be an actor who played in a film of the action genre having a part of the hero perhaps. Perhaps split the list into different articles. List of male action heroes and List of fictional male action heroes. Dream Focus 01:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't spend much time reading that article did you? It says "Now, if I made 50 action/adventure movies and they were all blockbusters, yeah, I'd love to do that. But I don't want to be called the action guy because that's not what I'm trying to be." He hasn't made 50 movies, let alone 4 years ago when that article was from. Regardless, nobody has disputed that the term "action hero" exists, so reporting how many Gnews hits you get is pointless. Kind of ironic that User:Northamerica1000 spammed hundreds of articles with rescue tags, bringing the "it's all saveable" brigade from ARS, while using a ridiculous rationale for his keep !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misread that. Still, coverage exist for these guys, for being action heroes. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/life_and_entertainment/2009/03/27/1AA_12_ROUNDS_FEAT.ART_ART_03-27-09_D4_RMDC5SQ.html Wrestler pins his future on playing action hero. Dream Focus 01:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the term "action hero" exits in RS's. Again, the problem here is that 1) The list has no criteria and 2) it is almost entirely unsourced. I know ARS wants to save it, but sometimes it's better to start with a clean slate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ARS does not have a mind of its own, nor any leadership whatsoever. I have suggested a criteria. And its best to work with what you have, than to start over and hope someone takes the time to do it all over again. And you don't need a source for every single entry in a list, that just tedious pointless nonsense, since no one is going to be looking at all the newspaper links that use the words "action hero" by their names. If any item looks out of place, then do a quick search, and then remove it if necessary. Dream Focus 17:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of how ARS works and also the discussion about the numerous articles tagged recently by the editor that tagged this one (and gave one of the most ridiculous keep rationale's I've seen). But I disagree, you DO need a source for the entry. Either in the persons article or on the list. Otherwise, it is an editor opinion that they are an "action hero" belonging on the list. Every single one of them needs to be sourced. Anything not sourced is subject to immediate removal. And "suggesting" a criteria is different than having a discussion on the page and then creating one, isn't it? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is currently List of all actors who have been called action heroes by the media(come up with shorter name) and a List of all fictional male action heroes. Dream Focus 17:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe that the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists, since this list falls into what Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) which makes the list of fictional heroes/actors trivial, non-encyclopedic, and it is not related to human knowledge. I do not believe that the list has a selection criteria that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. All that this list has is entries of actors divided in an arbitrary way (e.g. Classic Action Heroes, Old School Action Heroes), combined with fictional characters (e.g. Television, Literature) without a single inline citation to support the content or justify the inclusion of real people with fictional characters. This list is created with original research by synthesis as no reliable secondary source appears to have such a division or to include real people with imaginary characters. I also do not believe that the the topic meets the general notability guideline and since notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, I believe that this article should be deleted, since the subject, as broad as presented in the article, has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. There are only a few of sources about the action hero concept with some examples, but not a list of action heroes per se, which in my opinion further emphasizes that the article is original research by synthesis. Jfgslo (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the List of female action heroes has been decimated and I expect the same editor, the proposer of deletion, will do the same here to this article the two articles might as well be remerged back to Action heroes. REVUpminster (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If "decimated" means removing unsourced info and OR, then yes, it was brought into compliance with Wikipedia policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or clean-up and merge: As synthesis. To loose a term to create a discriminate list. An article on action heroes is sensible. A list of every action hero is not. Sources apply this definition inconsistently and editors have shown themselves to apply this even more inconsistently. Dzlife (talk) 14:12, 3 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} 03:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Procedural relisting, as previously the article was not translcluded in the deletion log when it was previously relisted.

Delete the WP:LSC guideline shows that trying to select/exclude list members is going to be subjective and indiscriminate. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There's now three books in the Further reading section of the article:

Osgerby, Bill, Anna Gough-Yates, and Marianne Wells (2001.) Action TV : Tough-Guys, Smooth Operators and Foxy Chicks. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415226201
Tasker, Yvonne (2004.) Action and Adventure Cinema. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0203645154
Tasker, Yvonne (1996.) Spectacular Bodies : Gender, Genre, and the Action Cinema. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 041509223X

Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 books in the further reading section (of which I'll bet you'd read 0) and still none in the reference section. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:LSC. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without clear inclusion criteria this list is inherently indiscriminate, much better to list a few sourced examples at Action hero. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no clear criteria for inclusion, the list is OR. I could add Jim Parsons to this list seeing that inclusion is entirely arbitrary. Trusilver 23:47, 17 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 delete. causa sui (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ring road (Cairo)

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

This article is a silly content fork from Ring Road (Cairo) by an editor who didn't like the fact that many sources refer to the ring road with lower case; he won the RM and then made a new article for the lower-case version. - Dicklyon (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 as a duplicate, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I am that editor) Errr, there was a discussion here. Basically, the lower-case topic has very few sources and should have been completely removed, but I proposed to make a separate stub as a compromise. Only because it would be less confusing for readers to have a separate article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general concept of and plans for ring roads around Cairo is notable and distinct from the capitalised Ring Road which is a particular highway. For example, see this source which discusses three different Cairo ring roads. Warden (talk) 09:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unacceptable content fork. Warden is correct that the topic of uncapitalized ring roads may be notable, but this article is specifically about one road that encompasses the capitalized one. No prejudice against an article about the former topic (though the name would likely be something along the lines of Ring roads of Cairo. ^Bongo_matic 01:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and then~~ Merge - into Ring Road (Cairo). Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that means delete. If we delete, it will be easy to re-merge by reverting the removal of content forked from Ring Road (Cairo). Dicklyon (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the information is already present in the other article. If else, it needs to be rearranged to give more prominence to the idea that Ring Road is part of a ring road around Cairo. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of Ring Road (Cairo) which is the name of this topic. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicated content fork. Trusilver 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not needed. Dough 48 72 02:19, 18 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Braswell

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. One album on cdbaby, unsourced (copyvio from fan club removed[27]). SummerPhD (talk) 02:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to any significant coverage. ^Bongo_matic 00:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Braswell II? Dontforgetthisone (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, that article is about Donald Braswell II. What you are suggesting is equivalent to merging the articles France and Spain. Braswell and Braswell II are separate individuals, even if they are related. At most, Braswell would merit one or two sentences in the Braswell II article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:26, 16 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of Passions, volume 1

(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

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

The above articles do not have notability establishments, especially from the third-party sources. Also, each article is full of fictional entry as a resemblance of a biography. Also, the show Passions is cancelled for three years. Do we have to search for the older articles or the more recent articles to establish notability?
To be clear, there should be no cut-and-paste editings, especially from you, Casanova88, during the AfD span, including the relistings. Instead, we must discuss these articles, and then we'll let rather the administrators close for results after the time runs out than me close prematurely, as I did for fictional characters for All My Children. --Gh87 (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for nine years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this or any other show. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Bennett and Standish families? --Gh87 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all to List of Passions characters: The characters do not meet the general notability guideline as stand-alone subjects and their articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 15 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lashologist Council of America

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

Finishing an incomplete nomination on behalf of another user; deletion grounds are that it's essentially an unsourced piece of spamvertising for an organization of little to no properly demonstrated notability. Procedural nomination, no !vote, although there's obviously at least one delete to be added to the mix. Bearcat (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - though can't this be speedied as spam? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, I don't think so. While it's pretty clear to me that the editor who blanked it was correct in his or her assessment, and I'd have no objection if someone else felt it was speediable, to me it falls a little bit short (though admittedly not by much) of being blatant enough to trigger my speedy reflex. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per somebody. Promotional article for cartel wannabes: Increasingly, to the eyelash extension industry's detriment, unqualified individuals perform the procedure incorrectly and extensions begin to fall out immediately or within a few days. The Lashologist Council has embarked on a public awareness campaign to inform the public to seek out quailified, trained and certified lashologists. References are all to promotional pieces in minor trade outlets, and sponsored by this organization. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 15 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infosuicide

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

Not a well known or independently WP:RS notable neologism. Prod was removed with only a replacement of not Wikipedia reliable externals. Off2riorob (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, there are 3 external refs on there, all of which meet WP:RS, although one of them would be regarded as WP:SPS in this context (which is no reason to remove it, as you ought to well know). In particular, Eric Meyer's blog is considered as WP:RS for matters relating to web development, which this would fall under.

The big question - neo or notable? A week ago I'd have said no. People did it, the term was in use (for something like twenty years, back into the Usenet era), but no WP:RS were discussing it to the WP:N level. This week, after Mark Pilgrim did it, then yes, we do have WP:RS coverage of this act, and describing it under this term. So that's a keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem is that, according to WP:NEO, a term needs secondary reliable sources discussing its use, not showing evidence that it is used. Only two of the sources use the term, and I'm happy to accept that both are reliable - but unfortunately all they do is use it. The Daily Dot is close [28], but a little too limited to base an article on, and Eric Meyers only uses the term in passing. If there are some good sources discussing the term itself that would be great, though. - Bilby (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From WP:NEO: "Finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." ~~I have yet to see any WP:RS talking about the term to the WP:N level.~~^{Maybe, maybe not. See discussion below} Guy Macon (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Dot article, Kevin Morris (7 October 2011). "Committing infosuicide (or how to find happiness in eight steps)". The Daily Dot. {{cite news}}: External link in |journal= (help), is obviously inspired by Mark Pilgrim, but its scope is that of Infosuicide overall, not just this one case: it uses the term specifically in the title, it discusses other cases, it discusses the broader aspect, rather than just Pilgrim's behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that the article says "The phenomenon even has a name: infosuicide" with "infosuicide" being a link to this page. I wonder if the author knew the term before looking it up on Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that Wikipedia should create events, merely to collect and organize information. The term is not official definition and it's based on pop cultural idea. The word "suicide" is not proper for reverting to private life after closing personal pages, blogs and etc. There are many organizations and subcultures aimed at preventing suicides, other who still debate on the issue with euthanasia and other groups with issues regarding mental and physical problems. Eventually when there is a term that define the act to close an account it should be listed as such. For this is not a definition and Wikipedia should not be used to spread and make popular an abusive terminology for living people, who wish to receive some privacy. So delete and if there is a term that describe the action - list the right one. Afterall - should closing one account out of two means "partial-infosuicide"? Perfectford (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "official definition"? We don't observe such things, we follow WP:RS instead.

What is "pop culture" about this, and when did Wikipedia (Oh happy day!) start to exclude such "pop culture" material? Just take a look at where the bulk of wiki articles are!

You have a point that we should not trivialise suicide - yet it's not a point that has any relevance here. We don't invent this stuff, we just record it. We record it when someone else has used a term, even if we don't like the way they've done it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it may sounded like it's personaly and differs from efforts to be neutral point of view, however I've tried to add more to the debate, not simply concur the above. Following to watch), which states that one should make sure the resulting terms (when creating neologisms) are not misleading or offensive. Indeed "infosuicide" is misleading (it's not permanent). The "behavior" of the source that was mentioned above - it quotes Wikipedia, which makes event and coins the term "officialy" by having a Wikipedia article for it before it's used by a larger society. "Pop culture" stands for current cultural mainstream (really don't want to point obvious things), not ancient or past culture, so you can clearly make the difference between neologism and anarchism. And the reference with the culture was not to mislead one by coining new frase, based on what not so many use not so frequently. So based on WP:NEO "it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible", avoiding misleading. The term needs more sources, since now it's not wide spread (but as you stated - because of ther person it may go other way). Intil that time comes, people will refer to Wikipedia and insted to simply record the events, Wikipedia will create an event. PF (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that Mark Pilgrim made the same move (closing all accounts) in October 2004 and many blogs posted his last message, that he's looking for new hobby. So respectfully - everyone can have the freedom to open online account, close it and reopens when he wish, avoiding the use of definition which refers to something (life) terminal. PF (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable observation. Back it up with references and there could even be scope for a WP:NPOV section saying that Infosuicide is trivial and self-indulgent, because, unlike suicide, it's not permanent and seems to be often reversed afterwards. The "What has Mark Pilgrim had for breakfast?" meme that's circulating right now could even end up as part of this. This is one of those observations that might change the slant of an article, but I don't see it as reason to not have an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the five sources, only two use the term "infosuicide". Those sources use the term but don't discuss its use as required by WP:NEO. I did some searching but didn't turn up any other reliable sources. Lagrange 613 06:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 15 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Vilnius Athletics Championships

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. not even sure if this is even a national competition. in any case no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence to justify keeping. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 9 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} 00:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 15 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John McFarland (ice hockey)

AfDs for this article:

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

Junior player who has yet to play professionally or meet any of the conditions of WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if the subject achieves notability. Previous AfD was closed as “No-consensus”, and the newly modified WP:NHOCKEY makes his claim for notability even weaker now then it was then. Poinkie (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, as nom notes. Fails WP:GNG, with mostly mostly WP:ROUTINE mentions and player directory entries. I think pieces such as this and this are too small-potatoes to make the case for notability, but I certainly think there is a chance that he could pass WP:NHOCKEY in the future. If and when he does, let's have this article back. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 5 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} 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No pro experience, no appearances with the senior national time, insufficient coverage to meet GNG, awards won are minor and do not confer notability. Ravendrop 00:17, 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 delete. Delete all except K-1 France Grand Prix 2005 in Marseilles and K-1 World MAX 2005 Champions Challenge which were not properly listed; feel free to relist. v/r - T P 15:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Fighting Network Korea MAX 2005

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

also nominating:

another sprawling useless series of qualifying fighting results, with no evidence of long term notability to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT LibStar (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. Fail WP:GNG--external links are to the fight promoter's website, plus two web forum entries providing results only. Web search does not find anything better. These are just the kind of routine, unnoted and unnotable sports events that WP:SPORTSEVENT specifically excludes. Also, these could well be WP:NOTPROMO violations. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 15 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the Party?

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

No sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, this album by Eddie Money does meet the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. See coverage in Toledo Blade, Spartanburg Herald-Journal/Independent Press Service, Rock Movers & Shakers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page has been edited accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 3 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Metropoilitan90 has found discussion in reliable sources verifying notability, and added some of the sources to the article. Well done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable failure, perhaps, but still notable, per new sources. I've also added sourcing on the two singles, which charted for 22 and 7 weeks, respectively. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is sufficiently covered in multiple reliable sources; meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 04:49, 13 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boyfriend (band)

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

Unremarkable music group, no real claims of notability, appears to fail WP:BAND. Group's only album has not charted. Previously deleted, contested speedy this time. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes the second point of WP:BAND. They have in fact charted on the Gaon Chart, South Korea's official music chart. If you're looking for sources in English, you'll never find any. However, in Korean, you'll find quite a few. Examples: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. — ξ ^xplicit 02:21, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xplicit. WP:BAND's 2nd point is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.". Now, my Korean's a little rusty - I'm reduced to believing the article's claims and judging accordingly. If the article's accurate, they're notable. Colon el Tom 12:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC criteria 2. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in Korean press [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] and meets WP:BAND, #1 and #2. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 01:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:49, 16 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 15:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precept, Samadhi, Enlightenment

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

Article does not assert its notability. One link when searching for it on Google, and that link doesn't assert if this "summary of [the Buddha]'s teachings" is a notable summary or not either. Hazillow (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i'm not ready to take a position on this yet, but i want to mention that there's a translation issue. if you search on "precepts, samadhi, and wisdom" (a direct quote from the buddha, found all throughout the mahayana mahaparinirvana sutra (watch out, big pdf there)) like this scholar search and also this gbooks search, you get a fair number of hits. i haven't looked into them enough to know what they mean yet, but i thought i'd point this out for the use of other editors who may want to comment on this afd.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename as Three disciplines of Buddhism or something similar. This is a notable topic in Buddhism. There are various translations into English of this three-word summary of Buddhist practice. Sometimes, they are translated as Precept, Meditation and Wisdom. Sometimes as Morality, Meditation, and Wisdom. Sometimes the original terms are transliterated as Śīla, Samadhi, and Prajna. It is related to Threefold Training. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
question—i thought it was an organization of the eightfold path, but i couldn't quite work my way through it. i'm not arguing with you, but is there some reason not to just redirect this to Threefold Training? is there a difference i'm not seeing? esp since the sources of that article read Śīla as virtue, and Paññā (which is also Prajñā) as wisdom, which would make this article roughly an illiterate version of that one, to my untrained eye.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:09, 3 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, perhaps one is conceptual and the other is about an educational process? I think that both this article and Threefold Training as well have problems in how they present the material to English language readers. I think it would be best if both are kept until someone with Buddhist understanding and good English skills can either differentiate or merge the topics as appropriate. Based on my reading and limited understanding, I think that the topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—fair enough. the topic is clearly notable, as a search in either books or scholar on precept, samadhi, wisdom (rather than enlightenment) will show. thus the article should be kept. if it survives the afd, Cullen328, how would you feel about a move to precept, samadhi, wisdom, since that seems to be a far more common translation?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete single source appears to be a content farm and is at apparent odds with many existing well-sourced articles in this area. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 15 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. postdlf (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaktree Foundation

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

Nominated on behalf of User:Domenico.y per these edits: "AfD as not notable, most of the references are not referenced, peacock and cite check" edit summary. JFHJr (㊟) 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another charity (spent too long checking Voss Foundation). I believe a) Oaktree F. exists; b) it's not terribly notable; c) the citations are a bit of a mess but not fraudulent. Whether it fails WP:GNG is another matter: borderline Delete, I feel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator's point that most content is not notable and poorly sourced. I also agree this is a borderline case. I think the org's greatest claim to notability can be summarized here in one paragraph on page 250. It's apparently the first completely youth-run international aid and development organization. That's pretty neat, and there are plenty of press-release style articles, interviews with and books by its members. But 1) the org itself and its activities haven't been the subject of multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources per WP:NGO; 2) none of its activities seem notable (significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject) per WP:NN generally. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at all and the citing is poor. Domenico.y (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]
Comment 2 editors with no other edits expect the "The Oaktree Foundation" keep on citing The Oaktree Foundation references in the text, therefore, it is not notable, as it had not been the subject of multiple, third-party reviewed or even peer-reviewed documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domenico.y (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily passes GNG ([39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] all represent significant coverage). Could certainly do with a bit of a de-crufting and wikification, but in my opinion it definitely passes notability.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "SimonP" or "Joseph Dunstan" is the The Oaktree Foundation's co-founder, I think, because it says "Was founded by Hugh Evans and Simon Moss" and 2 editor's edits are to this article, and nothing else. Domenico.y (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Domenico.y[reply]

Comment That could be true of Joseph Dunstan, but 'SimonP' has made edits to numerous pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the article listed by Yeti Hunter, I consider the first one PR, and the last not significant coverage, but the other 4 seem acceptable for the purposes of notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 9 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} 00:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by Yeti Hunter show that this passes WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. --99of9 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Availability of reliable sources qualifies notability for the topic. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 01:58, 11 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. Moving can be WP:BOLDly done The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kartan stone tools

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

Unclear assertion of notability and appears to be a WP:COATRACK for fringe theories. I concede that the single gBooks citation provided does satisfy "significant" coverage (about 1 page), but at the end of the day it is an article about a type of rock that does not assert why that type of rock is notable. I'm not an anthropologist, so I went for AfD rather than PROD. Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per recent updates. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Kartan industry" (which would tend to be the term used in archaeological literature - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) produces a range of sources. Looking at the Google Scholar hits, however, R J Lampert appears to be regarded as one of the main experts on the topic but also to be making some claims about it (including ones which the nominator has identified as fringe) which other scholars disagree with - if his views need to be stated in the article (which they probably do), it should also be made clear where they differ from current consensus. I am happy enough with the reliability of other sources for this not to affect my vote - but it probably does mean that the article is in need of expert attention. PWilkinson (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of PWilkinson's argument--the material in the G Books search is very extensive with about 100 RSs, but, also per that argument, & the search move to Kartan industry with a redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PWilkinson - but the article needs a lot of cleanup, proper references and also expert attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entirely understand why YetiHunter took this to AfD, but the links provided by PWilkinson do show significant coverage in scholarly sources. Passes WP:GNG in my book. I also agree with DGG that the article should be moved to Kartan industry. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued, I hope Further to the above, I have tried rescuing the article. The existing text is was close to unsalvageable; I have added reliable references, and have incorporated ~~the first of these (Kohen's Aboriginal Environmental Impacts)~~ them into the article. The effort has shown me (see for yourself) that there is good stuff on Kartan industry but that the article at the time of AfD was nowhere near it. I ~~will~~ have had a go now at one or two of the other references I've listed, and we'll see if it can survive. I have deleted almost all the old text as it was unsupported by the evidence I could find. I hope the new version is a bit better. ~~Chiswick Chap (talk)~~ 09:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly rescued in my opinion. The wider search term "Kartan industry" (to which I support a move) turns up a most interesting, well referenced subject. This is AFD at its finest. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to support Yeti Hunter on "Kartan industry". Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 14 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 delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greystones Mariners

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

There is a claim of significance in the article, but no sources have been provided and I have not been able to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. There is nothing to establish notability. GB fan 11:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More external references and sources have been added. I believe the page has as much credibility as other wikipedia entries of Irish baseball teams such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Spartans and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Hurricanes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefarrel (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC) — Lefarrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You may like to read WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it was only a complimentary argument to the fact that the website has a legitimite claim to exist. There are now external third party sources.Lefarrel (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ordinary amateur club with no notability. The club claims to be "the oldest baseball club in Ireland", having been founded in 1991, but that is not very significant. There seems to be no coverage at all in substantial independent sources: the only apparently third party coverage I have been able to find is parochial local coverage, and even that looks like write-ups of press releases and announcements by the club. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told my argument about other baseball team's wikipedia entries existing is invalid, however you are now trying to delete them. But why then, can you explain, do you stop at just the teams I mention and not follow through for all the amateur baseball teams in Ireland? I feel that this action is simply to pacify me. I refute the idea that the page has not enough notability. I believe the difficulty in qualifying the notability of this page is due to the imprecise definition of notability.Lefarrel (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— Lefarrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This page should be allowed to exist, There are now several external sources of information and references, including a nationally (and internationally) sold dvd. How is it one could create a page based solely on a fictional character you and a friend created yet a legitimate sports club cant have a page? K8connor (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)— K8connor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You ask "why then, can you explain, do you stop at just the teams I mention and not follow through for all the amateur baseball teams in Ireland?" The answer to that is that I don't know where they all are. There are well over three million articles on English Wikipedia, and nobody can possibly be aware of every single article that does not satisfy our inclusion criteria and should therefore be deleted. If you would like to mention some other similar articles then I will look at them and consider whether or not they should be proposed for deletion, just as I have done with the ones you have already mentioned. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there are articles on Wikipedia that are about fictional characters that aren't discussed by reliable sources they need to be deleted and if you can point me to them I will nominate them for deletion. Those articles have absolutely nothing to do with this article and the fate of it. We need to look at this article and the sources available to determine if it meets the notability guidelines set out by the Wikipedia community. I have gone back through the changes to the article since I nominated it for deletion and still feel the article does not meet the notability guidelines. There are currently 4 sources listed as references, 2 of them look like press releases announcing the start of a season. The 3rd source is a site about a video that might discuss the team within the video, but I can not find anything on the website itself that discusses the team. The 4th one states that the Mariners were the Little League champion in 2011. None of these rise to the level of significant coverage of the team. The 4 external links don't help either, the official club website, the Baseball Ireland website, another announcement about the start of a season and a social networking site. I still do not see anything that establishes notability as defined by Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability. GB fan 18:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the emerald diamond film some of which is on youtube the club is mentioned and is seen putting up a backstop http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CreiZOXLjt8&feature=relmfu The club is also mentioned in this second video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBqf3G_bkBc&feature=relmfu at 1 min 41 secs.BiafraNoir (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)BiafraNoir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Yes the Mariners are seen in both videos, but they are not discussed in either one. These videos are about baseball in Ireland not about the Mariners. These do not help establish notability of the cub. GB fan 19:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, YouTube is not a reliable source, as anyone at all can make a video and post it there. I could post a video of my left foot to YouTube if I wanted to, but that would not make my foot notable enough to be the subject of an article in an encyclopaedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This whole idea of notability seems completely relative; you may not find this page noteworthy yet every baseball fan in Ireland would find it a useful source of information, not mentioning any increased publicity it would gather from Irish-American baseballers. BiafraNoir (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Your response seems wholly negative, how do you recommend we supply you with the required notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiafraNoir (talk • contribs) 17:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — BiafraNoir (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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I appear wholly negative. Notability is not relative. It is all dependent upon reliable sources If reliable sources have noticed something and have given significant coverage of it, then it is notable here on Wikipedia. So what can you provide to show that the Mariners are notable? sources. The sources though need to meet three criteria. First the sources must be reliable, this means that the source is know to fact check their information. Next the reference needs to provide significant coverage of the Mariners. It can't be just a mention in a bigger article. Finally the source needs to be independent of the Mariners. In other words it can't be something provided by the Mariners, like an announcement that they are going to start practice. I am always open to changing my view if information comes out. GB fan 00:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that BiafraNoir refers to "any increased publicity it would gather from Irish-American baseballers", and I suspect that that is really the essential point: the article is intended to gain publicity for the club. However, Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion or advertising, and the fact that the article stands to serve that purpose is certainly not a reason for keeping it. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was never my intention to make this page a medium for promotion or advertising. You assume too much. Why are you making secondary arguments anyway? Do you feel that the notability argument is weak like I do? I cannot help but feel that the application of this strict interpetation of the notability rule is disproportionate with respect to the rest of wikipedia. These guidlines are the ideal case. If a page doesn't meet these guidlines it shouldn't just be deleted. Stating that the article needs more sources is appropriate. The club is Ireland's premier baseball club, and although that doesn't seem important to you that is your opinion and not shared by the creators of the page. I also notice that you have now deleted one other amatuer baseball club page but have left the other. Obviously your strict requirements are not shared by other editors. Maybe you need to readdress your understanding of what wikipedia is about.Lefarrel (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Lefarrel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I can' speak for other editors, I don't change my interpretation of the notability guidelines from one article to the next. No one can go through all 3,764,099 articles on Wikipedia and try to apply the guidelines evenly. I try to apply the guidelines evenly across the articles I come across. This one I came across while reviewing Candidates for Speedy Deletion where I declined the request to speedily delete the article. The notability guidelines are not the ideal case, they are the minimum case. You say that the Mariners are Ireland's premier baseball club, that is important. The problem is that nowhere in the article does it say that. Just adding that though would not be enough, we would also need a reliable source that says that so it can be verified. One article was deleted because the Proposed Deletion tag was left in place for 7 days. The other one someone removed the tag without addressing the concerns. So I nominated it for deletion using this process, because I don't see how it meets the notability guidelines. All we need to save this article from deletion is significant coverage in reliable sources. GB fan 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the first piece of constructive advice. Will it be sufficient to provide a legal document proving that the club was established in 1991? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lefarrel (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that isn't sufficient either. We need sources that are not associated with the Mariners. A legal document establishing the Mariners had to have been filed by the Mariners, that would not make it independent. Are there any books, newspaper articles that discuss the Mariners? Not like the ones currently in the article that just announce when the seasons start. The guidelines are looking for outside sources to notice Mariners. I hope that better explains what is required. GB fan 20:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. Sources identified are either not WP:INDEPENDENT or are WP:ROUTINE coverage e.g. inviting people of all ages and akill to come out on opening day and sign. Without more significant coverage from independent sources, there is not much that can be written to make a substantial neutral article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, sources need to be WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 15 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 delete. Forked article should likely be reverted to include the material. If anything is lost in this delete, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll restore this page so the material can be retrived. v/r - T P 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds Characters: Hodes, James, and Wilson Families

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

I already proposed the merge ~~but I also understand how wiki works... this info is [i think] straight copied out of the parent article... there's zero reason to break this out.~~ Most television dramas that have a lot of branching character trees and relationships do this, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. The fact that Weeds has a separate character page and episode page, and general page, and I assume other pages, itself, suggests that we have enough coverage. Splitting out pages is one of the chief complaints of rationalinclusionists like myself... and this is a perfect example...this is [again, i am pretty sure, but also lazy] a copy of the preexisting article. Anyone who's read the split criteria would never in their wildest dreams believe his was a useful or reasonable split. I can get more in depth about how bad of a split this is... but I assume the larger community understands what I'm talking about.Shadowjams (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add this one to the list Weeds Characters: Agrestic Area. ~~Apparently this editor is fixated on separating out all of the particular factions in the series' universe.~~ Shadowjams (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've varied from these views slightly, see my comment below. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Merge sounds reasonable... so why are we here at AfD? Did you try it and get reverted? Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, merge is essentially revert original, delete this page so yeah, AfD seems to be somewhat necessary. Shadowjams (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed splitting the Weeds characters page some time ago. Simply put, there is over 100,000 bytes of information on the page, and it is quite unwieldy. It has steadly grown over time and will continue to grow as I add more detail. (I'm the only one working on it consistantly.) It is also likely that an eighth season will increase the size of the show's universe. Also, it's not just the character page that is splitting up. The episode page for Weeds was recently broken up with one page for each season.

Quoting Shadowjams "Anyone who's read the split criteria would never in their wildest dreams believe his was a useful or reasonable split." My reply: Go back and re-read. According to the guidelines set down by WP:Split, any page with over readable prose of over 100KB "almost certainly should be divided."

Shadowjams asserts that "The fact that Weeds has a separate character page and episode page, and general page, and I assume other pages, itself, suggests [that] we have enough coverage." However, what is the standard for determining the level of coverage needed? Determining that standard requires an understanding of the subject matter under consideration and the current state of the subject's article(s). The editors on the Weeds pages have been working on this for some time now. I've been working on it for over a year now. However, this new page was tagged to be deleted two minutes after it was created. Two minutes!!!

Shadowjams's assertions notwithstanding, the separation is not a poor editing choice. Instead, it reflects a unique aspect of this TV show. Every two or three seasons, the show's creative directors radically alter the show's premise and ___location. In so doing, it introduces a completely different set of characters and often dumps characters from previous seasons en mass. The first season is set in Agrestic, CA, a suburb of Los Angeles, CA. The show spends three seasons developing characters as Nancy Botwin deals pot her suburban neighbors. Then, the entire village burns down to the ground. Nancy moves her family to Ren Mar, CA in the San Diego area where Nancy reinvents herself as a member of a drug trafficing cartel. Instead of focusing on the divide between black and white America (Agrestic vs. West Adams), the show deals with illegal immigration. These shifts are far more radical than the shifts seen in other TV shows. (Imagine if a Republican got elected president during the middle of The West Wing or if the family in Full House picked up tent stakes and moved to Dallas, TX so the lead character could work in the oil industry.)

The show makes another major shift in season six when Nancy takes her family north to Seattle, WA and then to Dearborn, MI to avoid Esteban Reyes. Instead of being anchored in one place, the Botwins live in at least six different places over the course of two seasons. Again, in each ___location, there are very different sets of issues and characters.

So, what is the plan going forward? I (as the only person really working on this part of Wikipedia) want to have separate pages for (1) the Botwin family, (2) the James, Hodes, and Wilson families, (3) Agrestic characters, (4) Ren Mar characters, and (5) season six through eight characters. Eventually, the four leading Botwins (Nancy, Andy, Silas, and Shane) will have their own pages. I gave the James, Hodes, and Wilson families their own page because they have moved around with the Botwins. Celia, Dean, and Isabelle Hodes were in Ren Mar for both of seasons four and five. Doug Wilson has followed the Botwins from California to Copenhagen to New York City. Helyia James played a key role in season seven.

I'm trying to keep families grouped together as much as possible. Family ties play a very important role in the show, and Jenji Kohan often talks about the characters in that context. Again, the organization flows from the show's internal mechanics and dynamics.

I am open to a compromise. I'm willing to break up the "James, Hodes, and Wilson families" so the James are diverted to the "Agrestic characters" page. Notes on Heylia's role in season seven would be summarized on the "seasons six through eight" page with a link the main entry. The Hodes and Wilson families would have their own pages.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was quite an unnecessary split. This article does not meet the general notability guideline, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and it is completely unreferenced. Rather than merge, it is more simple to restore a previous version of the List of Weeds characters article before it was split. If that list was above the recommended article size, it is because that list is an indiscriminate collection of information and a complete exposition of all possible details instead of a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. While not in discussion in this AfD, the solution for this is simply removing all minor characters, which shouldn't be there in the first place, and streamlining the real important characters from the series with shorter summaries, removing as well all the unneeded supporting characters. This type of list are supposed to be comprehensive, not exhaustive. Jfgslo (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, when I read this comment, I get the impression that it is merely a stock response. There is no discussion with specific examples relevant to page(s) or show in question. Weeds is a major hit television show that has won multiple awards, has been nominated for dozens of awards, and stars who actresses who were famous before the show started. This page highlights some of the major characters in the show. Notability is at least unclear, "deletion should be a last resort." WP:FAILN Jfgslo's first suggestion to delete the new page.

For a specific example, I point you the entry for Heylia James. This is not a rote summary of Heylia's actions in the show. The actions delineated were specifically selected to describe Heylia's motivations. Heylia has a no nonsense attitude. She respects Nancy at first but later develops a huge grudge against her. That grudge becomes worse over time. Yes, there are specific examples highlighted from the plot; however, supporting evidence is needed. There is a lot of needless detail that I could have added, but it is needless because it doesn't help us understand Heylia.

Now, I will concede that that some of characters are underdeveloped and their entries need to be rewritten to better focus on motivations and characteristics rather than simple plot summary. However, Weeds is a show about families, and the "minor characters" often reflect upon the leading and recurring characters. Josh Wilson only appears in one episode, but his "gayness" haunts Doug and becomes a major issue for Doug. Dana only appears in one episode, but what she builds with Wilford makes Doug very jealous and cuts into his soul.

Yes, I need to add citations. However, I'm editing this all by myself, and I only have so many hours in a day. Given that deletion is the last resort, why not give me more time to fill in the needed citations and refocus the entries provided? After all, that's what editing is all about.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I was too assertive in my original comment. Upon reflection the issue is a little grayer. I'm sorry for coming off too strong. The original article was quite long... 100k does seem to meet the split criteria. However, as Jfgslo points out, part of the reason for that is due to it becoming a laundry list of even minor characters rather than focusing on those who play some role.
While I'm not outright changing my position, here are how this issue was handled in some other long-running popular TV shows:

Seinfeld - Major characters in main article, minor characters in a single article
The Wire - List of The Wire characters, split into 6 sup character articles and 1 primary
The Sopranos - List_of_The_Sopranos_characters, one large article 170k

As you can see there's a lot of diversity of options here. I tend to agree that the article should be trimmed rather than fully broken out, but perhaps there is some place for a limited split. Shadowjams (talk) 22:58, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to WP:verify notability of these separate families. Already have a main character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be vary careful in selecting which characters should be included. Minor characters are included if ... 1) they are part of one of the major families 2) they are a law enforcement character (law enforcement characters are foils to the rampent criminality among the other characters) 3) they are a major character within a particular episode (like Irine Dodd in season one) or significantly alter the arc of an entire season (like Ampero in late season four) 4) they are notable within their own right for being famous for other work (like Allison Janney, who appeared in season one, was already famous for playing C. J. Cregg on The West Wing)

What if for now, we had two pages? One for the Botwins (who need significant expansion) and one for everyone else?

Delete fails WP:GNG, articles need WP:RS. If this there's a related article to merge to that has WP:RS to support this content then merge (but none of the ones I'm seeing do). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 15 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idaho Gateway Chorus

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

No assertion of notability in article, no sources, and not much in the way of notability-establishing sources found in a Google search under either the current name or "Pocatello Sharps & Flats". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:02, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another barbershop group. Half of the article is about SPEBSQSA which already has its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable singing group. Searched news and google but found nothing to support notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:13, 17 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F (metal band)

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

This does not appear to be a notable band. Searching for info is kind of difficult given the name of the outfit, but my efforts turned up nothing anyway. References like this one were supplied--but read that for yourself and judge if that's a reliable source or not. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems very self-promotional. 11coolguy12 (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The ten links to the fringes of the punk rock blogosphere paint a picture of, not has-beens, but never-weres, even by the lights of this genre's specialists. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never heard until now. The YouTube link sounded like Rock Lobster of the B-52s for the first minute or so. Very few YouTube hits. PolicarpioM (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. All the promotional material and zero-reliability links can be removed (and in fact, I will remove it now). The remaining material may have sufficient support from admittedly suspicious punk magazines. §everal⇒|Times 17:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, even after chopping it up the article still looks weakly supported. I stand by a weak keep, though. §everal⇒|Times 17:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seem to have some songs released and have been around for a while. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 22:53, 16 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gravmar & the Gravediggers

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

Non-notable band, unreferenced Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:56, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Band does not pass WP:GNG. Some Norwegian sources but no significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:35, 16 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 delete. v/r - T P 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Baby Sister

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

No establishment of notability. HurricaneFan 25 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source appears to have significant coverage of the subject, and this one has two pages. It's more difficult to tell how extensive the coverage is here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my judgement, the WP:NBOOK criteria are not met. With no intended disrespect to Phil Bridger, I consider the references above to be trivial in nature, i.e. not constituting "significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:28, 14 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Abdulla Haroon Saleh

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

A short article from 2006 about a managing director (head of a department?) from a Middle East airline. This is sourced but this doesn't make him notable - WP:PEOPLE. Furthermore the article promotes his own business (furniture) and his sons businesses - WP:PROMO. A speedy was declined. Ben Ben (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:50, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flunkeyism

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

I see no evidence that this is a legitimate term for anything. Simply a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A redirect to Sadaejuui is not appropriate as it would be baffling to any reader not familiar with North Korean governing philosophy. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the entry is a fair & interesting one and would vote to keep it (modulo the usual rounds of edits and updates that the Union of Wikipedia Writers might come up with). It's rather much more than merely a "dictionary definition" (and can grow or be modified further to take other links and aspects into account), and plays e.g. an important role in official DPRK rhetorics and politics. Users may perhaps feel inspired to hunt for such links and quotes to have them included in the article. Slavatrudu (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

transwiki to a dictionary, although I'm not sure which. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:50, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic here is really client state. We shouldn't be using NK usage for this because that's propaganda and so not WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dictionary definition, at best, POV coatrack at worst. First Light (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NEO that Dear Leader WP:MADEUP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 17 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 no consensus. v/r - T P 15:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buta-ul

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

There are no reliable sources discussing about Buta-ul, "the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa". It looks like either original research or a fringe theory. Daizus (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Daizus (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? I don't see it on any of these deletion lists. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This book and this one would appear to confirm, at minimum, that the name Buta-ul is verifiable, and also bear out the article's claim that he held the title zupan. Other sources would appear to discuss this name in Hungarian, but Hungarian sources might as well be written in Hungarian for all the sense I can make out of them. My usual rule of thumb is that people who lived before movable type are notable by having their names written down somewhere in a preserved text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name and the title (župan) exist, they are inscribed on a vessel from the treasure of Nagyszentmiklós ([45] [46]). However this is all what can be said about the man. I think the rest of his biography is a fiction, or at best is supported by some fringe authors (I assume rather Serbian than Hungarian, the only book mentioned in bibliography is in Serbian). Should we have a perma-stub, or to avoid WP:POVFORK and WP:COATRACK (this article was used to promote this "ruler" and his "lands" in other pages: [47] [48] [49]) should we only mention the name in the context of other topics and delete this article? I vote for the second option. Daizus (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a fascinating treasure! If this is a verifiable historical figure, I'd say keep the article but remove any original research. Even if all that leaves is a slight stub, this is also true of many other historical figures; they're going to be stubs because little has been preserved about them, but they are still historical figures that belong in an encyclopedia. If any of the speculation about how the treasure came to be buried has been published by academic sources, that too might belong in an article about this fellow. Edits motivated by Eastern European ethnic politics probably ought to be reverted on sight; I know little because I don't care even a little bit: but this dude and his hoard of gold should still have an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daizus, "You think that the rest of his biography is a fiction"? And that is supposed to be a reason for deletion of this article? How exactly is something what you think not an example of your original research? Do you have any notable/reliable source or author who claims that "Buta-ul is a fiction" or that info about him comes from "fringe authors"? All in all, Buta-ul is mentioned in an original source (treasure of Nagyszentmiklós), which you admitted by yourself, and he is mentioned in secondary sources as well. Due to the fact that he was an local ruler, he is person notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. And what you mean by "used to promote this ruler"? How exactly mentioning of an historical ruler in Wikipedia articles is an "promotion"? By your logic, we "promoting" in Wikipedia all subjects about which we have an article. And why should we "mention the name in the context of other topics"? Do you imply that we should also delete article about Barack Obama and mention him "in the context of other topics"? PANONIAN 15:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for input, Ihcoyc!

Panonian, I already cited two authors and the only agreement on the inscription is that is virtually untranslated and that is about two men/titles: Butaul and Buyla, both mentioned in the connection with the title župan. Thus the rest of the biography is fictional, since there's no reliable source to back it up. I don't mind having an article about Butaul if it would stay as a stub, but I do mind articles and maps about fictional realities, especially when they are not notable. The straw men you raised, no offense, deserve no further attention. Daizus (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please post here exact citations (with links) which claiming that "the rest of the biography is fictional". There is no evidence that Tutorov simply "invented rest of biography" as you suggesting. He lists his bibliography in his book, but he did not specified from which source he took info about Buta-ul. That, however, certainly does not mean that he invented the thing. I will examine additional sources in google books and then I will present additional data. PANONIAN 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - excuse me, but I listed my original reference on which I based this article: Milan Tutorov, Banatska rapsodija - istorika Zrenjanina i Banata, Novi Sad, 2001. All info about Buta-ul that is written in this article comes from there. Therefore: 1. article is not my original research, 2. it is not a fringe theory, and 3. source from which info about Buta-ul came is reliable. I admit that it is not good that article is based on a single source, but there are additional sources about Buta-ul (and User:Ihcoyc already provided some additional sources here). Anyway, I can easily post links to additional sources into article and I can expand it with additional info from these sources. I see no any valid reason for this deletion proposal. The fact that user:Daizus is not informed well about this subject does not mean that we should delete this article. PANONIAN 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided two references, and I can provide many more for the fact the inscription has no accepted translation, and certainly not "Butaul, the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa". I don't see how Tutorov's theory (if your summary is fair, but I will WP:AGF based on your testimony above) is anything but fringe, I also don't see what makes that book a reliable source. Feel free to cite any book authored by non-Serbian scholars attesting the "two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska" and the reign of Buta-ul in these lands and across the Tisa. Daizus (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provided any source that claims that Buta-ul did not existed or that we deal here with "fringe theory". Tutorov and other sources are mentioning that župan Buta-ul existed and the only things that opposing this are your unsourced opinions and your own original research. As for correct translation from Serbian to English, I can agree that my original translation was not the best one, but I will see to improve it. And Tutorov is reliable source because he is an recognized Serbian historian and because he wrote very good book about history of Banat (Buta-ul is only one of the subjects that are mentioned in his book). PANONIAN 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS and WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE (Tutorov's theories, if they are only his, should be represented at most only in an article about the man). Then please consult the verdicts of Falko Daim (and the next page), András Róna-Tas (and the next page), Agustí Alemany. Can you cite a non-Serbian scholar supporting Tutorov's "translation" and theory? Can you provide evidence that this book is reliable source and not fringe? Publishing house? The author's academic degrees and recognition? Reviews? Citations? Preferably at least some from sources outside Serbia? Daizus (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found one source here: [50] (Quotation: "Buyla, der Großfürst des Zwei-Geten-Landes von der Theiß Buta-ul, der Taiß(Teiß) -Fürst des Tagro-Landes und des Etzi-Landes" (English translation from google translate: "Buyla, the Grand Duke of the two-country Getae-Buta-ul of the Tisza, the Taiß (Tisza) Prince of Tagro-country and country-Etzi"). Clearly, this source confirms info that comes from Tutorov, but with slightly different interpretation. We can discuss about most correct interpretation, of course, but this is clear evidence against your accusations for "original research" or "fringe theory". As for sources that you provided, can you please properly quote these sources. Which sentence in these sources is supportung your claims? PANONIAN 16:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that quote is evidence for your claim, because Mészáros's reading (1915) while somewhat similar is nevertheless different. If Tutorov's reading doesn't have the proper support (perhaps he cites Mészáros, and the differences are caused by translations from one language to another), there's no discussion, it's fringe and such tiny minority views deserve no representation, certainly not an entire biography. András Róna-Tas (the same author you quoted) concludes: "the language of the inscription [...] has so far not been satisfactorily deciphered. It is very probable that they are in a Turkic language [...] attempts to decipher the inscriptions have so far proved inconclusive". Agustí Alemany: "almost all scholars share the opinion that it is written in a from of Turkic [...] its decipherment remains a challenge in spite of many attempts and there is only general agreement that the words βουηλα ζοαπαν and βουταυλ ζωαπαν are a combination of Turkic čupan or - most probably - Slavic župan with the Turkic names/titles Buyla [...] and Butaul." So all what can be said about "Butaul" is that according to most scholars is a title or a name, used in combination with the title župan. This is a mention which can be made in the article about the treasure. If you want also to create a stub on Butaul - name or title - I don't mind it only if it stays like that and it does not become a pretext for Serbian protochronic theories. Daizus (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain yourself from attempts to make an ethnic dispute from this. Serbian historian Tutorov claims that Buta-ul was Avar and I do not see how this claim could be an example of "ethno-centric view" or "Serbian theory"? (Avars and Serbs are completely unrelated peoples and I simply do not see how mention of an Avar ruler can imply any political favor for history of Serbian statehood). German source that I provided in fact contains exactly same data as book of Serbian author Tutorov and the only thing that might be wrong here is correctness of some parts of Serbian translation in Tutorov's book. In this German source, lands ruled by Buta-ul are mentioned as "Tagro-Landes" and "Etzi landes" (which Tutorov translated in Serbian as "Targorska" and "Eciska"). I am not saying that we should use these Serbian name versions in our article, in fact, the only reason why I used these name versions is because I was not aware of any other name versions when I wrote this article. As for claims that accuracy of translation of original text is disputed by some authors, that info can be mentioned in the article, but due to the fact that there are sources which claiming that text from treasure says that there was an ruler with title župan and name Buta-ul, who ruled Banat and Bačka, I see no reason why we should not have article about that ruler. For example, we have an article about Romanian ruler Gelou, who, according to some opinions, did not really existed and was invented by the author of an medieval chronicle. We also have articles about completely fictional characters like He-Man and Skeletor and yet, you claim that we should not have article about an ruler whose name is mentioned in an archaeological finding (and due to the fact that he is mentioned in an archaeological finding, Buta-ul deserves to have his own article more than Gelou, He-Man and Skeletor all together). PANONIAN 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the article is only sourced by Milan Tutorov, a Serbian author, and it is about a ruler of some Slavic-sounding names (Targorska and Eciska, dubbed also as Getic lands; changing Tagro - see inscription's text below - to Targorska is dubious, perhaps alluding to Slavic *tъrgъ?). Whether this is a failure in translation or something else, I can't say, I only observed the lack of support in other sources for such a interpretation and for this biography. I also have no idea why Mészáros' two chiefs (Buyla and Buta-ul) transformed into one, thus prompting the image of a single reigndom, incidentally (in your article and on your map) covering the territory of today Bačka and Banat (which again is not supported by other sources). You say "the German source" (sic!) holds the same data, but I don't see it claiming Buta-ul as the ruler of the two Getic lands, nor the ruler of lands across the Tisa. Is this Tutorov's theory (whose book is still not proven as a reliable source), or yours, I'm not sure if it matters that much. And even if we consider what's common in the two translations, I don't think the mention of a župan ruling over the lands Tagro and Etzi qualifies for more than a controversial, unaccepted translation of the inscription (to be mentioned in a list of such translations, in the works of a scholar, or maybe not at all). As for the article on Gelou (possibly a fictional character), I couldn't care less about its existence, I personally think that one article about the historiography and discourses surrounding Gesta Hungarorum is enough. Daizus (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I explained why I used names "Targorska and Eciska". For some reason you are not satisfied with my explanation and you implying that I am forcing some "Slavic-sounding names" here (for your information, Serbian language translating all foreign names and therefore you usually cannot find such names in original form in Serbian literature). I will change these names as soon as I find more free time to improve the article. Also, we indeed have an issue with two rulers instead with one. So, perhaps we should create another article about ruler Buyla. As soon as you stop your ridiculous deletion campaign, we can have serious discussion how and where exactly we should mention these two rulers (I will also change map in accordance with new info about two rulers that we saw). PANONIAN 19:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood my point. It's not only a suffix (but checking on sr.wiki, I see many names are not "translated"), but also changing Tagro for Targo- (e.g. Magreb not Margeb). Furthermore, when the new "Buta-ul" was created from Buyla and Butaul, his title also changed from župan to veliki župan (of Banat and Bačka). As I said above, all these may be related to bad translations, however this episode is "too Slavic". Daizus (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too Slavic??? Title Großžupan (equivalent to "veliki župan") could be found in this German source too: [51]. Anyway, whether Serbian translation of Tutorov is correct or not is now irrelevant since article is primarily based on other sources, while claims of Tutorov are mentioned only in the end of one article section. PANONIAN 14:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be almost impossible to overstate how deeply I don't care about whether this dude was a Serb, a Hungarian, a Mongreelian, or whatever. What this discussion suggests to me is that there's a fairly extensive body of literature interpreting this name and this find, and that various bits of the research may have been highjacked for nationalistic purposes. Given this development, the claim "There are no reliable sources discussing about Buta-ul" seems to be decisively falsified. In situations like this, probably the best thing to do would be to give a synopsis of the several theories and who advocates them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in groundless accusations. My claim was "There are no reliable sources discussing about Buta-ul, 'the ruler of two Getian lands, Targorska and Eciska, and across the Tisa'" and I stand by it, as despite your and Panonian's efforts, we still have no reliable source discussing about this guy (and to be sure, nor about Butaul, "the Avar noble who ruled the Banat and Bačka regions in the 8th century", as claimed in the lead). There are sources about some other Butaul, no doubt. Daizus (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daizus, your claim is not supported by any evidence. I agree with User:Ihcoyc that article about Buta-ul should mention what various sources are claiming about Buta-ul. I am not saying that book of Tutorov should be a base for this article. Once this ridiculous time-wasting deletion proposal is over, we can discuss how this article should look. PANONIAN 18:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article contains the full text of the inscription: BOYHΛA.ZOAΠAN.TECH.ΔYΓΕTOIΓH.BOYTAOYΛ.ZΩAΠAN.TAΓPOΓH.HTZIΓH.TAICH, which in conventional transliteration would go bouéla zoapan tesé dygetoigé boutaoula zóapan tagrogé étzigé taisé. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the inscription is currently missing, but one translation (very similar to Thomsen's, see p. 135) is already quoted in Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. I took notice of your suggestion, but I still don't understand why this inscription should not be discussed in this article, more precisely what kind of information is appropriate for Butaul but not for Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. Daizus (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we should mention Buta-ul only in article about "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós"? By my opinion, an ruler is much more important subject than his buried treasure (and according to Tutorov, that treasure belonged to him). Perhaps we should merge "Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós" article into article about Buta-ul (or keep both articles separate, what ever). PANONIAN 18:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we're not even sure he's a ruler, we don't know nothing about the man! Your suggestion that we should rather merge the treasure article into this one is why I believe this article is a WP:COATRACK and that's why there's more harm than good to keep it. Daizus (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We know what sources are telling to us and I will properly quote these sources in the article. PANONIAN 09:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. I wanted to see some comments before voting and the comments but also the reverts of Panonian ([52] [53] [54]) showed me this article is a WP:COATRACK for the "lands of Buta-ul", a fictional episode in the history of Banat and Vojvodina. I fail to see the merit of this topic so I vote per nom - original research and fringe theories. Daizus (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with these personal accusations. I reverted you because your edits were clear examples of vandalism - you obviously want to annihilate this article and therefore you also trying to annihilate links that lead to it from other articles. You have right to open deletion proposal, but unless your proposal turn into successful one, you have no right to remove links that leading readers to an existing article. Anyway, I will improve this article as soon as today and it will be primarily based on references from google books. PANONIAN 09:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VANDALISM and stop raising straw men. Nothing in this discussion or in the rescue attempt showed anything about the "lands of Buta-ul", the information which I removed from those three pages. Daizus (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete article named "Buta-ul" not "lands of Buta-ul", so please do not twist facts here. PANONIAN 10:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can vote any way I want. From your gaming (my edits do not qualify for vandalism) and reverts above I see that you use this article to write about the "lands of Buta-ul" in other articles concerning the history of Banat and Vojvodina. That's original research and POV pushing and I expressed both these concerns in my comments above. If you can't follow my rationale, at least please refrain from replying, it's rather your attitude that motivated my decision: I am still unconvinced by the current rescue attempt. Daizus (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote these things in accordance with original source that I used and I was not aware about info from other sources. I will change info in these other articles so that it reflects data from multiple sources. PANONIAN 14:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: due to some objections of user:Daizus I rewrote the article and it is now primarily based on sources from google books and not on a book of historian Milan Tutorov. Also, I collected here some additional references that speaking bout Butaul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Butaul#List_of_references Therefore, I believe that, due to all these references, this deletion proposal should be declined. PANONIAN 14:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smerdis of Tlön has demonstrated there are in fact sources. Dream Focus 21:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the treasure. I don't think it is by any means universally accepted that the word in question is a name, although it is by no means a fringe theory that it is. And the dating of all the objects remains highly controversial. It's not enough to have a biography imo. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while I agree that opinion that Butaul was a name is not "universally accepted", it is at least "mostly accepted". I see no reason that we do not have an article that discussing this name and various theories and opinions about it. Article about Butaul already have enough text and it could be potentially expanded with info from other sources. I believe that Wikipedia practice supports creation of separate sub-articles in the case when sub-subjects are elaborated with large amount of info and when that info would disrupt main storyline in parent-article (In this case, article about treasure might be seen as an parent-article, while article about Butaul as an sub-article, which further elaborates one specific issue). There is also question of categorization and existing inter-wiki links, which simply could not be merged into article about treasure. Finally, treasure is example of an historical source, while Butaul is name mentioned in this source. I do not think that Wikipedia practices are supporting idea that articles about historical persons are merged with articles about historical sources that are speaking about them. PANONIAN 07:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously there are sources, it's just that someone "doesn't like" the sources. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:DICT, failing that merge to Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. The current version of Buta-ul is a content fork of Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. That article shows there are multiple theories as to the meaning of the inscription, which this article completely ignores. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 15 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.