Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 11 October 13 October >

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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Capwell

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

This article has a lot of problems. Recently, I have removed Youtube clips of the cancelled show Santa Barbara because they are copyright material that are uploaded for entertainment purposes only. Currently, the whole article is unreferenced and absent from notability establishment. Well, to be honest, I did not know that one television series makes this character notable enough; as the article itself, even just one series is not enough for the article to stand on its own. The good article for a fictional character should not be just fictional background, doesn't it? Otherwise, am I wrong about a "good article for a fictional character"? The current media does not mention this character; therefore, the past publications should exist. To make this article kept, we must rely on reliable sources that is not Youtube; otherwise, it is possible to either delete or redirect to another article, --Gh87 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC) such as List of Santa Barbara cast and characters. --Gh87 (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC) this article deserves a deletion. --Gh87 (talk) 06:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 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 00:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Aloys von Braun

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

Either a hoax or a non-notable biography. There are claims of notablity like "He was the Privy Councillor and Director of the Emperor’s Cabinet’s Chancellery" but this is not backed up by any reliable source. Also, the sources provided are in a list and not inline, and the only one that is accessible for internet users ([1]) doesn't even include his name, making me speculate even more that it's a hoax Mynameislatesha (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidence found it is not a hoax. The guy won a lot of notable awards. If someone spoke his native language, they might be able to find more information about him. Then again, Google news and Google books don't really focus on archiving other languages. Dream Focus 19:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its sources could not be more accurate, they are from books on or including the person, This artical is certainly long enough, very informative and encyclopedic. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Very easy, once one drops the middle name as Cullen suggests, to confirm his 35 years as Kabinettsdirektor and there is quite a scattering of miscellaneous passing references to him, using not only Cullen's suggested search terms but with Adolf rather than Adolph - and some that don't even give his forename but just Kabinettsdirektor or Staatsrat. I've added one citation about his minor but significant part in the Mayerling Incident (there are several similar other references also available), and I am rather surprised that I haven't found anything more substantial, even on a relatively cursory search, about that or other parts of his career, even allowing for the fact that he was concerned with Franz Josef's private rather than public activities. I would be surprised if there aren't more substantial reliable sources - though possibly offline. PWilkinson (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously, because this is supposed to be first-and-foremost an encyclopedia, rather than a chronicle of recent events or a 21st century pop-culture compendium. I have no great objection to our covering the latter topics, but please let's not make it at the expense of such topics as this whose equivalents in recent politics would never be questioned. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW; he was equivalent to Secretary of the Cabinet in today's United States. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 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, with the expectation that normal editing and discussion may (or may not) result in merging and redirecting. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rosewood

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

Hello there has been a merge proposal on this article since october 2009. The people who responded where in support of this merge is there anything we can do to get this merge moving along. Link here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beverly_Hills_Cop_(film_series)#Suggest_merging_Billy_Rosewood_into_this_article Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have had 3 years while a merge discussion was ongoing to improve it and you did not. Surly this should have been merged by now anyway considering the consensus on the link above in the discussion opener was to merge the page(Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
ME???? None of those wishing a merge made any request from those who opinined a keep at the last AFD, nor it is mandated that anyone "must" take time away from other volunteer work to stop and improve the one about Billy... and conversely YOU'VE also had several years to improve and source the article... but understandably, its rare that anyone advocating a merge would perform or request edits aginst their interest. I see WP:NOEFFORT as a poor deletion argument, specially for a demonstrably notable topic[2][3][4] that could even make it to FA status with work. And what I read in the closer's statement was that there was no consensus to delete. As discussion among the merge-wishers is their discussion, it bore a result that could be easily predicted. But note: an ageement among a very few pre-disposed editors is not neccessarliy a consensus reflective of the community at large. As a reasonable compromise option, incubation can serve the project, and to repeat, yes... I'd be quite willing to work on it myself away from the ticking clock of an AFD and as I have the time. But don't castigate me because no one immediately jumped to an addressable issue to do the neccessary work required to bring the article to its full potential. . Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my full (short) explanation why I think deletion is the best solution, particularly the last sentence. I have nothing more to add and have no intention of turning this AfD into a discussion of principle. – sgeureka t•c 11:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support incubation also but only if there was a prospect of the article been improved.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
No it is not an Improper nomination at all. It would be nice if you could keep things polite here. Lets face it even though its likely this article will be kept the merge discussion should have been acted upon 2 years ago and not left to sit on the page. That is why 100% for a fact this is NOT an Improper nomination and I take offense to you claiming it is. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 11:57, 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tonnie Cusell

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

No evidence that this player has appeared at a fully professional level. Despite IPs adding Indonesia to his national career with the flag included (something that is rife among Indonesian articles it seems), he has not played at senior international level. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne de Harven

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF criteria. While the article makes impressive claims about the subject's discoveries, these are sourced solely to his original papers. There do not appear to be any independent, reliable sources documenting any impact of this individual on the field of study. He did serve as president of the Microscopy Society of America in 1976, but this alone doesn't seem sufficient as a source of notability. Tagged with a request for independent sources since June without improvement. Google searches turn up many non-reliable sources tying the subject to AIDS denialism, but nothing that could be used to write an encyclopedic biography. MastCell Talk 21:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No independent reliable sources? Click on the scholar link and you will find 1000 of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have a GS h-index of 27 to pass WP:Prof#C1. Also passes WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • These are two of my least favorite arguments, because they're divorced from the reality of actually building an encyclopedia. There is no h-index cut-off to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. The h-index has a lot of limitations, particularly when Google Scholar is used to calculate it. Most importantly, it doesn't help build an article - without actual independent, reliable sources attesting to his impact, all we can say is: "Etienne de Harven is a researcher with an h-index of 27."

      To this point, it's probably worth noting the disclaimer at WP:PROF: It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. I'm open to hearing how an h-index helps us write an encyclopedic article, or to hearing about new sources we can use to improve the article, but I think this disclaimer was written to address exactly this sort of argument. MastCell Talk 02:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The operation of Wikipedia is based on consensus. If you do not agree with policy guidelines of WP:Prof argue that on the policy pages. Please do not bring these arguments to AfD pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm fine with WP:PROF; I just don't agree with your application of it. First of all, I think that simply citing an h-index doesn't address criterion #1 in any meaningful way. Secondly, I think WP:PROF is explicitly clear that it's possible to meet the technical criteria but still be unsuitable for a Wikipedia article. Both of those concerns are explicitly based on the existing guideline, and nowhere here have I suggested changing WP:PROF. If you have any comment on the actual substance of my concerns, I'd be happy to hear it. MastCell Talk 17:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It's true he has a couple of articles at Google Scholar with more than 100 citations. But he is a co-author, listed somewhere in the middle of multiple author citations - neither first nor last which are considered to be the "top billing" positions in a multi-author article. His main claim to fame in the present article appears to be his book "Ten Lies About AIDS," an HIV-denialist tract published by a vanity publisher [10] and not reviewed by anyone of significance. --MelanieN (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I have to agree with MastCell -- I don't see what sources could be used to say anything more than, "He published a whole lot of stuff." What will we say about him, or about what anyone's said about him? EEng (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added three mainstream book sources about his AIDS denial to the article, two of them discussing the 2000 South African presidential panel he participated in and one of them including a nontrivial paragraph of biographical detail about him. There are also a lot of hits on Google news about the same thing, but of more dubious reliability. I think he passes both WP:GNG for his AIDS denial and WP:PROF#C6 as president of a society. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is less clear in the citation record but I think it's also there if one looks more closely at where the citations are and what they say: for instance the textbook Biology: The Foundations (1977, unfortunately available only on snippet view from Google books) includes a line "The pattern of centriole replication was first worked out independently by Etienne de Harven of the Sloan-Kettering lnstitute and Joseph G. Gall". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep—(edit conflict) David Eppstein's newly added sources seem to me to demonstrate notability even under the gng, leaving aside (interesting enough) discussions about proper application of wp:prof.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per David Eppstein who has found sufficient coverage to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 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 prejudice against recreation if he makes The Show. The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Luis

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player who is no longer affiliated with any big league teams. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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. No prejudice against recreation if he makes The Show. The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Hubbard

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. No longer affiliated with team. Alex (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Andrew (baseball)

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

Non-notable scout, minor league baseball figure. Contested PROD with an invalid explanation ("I DEPROD all scouts by default.") that does nothing to address GNG or BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dresscode (BDSM)

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

Pure WP:Original Research / WP:NOTHOWTO. Tagged as {{original research}} and {{unreferenced}} since October 2008. Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is an OR essay on clothing fetishes; allowing this mess anywhere near dress code would set off a spasm of WP:UNDUE way beyond the single sentence that (ahem) covers the topic there now. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure OR. Kevin (talk) 05:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. This sentence particularly is pure opinion and non-encyclopaedic language and sums up the overall problems: "A normal vanilla guest wanting to enter a BDSM event solely to ogle at others merely has to invest in kinky clothing, he/she does not have to actually have a kinky mindset". I am not opposed to the subject matter in any way but such an article would need to be absolutely neutral in tone, be reliably sourced and totally avoid BDSM jargon - not being familiar with "insider terminology", this article somewhat confused me. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even if the article is deleted, I feel the subject should be mentioned in the article dress code, but heavily shortened. A couple of sentences or so, at the most, and omitting the details about accepted clothing and the criticism. JIP | Talk 23:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll need reliable sources to back up anything to be merged. Toddst1 (talk) 01:55, 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 keep. It's got sources now. However, personal attacks are not cool, guys. Shii (tock) 13:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Is… Cliff Clavin?

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

Overly detailed fancruft. The only sources are a Jeopardy! clue archive referencing clues that had to do with the show, and the rest is user-submitted trivia sites. Last AFD turned up print sources that resulted in my withdrawal, but on second thought the print sources seem tangential and trivial — one is a primary source from Jeopardy!, one is a Frasier episode guide that only gives a summary, and one is a newspaper article that only dedicates one sentence. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's before AFD? Who couldn't find his ass with both hands? What is a tool? ... The episode is notable being covered in detail in numerous books and newspapers. I have cited a few. Warden (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What is an article that someone should have added found sources to last time around? Looks like thee are good sources, discovered last time around, that should have been added then. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey 10#! Nice to chat with you, I'm a long time fan of yours. That said, I disagree with you here. I agree the primary isn't worth squat for notability and the Frasier guide is entirely worthless. That said, the coverage in "Hope...", wahile fairly brief, is worth a look. If you are referring to the newspaper article I'm seeing from the last AfD, it's considerably longer than one sentence. That the Cheers episode pops up in unscripted asides (and Trebeck's "pulling a Cliff Clavin" call outs )in episodes of Jeopardy, while very difficult to properly source, push it over the edge for me. After all of that, I will say that the current article is heavy on plot and pointlessly verbose. Most episodes of most shows are not notable and deserve to be hammered out of existence. I see this as one of the very rare exceptions. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand Hammer's point of view that this episode isn't notable enough to deserve the separate article that most Cheers episodes don't have. But I respectfully disagree; I think that this is one episode that people really do discuss, separate and apart from the context of the series, in part due to its connections to the real Jeopardy. If not here, for example, where would one appropriately include the information about that connection? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this TV episode that has had significant cultural impact; the phrase "people who have never been in my kitchen", which originated in this work, remains often cited years later [11]. The search "Cliff Clavin" + "Jeopardy" gets a large number of hits in my library's database of newspaper and magazine articles, with many brief but non-trivial mentions (and the database has just a small number of newspaper archives from 1990 when the episode originally aired). I've added three citations since the start of this AfD. There's enough coverage for WP:N notability, even if there's not a single reference we can point to that on its own is in-depth coverage. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why does the nominator feel the need to once again nominate something for deletion, he previously nominated that ended in Keep? You nominate a ridiculous number of articles for deletion regularly already, no sense having all of them open again because you didn't get your way. And sources were found last time, you withdrawing you nomination because of them. Dream Focus 02:24, 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 no consensus. Strong opinion that subject meets WP:GNG with sources provided with equally strong opinion that provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE and so subject does not meet WP:GNG. v/r - TP 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Imray

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

Footballer who has yet to make an appearance at a level deemed to confer notability by Wikipedia standards (per WP:NFOOTBALL) has only played semi-professional club, no senior international call-up, only general mentions in sports journalism per WP:ROUTINE ClubOranjeT 09:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of articles in the sports section does not define notability - every kid that trials with a big club gets that sort of coverage; it sells copy.The Chatham Cup coverage you link is exactly the type of routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage... that doesn't signify notability. At the end of the day, this is a footballer who has yet to actually achieve anything notable. WP is an encyclopaedia, not a summary of every article printed in the sports pages.--ClubOranjeT 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What other section of the newspaper would you expect a sports player to get coverage in? Unless they are David Beckham, that's where all sports players get covered. Or are you saying that more than newspaper articles are required? Either way, it's a flawed argument. You do realise that the section of WP:N that you linked to is for events? I fully agree that Imray is not a significant event. In my opinion, what's meant by routine sports coverage is "Imray made a good save" in match report – there were quite a few of those articles, but I don't believe they prove notability, so I didn't include them in my keep !vote. However, when the article is primarily about the player, that's significant coverage in my book. Finally, if he hasn't achieved anything of note, then why have multiple independent reliable sources covered his career? Jenks24 (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree his career is a non-event, but thousands of kids get a few sports page articles by journos hoping they are uncovering the next Messi. Thousands of these guys get their WP articles deleted every year because they have not made a meaningful contribution to the annals of history. Same as thousands of polititians who never got elected and thousands of musicians who never made it big get deleted every year.--ClubOranjeT 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, thousands of kids don't get the coverage that Imray has. He is simply unfortunate in that he is from New Zealand – although the league he plays in has professional players, it is not "fully professional", yet the national team is strong enough (they did make the last World Cup) that he is not simply given a game because he has a vague understanding of the rules, which is apparently enough for some players from countries where football is next to non-existant. He has far more coverage than players in the fourth tier of English football and some of those really obscure European leagues – articles that will never be more than one-line stubs. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that it's well-known that NFOOTY is a flawed guideline and it would really be great if the WP:FOOTY editors who comment on all these AfDs came in with an open mind about whether players who haven't played in a fully professional league can still be notable, rather than shooting down any and every reference provided as "routine". Yes, most players who haven't played in a FPL are non-notable, but that does not mean they all are. Sorry to go off on a bit of a rant there. Jenks24 (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:GNG, coverage is way beyond routine and passing mentions. Added to article:

Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:19, 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, causa sui (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [12] and others prove he is clearly notable. The WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 22:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, references are WP:ROUTINE sports coverage and fail WP:NTEMP. There are thousands of articles on non-League footballers who fail GNG by a long shot, this is no different. Also fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played a fully-professional or international level yet. --Jimbo[online] 11:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding your reference to WP:ROUTINE, I'll say this. At the very top of that guideline it says "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news." But even if we ignore that and apply it to a biographical article: "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article" – this clearly does not apply to bios because I could refer you to thousands of AfDs where the consensus has been that the subject meets the GNG and the sources are all sports articles (indeed this would be the norm for any notable athlete); "sports scores ... should be considered routine" – the articles referenced in this AfD are not simply sports scores, they are in-depth articles about Imray; "Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article" – that's what's happening here, we are summarising Imray's career, not writing an article for every match. Jenks24 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even having 3 articles about his job interview, it is still WP:ONEEVENT and not a particularly notable one. Regarding your earlier comment regarding articles being in "broadsheet" papers, note that tabloid journalism does not refer to the size of the paper it is printed on, only to the journalistic nature of the article. Having references based on sports articles is not the issue, it is the nature of the article, and these articles - essentially the same piece in three different papers, are pretty run-of-mill. My 8 year old kid has had an article in the herald also.--ClubOranjeT 10:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that WP:ONEEVENT applies here. As you say, he received coverage for his "job interview", but he also received coverage other things, such as the "Miramar keeper [Phil Imray] secures Chatham win" article. I do understand that tabloid journalism does not only apply to tabloid newspapers, but unsurprisingly, tabloid journalism does occur mostly in tabloid newspapers. In the case of the articles I have mentioned above, I do not believe they are tabloid-y in nature, they appear to be written by serious and competent sports journalists. Perhaps other editors will comment on whether they believe the articles to be tabloid-y and run-of-the-mill? In any case, this has certainly been an interesting AfD. Jenks24 (talk) 10:35, 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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Gonino

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

Article lacks sources (save two, one of which is now defunct and the other a local newspaper) and is full of un-sourced, irrelevant information. Stunners (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article reads very much like a publicity blurb about the actress. I don't know that there's notability here, though the 8-episodes on 10 things may indicate something more. If this gets deleted, I would think the usual caveats would apply; she's early in her career, and might break out at some point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actress has appeared in a number of notable screen productions and is currently a series regular in a television series (The Lying Game) which was just picked for a full season, so WP:ENTERTAINER is clearly met. Article just needs to be cleaned up by removing all the fluff. I'm willing to clean it up myself. QuasyBoy 04:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up the article now. QuasyBoy 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 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 without prejudice. Consensus is that pages like this don't deserve to exist; postdlf is welcome to userfy the page if he thinks he can make it a notable subject Shii (tock) 13:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely unsourced trivia, basically amounts to "This work is named Shangri-La or has it name-dropped." There isn't even an intro to the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Indiscriminate unsourced list of random non-notable trivia like
'Lush Cosmetics' makes a facial moisturizer called 'Skin's Shangri-La'.
Clearly put together by Googling for any mention of the name "Shangri La". Great comedic value, though. Best laugh I had all day! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but, if anyone cares to, create a brand new wiki, not associated with the foundation, for all the crufty "in popular culture" listings. imagine 10,000 articles, all like this. what a project that would be. "sex" in popular culture, "popular culture" in popular culture, yum.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with all the criticism above; it is completely worthless to just compile endless lists of every time a term is used in some pop culture work, because those works aren't about that term or concept in any meaningful way. It's kind of like having a "reverse annotation"--instead of explaining a term in the article in that work (if it is meaningful), this just listed the works that use the term. It certainly doesn't add to my knowledge of "Shangri-La" any more to know that the main characters in White Men Can't Jump stay at the Shangri-La Hotel in the movie (and it doesn't add to my knowledge of that movie, either). That kind of subtrivia is almost as bad as listing all the movies in which a character says the word "paradise." But loathsome though that is, not all pop culture references are so trivial, nor are "in popular culture" sections always so insubstantial, so this shouldn't be taken as representative. It's simply about as bad as it can get.

    But I took a stab at salvaging this one anyway.[13] So my version imported an intro from the Shangri-La article, and cleared out the non-notable and the mere references, such as things merely titled after Shangri-La (lots and lots of songs, mainly) that are more properly listed at Shangri-La (disambiguation) and all those movies in which someone at some point says "Shangri-La". What we're now left with appears to be substantive depictions of Shangri-La, or works to which Shangri-La is integral, or parodies of Shangri-La. Maybe even with those the usage is too generic, or maybe those should be listed as parodies of Lost Horizon rather than here, but I think it might have potential now that the worst cruft has been cleared away. postdlf (talk) 03:56, 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 and redirect to B.F. Skinner#Air crib. The Bushranger One ping only 00:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Skinner Buzan

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

I declined to speedy this but it should be deleted under WP:BLP1E. Also, notability is (quite literally in this case) not inheirited. causa sui (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 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 all except the list.. v/r - TP 16:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Redwall species

edit
List of Redwall species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Abbey leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over a year
Badger Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years, tagged for merge since January 2009
Badger Mother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years, tagged for merge since January 2009
Birds in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — tagged for merge since January 2009
Foremole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years
Log-a-Log (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years
Otters in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — tagged for merge since January 2009
Redwall Champion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shrew tribes in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced for over 3 years, tagged for merge since January 2009
Skipper of Otters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years
Martin the Warrior (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — tagged for overlong plot for 3 years, unsourced
Redwall Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — unsourced over 2 years
Mossflower Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto
Salamandastron (Redwall) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto
Loamhedge Abbey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto
Long Patrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — not even linked on the Redwall template
Minor badgers in Redwall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — ditto

All of these articles are nothing but in-universe, unsourced content with way too much detail, no sources and no out-of-universe notability. There's little, if nothing, to merge. I fail to see any reason for ANY of this to have articles. Some merge proposals were brought up in 2009 but nothing came of them since apparently no one maintains the Redwall articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Whilst recognising the concern over sourcing, I see nothing about these Redwall articles that leads me to consider their deletion. Yes, there are issues about in-universe sourcing and lack of external commentary. However WP does do fiction, and it does it in a way that permits articles on fictional topics to rely (perhaps excessively) on in-novel sources (and let's not start on the superhero comics). If that's a problem though, it's a hell of a lot bigger one than just these Redwall articles. Work to change it if you want, but that should be done from the top, via Village Pump & fiction projects, not by trying to pick off the fanboys, story arc by story arc.
As to issues of poor sourcing including even in-universe sources, then that's just plain old clean up by editing, not deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, right? Just getting that straight. Tell me how it gets to bypass having literally zero out-of-universe notability, or how it gets to bypass having literally zero secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. One article is WP:OSE. The infamous past serious discussion about the need for a whole Pokemon namespace, or the absolutely rife in-universe issues for superheroes, isn't just WP:OSE or even a precedent, it's a whole community behaviour by consensus and a de facto policy. You might be right to start from scratch and say that this fictional stuff just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia (mind you, good luck with that one), but singling out Redwall as if it was some unusual aberration to be stamped out ASAP is unreasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell do you posit that I'm "singling out" Redwall? There are plenty of other unrelated fiction articles that are just as poorly written, and lacking in out-of-universe notability. I bundled these articles because they're closely related and all have the same issues, not because I'm on some anti-Redwall vendetta. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except List of Redwall species - No evidence of notability other than that inherited from Redwall. If merged to a larger Redwall article, they would represent an inappropriate and unencyclopaedic level of detail. They should therefore be deleted, not merged. These issues do not necessarily affect the main list, though. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except List of Redwall species and nominate that one separately. I don't have any interest in debating notability and list policies (I got an email indicating that my talk page was changed which is why I'm "out of retirement" to post here), but the List of Species article is the one that is on the fence. If it was not bundled with the others they would all be quick and easy deletes. McJEFF (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: Details that are far too minor for their own articles, and probably for inclusion in Redwall. Can't see any encyclopedic value in List of Redwall species, either. Sourcing is a major problem, as well. If the compiler would like to see this material placed on the internet, WP is not the place for it. Nothing is preventing them from creating their own website. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree completely with the fact that these articles have serious issues with sourcing, but that could be easily fixed, as all the sources would be in-universe fiction. Not having proper sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion. As for the comment that these articles have no "out-of-universe notability", well I suppose that is fair, but how is it any different from wikipedia articles about the worlds and/or characters in other notable fictional fantasy series, such as those for A Song of Ice and Fire (world, characters), The Wheel of Time (articles are too numerous to list), or The Sword of Truth (characters). You could even argue that many of the articles about The Lord of the Rings have no "out-of-universe notability". In summary, do the articles need work: yes. Should they be deleted: absolutely not. Runch (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it. It comes down to an issue of Inherent Notability. My argument is that the Redwall series is just as notable as many of the other famous fictional fantasy series. Runch (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inherent notability does not apply to fictional fantasy series. There is an encyclopedic justification to including every high-school or every pope, for example, no matter how unnotable they may be by themselves, on the basis that they are a high school or a pope. There is not justification to include every fictional fantasy series jsut because it is a fictional fantasy series. You yourself agree to this when you use the word "famous", meaning that each series has to be notable on it's own merits. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I misused the term "inherent notability" from a Wikipedia policy standpoint, but what we're arguing over is the notability of this series and whether it's notable on it's own merits, as you mentioned. I argue that it most certainly is. It has sold over 20 million copies, been translated into 29 languages, and spawned a television show as well as an opera. As Andy Dingley noted, you can argue that articles on fictional material do not deserve to be in an encyclopedia, but assuming that this sort of thing is included, Redwall is certainly notable enough to stay. Runch (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again you're off-topic. The notability of the series itself is not at issue here, and no one is arguing that Redwall be deleted. The notability of minor details from the series is the question. And again, you seem to be appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. All of the arguments you have made for "keep" are either off-topic or not relevant. A good point was brought up by DustFormsWords that they probably aren't even notable enough for inclusion in the main Redwall article because they "would represent an inappropriate and unencyclopaedic level of detail". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "an unencyclopaedic level of detail"
I dispute the existence of any such concept, certainly not according to policy. This is not a paper-based encyclopedia. We have no page count to stay within. If there is a wish to increase detail, we can simply extend that article to cover it. WP:UNDUE in particular doesn't oppose this. Firstly it's about neutrality, not detail. Secondly, the legitimate concerns about detail within an article relate to an excess of detail in relation to the overall scope of that article. There would indeed be issues about detail on the minor badgers within a broad article on Redwall, but the appropriate response to that for a wiki-based encyclopedia is to arrange that content into a separate article at Minor badgers in Redwall, as has rightly been done here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:33, 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. quoting Tokyogirl79: "I highly encourage that you post this somewhere, just not on Wikipedia." Shii (tock) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of tutoring websites

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

Prodded with: "article is completely original research. A collection of links." Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I, author of the article, object the proposal for deletion for the following reasons:
        Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have checked WP:NOTDIRECTORY and in my opinion it confirms that the article cannot be considered a directory. In fact it provides an analysis and comparison of features of a number of entities (tutoring websites), not just a list of entities as a directory would do. It outlines the main distinguishing features between tutoring websites and their implications. It is very informative for whoever is interested in tutoring as it shows different approaches in tutoring services. There is an analitical work in the article, it is not just a list of things. Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This page is a directory and original research. It is a directory because it links to external sites rather than Wikipedia articles, and is not constrained to notable websites (those that have a Wikipedia article). It is original research because it has a definite lack of sourcing. OSborn arfcontribs. 20:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlike the others listed for comparison, which contain numerous wikilinks, this one fails WP:NOTLINK. Also it would have to be permanently tagged as outdated.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is all OR and pretty subjective. It also appears that whomever created the list is also one of the companies listed here, so there's some huge conflict of interest and advertisement no-nos going on here. S/he pretty openly states that they "have found the sites with the help of search engines and discarded those which were not clear about their functioning", which could mean that they deleted competition. It could also mean that they are judging the competition they did list unfairly in order to promote their own company. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
To (User:Bcancel, please look up WP:COI. Starting an article where you have a vested interest can be seen by many as a conflict of interest because you potentially stand to gain from people going to your site or by you potentially downplaying or removing people that you view as "inferior" to the product you put out or anyone that would be seen as competition. It's possible to do this even when you go into the article with the intent to not do this. It's not against "the rules" for someone like you to edit/create an article, but it's generally not a good idea unless you've talked to a lot of people on the wiki first to ensure that you're creating a neutral article as well as one that warrants being on here to begin with. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • I have explicitly declared the conflict of interest in the article's introduction and still think the article is absolutely neutral. By applying the Wikipedia rules too restrictively, you will be removing an article which is very informative for whomever is interested in tutoring services. Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The neutrality will be an issue since you have an interest and could stand to profit if someone happens to select your company from this list, whichever company it might be. It will always be an issue when someone edits or creates an article where they mention their product or company. It doesn't always mean that they're not neutral but it means that it always should be investigated to ensure this and because of that we can't only accept your say-so. Besides, this article is not wikipedia-worthy. Please visit the page WP:NOT to see what Wikipedia is not meant for. There is nothing here on this article that merits an entry here. Just because it might be helpful to people looking for something specific does not guarantee that it is notable or merits an entry. In particular you should look up WP:NOTDIR that others have tried to get you to visit. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of services. That is not and has never been its function or intention. As much as you try to deny that this is not a directory, that is essentially what this entry is. You can try to justify it any way that you like but the article's main purpose is to list tutoring sites. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Comment – It would also be a good idea to visit WP:OWN. The article is not written like an encyclopedia entry. It is written like a commisioned report. "By Tutoring Site or Tutoring Website we mean", "I am a co-founder of one of the tutoring websites". When do you ever see articles on Wikipedia refering to "I" or "We"? Just because it is useful does not make it encyclopedic: see WP:USEFUL. If it is useful why not make a blog or a website for it? It'd get more hits on Google than on Wikipedia. Del♉sion23 (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have improved the article according to the preceding comment:
    • I have changed "By Tutoring Site or Tutoring Website we mean" into "A Tutoring Site or Tutoring Website is ..."
    • I have suppressed the declaration of conflict of interest in the article's introduction ("I am a co-founder of one of the tutoring websites included in the survey. I declare that I have used objective, impartial and fair criteria in the selection of the sites, in the order they are listed and in their analysis. I have found the sites with the help of search engines and discarded those which were not clear about their functioning. I have ordered the sites by the number of tutors declared. The sites which did not give any indication about the number of tutors registered or employed have been ordered randomly.")
        I believe the style is now appropriate for an encyclopedia. Bruno1949 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Completely unencyclopedic linkfarm and directory based entirely on OR with personal subjective and self-serving evaluations by the compiler not based on any reliable sourcing and tainted by obvious COI for purely selfish personal promotion and financial gain. A gross and reprehensible abuse of the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could Whpq please explain what is a notable tutoring website and provide a few examples. Anyway I reject his insult of having built a "spamy linkfarm". I have had no contact whatsoever with any of the surveyed sites, except of course the one I have cofounded. And I am convinced that my article is very useful to anyone interested in web-aided tutoring. I wish I had found a similar article before I started developing my tutoring site. Bruno1949 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Notable. -- Whpq (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply not accepted - please read my question better. I know what "notable" means in general, I would like to know why you believe the web sites I surveyed are not notable and a few examples of tutoring websites that you consider "notable". Thanks. Bruno1949 (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The link I provided to the Wikipedia guildeline was to provide you with information to understand what the term "notable" means in the context of this discussion as opposed to the more general dictionary definition. The web sites in question do not appear to meet the criteria for "notable" as outlined in the guidelines. I did not exhaustively go through every web site listed, but a spot check revealed no significant coverage about them. A comparison of tutoring web sites where each of the compared web sites has their own standalone wikipedia article might be viable as a topic. If you are offended by my characterisation of the article as being spammy, then I withdraw the comment about it being spammy. But it is staill a linkfarm. -- Whpq (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • About the term "linkfarm", they are normally paid by or exchange links with the interested websites which is not my case and therefore I also find it offensive. As regards notability, here we have a big inconsistency. For example, how come there are articles in Wikipedia dedicated to tutoring companies such as TutorVista, Tutor.com,Transweb and maybe other who are clearly adverstising their services. Now, I think my article, which includes them, is more correct (from a Wikipedia point of view) and useful (from a user point of view) of their dedicated articles. So, if you want to delete my article you should also delete theirs. Bruno1949 (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for bringing these to our attention. We'll start tagging them to see if they deserve to be kept on wikipedia or not. So far my google search doesn't bring anything up to show that most of the names you've listed merit an article here on wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete per the above. The correct course here would be to make a list of notable tutoring websites - that is, websites for which we already have an article (with the appropriate sources, etc). Then, a list of such websites could be appropriate. But this article, in its present form, doesn't work. The links don't support on-wiki content, as they should per WP:EL; rather, the links are the content, which doesn't work. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, all you reviewers seem to be focused only on the links present in my article, whereas the most important thing here is the analysis of the main differences between tutoring websites. Please be more pragmatic and ask yourselves whether the information provided by the article is useful to people who want to understand in theory and with practical, real examples what the tutoring websites do and how to choose the one that best fits ones needs. Bruno1949 (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please understand that just because something is useful does not mean that it belongs on Wikipedia. A comparison of these sites might be useful but it is still not something that belongs here on Wikipedia. This is something that more belongs on a personal private site. As much as you think that your article deserves to be here, it just doesn't fit what is considered to be an encyclopedic entry as far as this site goes. Saying that it deserves to be here because it's useful to people doesn't warrant an article. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
      • That said, I highly encourage that you post this somewhere, just not on Wikipedia. There are many free blogging websites through which you can post this list. It doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:58, 18 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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JBW Timepieces

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

Non-notable company. No assertion of notability made in the article, and none to be found in independent searches. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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 closed as moot. Article has been redirected to Neo-bulk cargo. This discussion does not relate to that page, and that page does not have the problems the former article did here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Car shipping

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

The underlying topic of shipping cars may support an article. Unfortunately, this text is about something else entirely, and as such is original research and a likely promotional insertion.

This article came to my attention as a result of a related AfD about a trucking company that ships cars. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A-1 Auto Transport) I do think that the subject could support an article about the shipment of cars from factories to destinations by ship, railroad, semi trailer, and maybe aeroplanes.

But this article does not speak of any of those things. Instead, it seems to be about how people can now buy cars over the Internet, and you can Make Money Fast by cashing in on this trend: This car shipping industry has grown significantly since the advent of the Internet. People are now able to purchase cars from anywhere in the world and have them shipped to their doorstep. Dealerships are increasingly marketing online towards people from all over the world. Some small used car dealers also sell cars online. Ebay and other online market places have increased consumer choice. Collectible and rare cars make up a large portion of the cars that are purchased via the Internet. Oftentimes, a desired vehicle is unavailable locally, and the person must find a way to transport the vehicle. Due to this increased demand, car shipping companies have become more prominent with quality service and car shipping quotes. Choosing a reputable car shipping company has become more and more difficult with advances in internet technology. With growing visibility into car shipping processes and practices, the barriers to entry have been opened and the number of service providers in the market create complex challenges for consumers as they struggle to find competitive differentiation amongst these offerings.

No references; only a link to an Open Directory project. Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. Prior AfD seems to have been about a different article entirely, but this too needs an extreme makeover. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 12 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 Transportation-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete One could write some sort of article, somewhere, about the means by which cars are distributed, and the ordering system behind that, and the various vehicles used to transport them (the latter probably being distributed over half a dozen articles already, e.g. auto rack). I don't know whether a worldwide article could be effectively written, and I doubt that this would be a good name for such an article anyway. What I do know is that what we have here is rubbish almost from end to end. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've de(red)linked 'car shipping companies' as a potential spam list. As Smerdis and Mangoe say, there could be an article on this subject. (No, I'm not volunteering...) It's not this one. Looking back, it doesn't seem to have been earlier, either. It has had references, but I've not investigated yet. I'm not sure why it doesn't now, but maybe that says something about them. Will look closer. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I endorsed the earlier prod on this article, but we may choose instead to point it to Shipping or Ship transport. Dawnseeker2000 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ihcoyc is right. The article was not informative on its subject. Car shipping is obviously the romantic relationships between automotive vehicles. How could any Wikipedia editor think otherwise? Heaven forfend that people come to Wikipedia to learn about the ordinary everyday world around them, such as the workings of the international shipping trade! ☺ I have thus helped the article a little bit. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 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 speedy keep. Procedural closing/keep (SK1) as the nominator failed to provide a rationaile for deletion. No prejudice against speedy renomination with a rationaile provided. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QPHP Framework

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

{{{text}}} Lorem Ip (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 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 no consensus. The article nominator said so themselves, "as I have already stated that notability is not a issue." Giving the SPAs less weight especially given that their rationales are not based in policy, there is no consensus to keep or delete. Peridon's suggestion to redirect may be a good possibility but lacks consensus in this discussion. v/r - TP 16:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Flash Flood of Colour

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

The article has just one reference which says "Posted by Katie P", which means that it was a blog entry, making the reference not reliable. Also the album is not yet released so its tough to get references for it, so I think this article should be deleted in case a much reliable source is added. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no much issues with the notability, however the "Alter The Press!" source says "POSTED BY JON ABLESON AT 10:29", which means its a blog entry, and the other two sources doesn't seems to be much reliable, as "female first" seems to be a gossip magazine. I think references will be not available for now, maybe I should move the article to "Article Incubator" and then move the article to mainspace during the release as more sources will be available. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The articles linked above are just a sample of what is available online (here are some more [17] [18] [19] [20]). Many of the articles simply report on the album being announced, but the large amount of them definitely makes it meet notability, as they reflect the level of attention and interest over it. Incubation makes some sense, but with both the release date and the tracklist being confirmed, I think that keeping the article is better than having a temporary redirect to the band — frankie (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm a little confused why the official site isn't being taken into consideration [21] 35.32.210.89 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all an official website is not at all reliable. Second "rocksound" doesn't says much, as I have already stated that notability is not a issue, "nme" seems too much like a advertisement, however "outune" and "live4ever.uk" seems to be reliable, although the first one is in Italian so I am not 100% sure for that. Maybe we should add it in the article as reference. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Put it this way. Are you going to say anything against yourself on your website? Wikipedia articles are not (supposed to be...) nice little (or big) depictions of everything as seen through rose tinted glasses. Some people who have put self-praising vanity articles here have been very upset when someone else knows where the bodies were buried (and when, and who), and can prove it with better references than the subject had. That's why we discount own sites (and Facebook & Co too). Enter Shikari's site can be used as evidence of future plans, but not that these plans are notable. Until independent reliable coverage appears, this might be better as a redirect to a section on their article rather than being deleted. And while we're at it, can you remind me when it's out so I know when to go and get it? Peridon (talk) 18:09, 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 keep. Merge discussion can happen on the article's talk page. v/r - TP 15:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Dillon

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

The IP editor has added three references to only two sentences of the lead. The article has too much plot and should be condensated if this article should be either kept or merged to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. It is full of fictional in-universe and plot and short of fact perspectives. I don't know if the article violates copyrights. Some people are totally dedicated to Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas and its talk page; they tend to delude themselves into believing what a good artice "is". The current sources may not be the right ones to choose; even there is no notability established as other soap dedicators think. There is no reception from the media, including magazine articles and journals. I'm not fully sure if this article is worth merging anymore; in fact, the destination article is full of less- or non-notable characters. --Gh87 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this editor nominated this article for deletion after I provided three reliable sources that demonstrate the character's notability.[22], one of which discusses the character extensively. I have to believe that this is a bad-faith nomination, seeing as the nominator and I have exchanged disparaging words to each other. The editor has shown more and more that he or she doesn't understand WP:Notability, as seen in this discussion where he or she was called out by an administrator. A character article being full of plot and not having a reception section has nothing at all to do with whether or not the character is notable. Those are article building/formatting issues. Even now, the editor talks about "the current sources may not be the right ones to choose" when the sources (two of which are scholarly) clearly meet WP:Reliable sources requirements. As said, one discusses the character extensively. Of course they are "the right choices." 174.137.184.36 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no argument or rationale for deletion offered. If there is "too much plot," then trim it or add more real world context to balance it. The same with in-universe perspective: WP:SOFIXIT. Either this should be kept as a standalone article (which the references might support) or it should be merged to a character list. In either case, deletion is not the proper outcome, and this AFD should not have been started per WP:ATD. The nom's comments about soap opera article editors are inappropriate; one might more easily comment on the conduct and intent of an editor who has done nothing recently but mass-nominate soap opera-related articles for deletion without any attempt at correcting problems by editing or merging, etc., through normal editing and discussion, which tends towards disruption in that it is contrary to both deletion and editing policy, and the disparaging comments about the subject and its editors unfortunately suggest bad faith on his part. Unsupported comments such as "The current sources may not be the right ones to choose" and "I don't know if the article violates copyrights" further tell us that the nom is assuming the worst but not doing any work to investigate or verify. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge if in is a seconadary character, keep if it is a major one. I deleted all unreferenced story line description: too much judgement on what and why was going on and what were the characters of the characters. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/"Vote" This source is not a short mention and actually does show significance. Although I guess it depends on a person's personal definition of "short" or "significance," it's a pretty thorough analysis of the character in my opinion. I agree that the other two mentions are short, and I have corrected my statement above that said two of the sources were extensive. However, they also show significance and are about reception, and we really don't know how long the TV Guide mention is (other than maybe one page long). But based on whether or not this article can be a valid stand-alone article, I'd have to say I agree with you that it is best merged for now. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 15:24, 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 - TP 15:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Reyes (All My Children)

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

I just left the {{merge}} remain there while I nominated that article for AfD. Notability is not established, and I am not certain about whether that article is notable enough to be merged into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, which is full of characters without notability establishments and citations from self-published and primary sources. Full of plot without factual perspectives and intentions to condensate the storyline. Appears to plagiarize from other websites, but no proof yet. Also, this character appeared for less than one year in 2003. --Gh87 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 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 keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Hussey

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

Fails WP:BIO. Yes, he was on Carson, but that would fall under WP:ONEEVENT. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 12:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes he was on Carson, but this happened because of his notability, not vice versa. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, probably GNews's date range search isn't working quite right but the only reference I can find before 1986 is a very short color piece in the Florence/Sheffield/Tuscumbia/Muscle Shoals regional edition of the Times Daily of Florence, Alabama. There are only a handful of post-1986 hits, and a fair number of those are either calendar announcements or local obituaries. This is something of a fifteen minutes of notability situation, and it's clear that Carson didn't have him on because he was famous. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Topic passes WP:BASIC, in which multiple independent sources may be combined to establish notability. I added more more reliable sources to the article:
Northamerica1000(talk) 04:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notethey did not include many references, but have many external links, both in and out of the correct section, Ill see if I can fix that. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry they are references, not external links, they did a good job on that. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:26, 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 - TP 15:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine operations, 1971

edit
Submarine operations, 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marking this article for deletion on 12 Oct, 2011. Subject matter of article is already covered in much greater depth and in a more structured fashion with section for both side's viewpoints here Sinking of PNS Ghazi, Operation Trident (Indo-Pakistani War of 1971), Operation Python, Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, Indo-Pakistani Naval War of 1971 and PNS Hangor.

The article is basically based on copy-paste from other articles, original research and forum site Pakdef.

Swift&silent (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No vote yet. At the first sight it appears to be WP:SYNTH of arbitrary grouping; why not Celebrity deaths, 1972 and zillions of other titles? On the other hand, it appears about something cohesive during a particualr war. May be a better title and better sources will help to clarify whether this is a well-defined subject. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and rename - perhaps to Submarine operations of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971? Seems like it could be a useful overview of the subject. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -The article certainly looks WP:SYNTH and is a absolute copy of the references specially of pakdef.info to an extent that even the tense in the article is the same as that of references. Certainly looks redundant and a case of content fork. Even if it is not removed the references of unreliable pakdef.info should be removed.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 05:16, 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. v/r - TP 15:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary union. The range of different behaviours present on the autism spectrum means individual entries here are only very distantly related to one another: furthermore, the difficulty in diagnosing many of those means that the list is always going to attract self-research or distinctly borderline cases. As an aside, you would struggle to find a poorer collection of AfDs than the previous three on this subject (a sample of one of the better arguments: "keep, good list".) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a indiscriminate list. The criteria for inclusion seem clear. This does not seem like a list for lists sake or one that would only be of interest to a limited audience. Given the lack of understanding the general public has about autism spectrum disorders, the appearance of fictional characters with this disorder is an important cultural milestone towards greater awareness. Entries to this list can be verified and sourced - it is not dependent on original research. For example, editors can reference the book Movies and Mental Illness: Using Films to Understand Psychopathology. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In a quite a few films the plot is essentially based on one or another type of personal impaired mental or physical ability. If there is any research in this phenomenon, all the more. 16:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune brutally Anything that lacks a citation by the author needs to go. Speculations from critics are just that, and never mind using IMDB as an authority on this. If we want to include the opinions of critics we need a different article title. Mangoe (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mangoe's got it exactly the wrong way around. It doesn't matter what the author thinks of the work. What matters is what the independent reviewers think. Having said that, although I disagree with Mangoe on that, I agree on the main point, and my !vote is keep per Postdlf.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a problem with the list including both. If an author expressly intends a depiction to be of someone who is autistic, but critics think he failed in some way, maybe out of ignorance of the condition, that is no less informative and relevant than if critics have determined that a character fits an autistic portrayal even though the author never expressly said so. But that's a matter for normal editing and discussion to resolve in any event, not AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you elaborate, please? I think there are good reasons why normal custom and practice is to rely on what the independent sources say, rather than the author's self-generated description, and I don't yet understand what makes it a good idea to depart from normal practice in this case.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • An author's intent is certainly relevant to determining the content of his work, and whether or not he successfully executed that intent is a separate question from what that work is and is about. If your concern is whether we limit this to "accurate" portrayals of autism, for example, that's off the mark, and I think that incorrect approach is part of what leads people to think that these lists are unverifiable because they get hung up on whether a fictional character "really" has autism ("I mean, we never saw Rain Man subject to the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, so we can't say that diagnosis is accurate!"). If Joe Schmoe, hack writer extraordinare, writes the bestseller Toby, the Autistic Young Lad but is then criticized for apparently knowing nothing about autism, we would still include Toby in this list but with annotations stating that the portrayal was considered grossly inaccurate. postdlf (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh—no, I was unconcerned about whether the portrayal of autism is successful or accurate. I was concerned about whether it is significant. It seems to me that we would want to include fictional characters who are a reasonably substantial aspect of that fictional work, rather than merely bit-parts, on this list. Hence my preference for third party reviewers referring to the autism.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Critics and reviewers are rarely reliable and objective sources about the unspoken nature of characters unless they are relating either what the author told them, or what is said outright in the work. Wikipedia is already plagued with dubious LGBT fantasizing about the sexuality of, well, everyone, as evidenced by an extremely drawn-out talk page discussion over whether Frank and Joe Hardy had the hots for each other—according to a critic, of course. This category is similarly an attractive nuisance for autism awareness activism. I could be perhaps be persuaded that cases of characters where there is general consensus that a character is presenting autistic-spectrum behavior could be listed if identified as such, but I'm going to guess that finding a good source for this is going to be rare. Categories need to be objectively defined, and categorizing behavior (especially considering the history of the diagnostic categories in question) is rarely so objective. Mangoe (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This list is of obvious interest and merit as an encyclopedia entry. We're not talking about a "list of characters who wear a blue shirt", we're talking about characters with a personality characteristic that contributes in a meaningful way, sometimes centrally so, to the artistic and educational impact of the fictional work. But don't take my word for it: NY Times article on autism in the movies, Autism Research Institute's own list of movies featuring ASD, book on autistic characters in Jane Austen's novels reviewed in The Telegraph and elsewhere, academic article concerning "spectacularized representations of autism", lesson plan for children on "Neuroscience at the Movies" from University of Washington faculty web server, article on the portrayal of autistic characters on TV from The Washington Times, list of autistic book and TV characters from Indian TV network NDTV, list of Autism movies from Autism-World, "Autism on film: can cinema get it right?" from The Guardian, etc., etc.
And as to the argument that the category is too broad, "Autism spectrum" has its very own WP entry with over a thousand hits a day. You don't even have to give the full phrase anymore--"yeah, well, one of my kids is on the spectrum" is understood. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia affords a large latitude for lists, and difficulty in maintaining a list is not a reason for deletion. The subject matter is clearly defined - there's no debate about what the autism spectrum is or what "fictional character" means, although you can always argue individual inclusions in the usual way on the list's talk page. There is no problem in finding enough characters that are notable for being fictitious AND autistic to fill out a list, and there is plenty of RS discussion of depictions of autism in fiction, so it's undeniably a non-trivial intersection of traits. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobbes Goodyear Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good find Hobbes Goodyear! Many times the media covers people with this condition in films and whatnot. Dream Focus 19:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists, and the subject of this one, a list of fictional characters identified with conditions in the autism spectrum, has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources in the way in which the article presents them, so I do not believe that the topic of the list meets the general notability guideline. More importantly, I believe that this list goes against Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information since the inclusion criteria is not unambiguous because it includes notable characters with articles with non-notable characters that have a single appearance in a show and do not have articles, character which may or may not have autism, and the majority of the notable listed characters are not notable for their autistic conditions, so I do not think that it is an appropriate list-topic per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists since it falls into what what Wikipedia is not. I believe that the cited sources do not show a list which has the same criteria as the one in the article and they are more apt for an article about depictions of autism in popular culture, not for a list of non-notable fictional characters that may or may not be notable by their condition. Jfgslo (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will admit this list-class artical sounds controvercial, however it is hevily sourced, very accurate, well organized into different categories, no reason to delete this artical. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:01, 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 no consensus. Perhaps a change needs to be made to WP:PORNBIO before this goes up for AFD again. v/r - TP 15:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Silver

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

I fail to see how this person is notable amid the lack of independent published sources and significant coverage in Google searches. 11coolguy12 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually she has failed to make unique contributions to specific pornographic genres, she has not began a trend in pornography, has not starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature AND has not been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Therefore she does not pass the WP:PORNBIO, and the last reason also means that she fails the WP:GNG. 11coolguy12 (talk) 03:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. One is not required to meet all of that (or any) SNG's criteria, if at least one is met (and she has met two of them to pass PORNBIO). SNGs are set to help ascertain notability in those instances where GNG may not be met but an assertion of notability as described in an SNG is at least verifiable. Failing GNG does mean we ignore SNGs nor vice-versus. GNG does not "trump" SNGs. SNGs don't "trump" GNG. They are both parts of the greater WP:N and intended to work in cooperation, not disharmony, to determine if a topic is in some manner "worthy of notice". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. She passes WP:PORNBIO with AVN nominations in 2005 and 2006. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, multiple awards and nominations, passes WP:PORNBIO. -- fdewaele, 12 October 2011, 18:52 CET
  • Delete. WP:PORNBIO is a defective guideline, which sets the bar for notability far too low, and I reject it. AVN is very prolific with its awards, throwing out large numbers every year, and winning an AVN award is not a noteworthy accomplishment. The correct test of notability for pornographic actors is exactly the same as for everyone else: the GNG. I cannot find evidence that Selena Silver passes it.—S Marshall T/C 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree in many ways with S Marshall. WP:PORNBIO is a very poor indicator of a subject's likelihood of meeting the GNG, and no longer enjoys the support of a consensus in the community; it has survived mainly because there is no consensus on how to replace it. It's undeniable that, in comparison to virtually any other field, awards and nominations are handed out profligately (the temptation is to say promiscuously); I reviewed a year's worth of AVN award nominations a while back, and found that it was fairly easy to predict which releases would be nominated for awards: their producers had purchased large enough (half-page or more) ads in AVN. The subject here has no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. The pre-2005 "awards"/noms are trivial and do not contribute to notability. The 2006 nomination relates to a scene the subject appears in, in a category where sixteen scenes are nominated and about fifty performers are listed. It is very difficult to give any significant weight to such an award nomination. The article itself includes no reliably sourced biographical information. Therefore, given the complete absence of independent, reliable sourcing, and the fact that the subject satisfies WP:PORNBIO only in a minor and technical sense, I conclude there is no evidence of genuine notability and would delete the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I generally dislike making 'per' votes, but in this case S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz have summed up the situation incredibly well. I will content myself with saying 'per S Marshall and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz'. Jenks24 (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies criteria 2 of the PORNBIO guidelines. I do believe the guidelines can and should be tightened but this should be done at the guideline page rather than trying to establish consensus at an AfD of a minor article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed PORNBIO litle resembles its original version or intent. So be it. Continued deprecation of PORNBIO needs to be addressed at PORNBIO, and not one-by-one at AFDs. But until PORNBIO is eliminated (and we then fall back to WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACTOR and have arguments all over again about genre awards seen as significant to and for that billion-dollar-industry, and whether having a significant role in genre-notable film meets WP:ENT), its few remaining instructions still have merit. GNG require SIGCOV. SNGs require WP:V in WP:RS which verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV (or we may as well eliminate ALL SNGs). The GNG and SNGs are not mutually exclusive. And toward the number of awards AVN gives, the Academy Awards also have an loooooong list of awards they give out, many shared by multiple nominees, and themselves have criticism for being self-serving. But that too is discussion in another place, as here we apply the SNG we are given. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy words, all the arguments for deletion aren't about the subject but about the guideline. Here we must only judge whether the subject respects the guidelines criteria or not, if you want discuss or improve the guideline, do it in an apposite discussion. --Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct. This is not the place to re-write guideline. Sorry I responded so TLDR. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    She fails the GNG. There's a reasonable case to be made that she fails WP:PORNBIO, since "Best All-Girl Sex Scene (Video)" is not a performer award, by AVN's own classification; it's not unreasonable to say that the existence of so many obscure subcategories weighs against classifying all of them as inherently "well-known." Guidelines like WP:PORNBIO are to be "best treated with common sense" and subject to "occasional exceptions." It's hardly contrary to policy or practice to conclude that failure to meet the GNG outweighs marginal satisfaction of an SNG when the relevant SNG is viewed by a substantial segment of the community, as Jimbo Wales said, as "seriouslymisguided." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-known within the porn genre does not mean such awards "must" be well-known outside that genre. And all guidelines, including WP:N itself, use the caveat "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". And if PORNBIO is now seen as "marginal", that is due to that SNG itself being slowly de-commissioned since its creation, and in reflecton of even Jimmy Wales himself appearing to understand the unsuitability of this subject matter in an encyclopdia accessible by minor children... but for now, PORNBIO is still here. As parts of WP:N, the GNG is set to describe circumstances where notability might be determined through availability of significant, and the SNGs are set to describe circumstances where a verifiable topic may still be "worthy of note" in the absence of SIGCOV. Wikipedia inclusion is about verifiability of noteworthy assertions, and not about only the most popular or most media-covered topics (though such coverage is helpful). The assertion allowed by PORNBIO (current version) is that she is verifiable as having received or been nominated for awards notable to her genre. It is not asserted that this porn star has received SIGCOV in mainstream publications, nor is that a policy or guideline mandate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As established in discussions on other subjects, webcomics coming to mind, an award's being well-known in narrow confines doesn't mean it demonstrates notability. And, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, verifiability is insufficient for inclusion. Otherwise being "employee of the month" in a notable enterprise would suffice to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep clearly satisfies criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO, as written above. Pornbio#2 ("Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years") is anything else than the corresponding of WP:ANYBIO criteria 1 ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times"), applied in his specific field.--Cavarrone (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And ANYBIO is what we'll be using once PORNBIO is gone. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Point being..? She fails the remaining criteria of WP:PORNBIO. The fourth criteria is quite apparently the most important of them as it can be linked to the basic criteria of biographies. This debate is not about the guideline itself, but my point is that Silver has not been featured in mainstream media. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your arguments are the strongest and the more convincing for a keep result. They show that you probably didn't read the whole guideline, or at least you haven't fully comprehended it. The guideline says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards", not "the whole set of criteria", and that's so obvious. Just one or two pornographic actors satisfies all the criteria, as any academic satisfies all the WP:ACADEMIC criteria and very few mainstream actors could meet all WP:ENT criteria. With your personal ideas of inclusion probably Wikipedia should not have more than 100 articles! The guideline explicitly says that deletion procedures should be considered just when "no criteria can be met". See here: Failing all criteria. --Cavarrone (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per S. Marshall; reasons for deletion are too prominent to be ignored. Sailodge (talk) 04:02, 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 snookered. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Woollaston

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

Subject of the article fails the general notability guideline, as there are no third party reliable sources. Sir Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 07:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you, and what have you done with the real Northamerica1000? Yunshui (talk) 07:20, 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rahl

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

A baseball player. Played for 37 games in the minor leagues. Inducted into the University of New Haven Hall of Fame. Earned 2nd Team All-American NAIA honors. Outside of New Haven references, unable to find any significant, reliable references about him. Fails WP:BASE/N. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 07:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 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 redirect to Division of Korea#Post Korean War infiltrations, incursions and incidents. The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Cold War

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

Stub. Issues already covered in detail on the Division of Korea page Mztourist (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 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 00:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emerson AV301

edit
Emerson AV301 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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 00:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 consensus panel

edit
9/11 consensus panel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization has no evidence of notability. It may be composed of "notable" members, but notability cannot be inherited. I can't find any references to the group itself beyond press releases and mentions on the websites of equally POV organizations. It may be possible to preserve some of this on 9/11 conspiracy theories, assuming at least one source can be found outside of the group itself (of course, if multiple sources are available that I can't find, the article need not be deleted). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the sources currently in the article have nothing to do with the panel whatsoever--they're just links to articles written by members of the panel (long before the panel existed, I think). Thus, they do nothing to establish the panel's notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; if the author or other editors can prove that this is a notable organization, we can fold it into the 9/11 conspiracies page. Judging from the Wikipedia article on one of the founders of this group, it seems pretty clear that they are a pro-conspiracy organization, but just being one of many such groups does not confer notability. As an aside, article author threatened to "take it to the top of your organization" if this page was deleted. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources found; as a representative sample, the first page of ghits gives: the founder's webpage, a conspiracy blog, a letter from the panel, the panel's webpage, a conspiracy forum, a press release, the Wikipedia article, a conspiracy blog, the same press release again and a copy of the panel's webpage. Not a single third-party reference that even discusses their existence, let alone any claim of notability. Yunshui (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, it turns out that the article creator is one of the panel members {editor self identifies on her user page with link to a blog under her name)...while not technically against the rules, it certainly doesn't help. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if sources can be found the information clearly belongs into 9/11_Truth_movement. Right now, it's just too little to warrant a standalone article. SK (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, others above. Tom Harrison Talk 12:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. I wanted to add that it doesn't meet WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion criteria, as the article asserts importance, even if we cannot find evidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 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 Speedily deleted as a copyvio. (Non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agar Yeilding

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

I'm not seeing much of note here: an Irish immigrant who started a business and ran for the Canadian Parliament (no indication he won a seat). Weak references. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • copyvio delete This appears to be copied from a genealogical site, possibly by a relative/descendant. They haven't been on since 2009, and the page in question would not be construed as a reliable source anyway. The only other references to the name are extremely fugitive; it's possible that he might have been a member of some Canadian legislature. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 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. v/r - TP 15:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Score Fighting Series

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

Fledgling mixed martial arts promotion with only one past event (and one upcoming). Promotion and events do not pass notability guidelines. A few notable fighters competed, but not enough to qualify the event for anything more than routine sports coverage. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Major Canadian MMA promotion, similar to M-1 Global, notable in the country.(Justinsane15 (talk) 06:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Notable in the country of Canada does not necessarily mean notable for wikipedia. And given that the organization has only promoted two events, its notability in Canada seems questionable too. The most notable competitors are B-level fighters at best, typically wash-outs from the UFC, Strikeforce, or Bellator. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually many of the fighters on the cards currently fight for Strikeforce, Bellator, DREAM, etc.(Justinsane15 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better than most promotions that have pages here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.61.233 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Having run just 2 events on their own doesn't make them notable, nor do I see highly ranked fighters. Sherdog covers all kinds of MMA events and I don't know if the other sites mentioned by Justinsane are reliable. I agree with him and the previous IP poster that there are plenty of non-notable MMA promotions and events on Wikipedia, but that falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 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. I will userfy upon request - but the copy/paste referred to at the bottom of this AFD has been deleted. v/r - TP 15:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Design in the Digital Context

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

Prod on OR grounds contested. Any useful bits that aren't in Accessibility could probably be merged there. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term Accessibility generally refers to a binary notion or a one-size-fits-all approach to providing access for currently marginalized groups. Digital Inclusive Design in its current implementation focuses on an individualized notion of inclusion or one-size-fits-one, enabled by digital systems(e.g., see http://gpii.org). Accessibility also focuses on gaining access and less on individualized usability once access has been achieved. Inclusive design also incorporates language, culture and other forms of human difference. Merger with Accessibility would be misleading and would blur important distinctions. Jutta Treviranus (talk) 12 October 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtreviranus (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC) Further to this, Inclusive Design refers to a generic design practice based on the assumption that designing for the margins and including the outliers promotes innovation, and leads to designs that benefit everyone, whereas Accessibility is quality to strive for in design. Jtreviranus (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, but what does it have to do with keeping or deleting the article? Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to merging it into Accessibility. Jtreviranus (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclusive Design is design that is inclusive of the full range of human diversity with respect to ability, language, culture, gender, age and other forms of human difference.This is the ISO definition of Inclusive Design and the appropriate citation will be added. ````
  • e-Inclusion is a term used in a European context to describe the goal of including all people in the information society. As such it is closely related to DID. DID embraces the goal of e-Inclusion while focusing on the practicality of the digital design-work that will allow the goal to be realized. In its focus, DID is informed by the concepts of multiculturalism and diversity. Diversity considers the large variation in the capacities of humans, in part due to their varying degrees of physical, cognitive, economic, cultural, and other relative states. Multiculturalism appreciates this diversity, and advocates equal respect for all cultures.
Text like this is gestural rather than informative. The important thing is to be seen saying the right things. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Work on formulating and refining this entry until it meets the criteria has been moved to the user space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MDes_INCD_2011 Jtreviranus (talk) 20:52, 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 merge to List of locations in the Honorverse#Mesa. v/r - TP 15:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mesa (Honorverse)

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

No indication of out-of-universe notability and unsourced. Does not meet WP:FICTION. Crusio (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 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. If information needs to be salvaged for a merge, let me know and I can userify it. No prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Semitic Neopaganism. The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natib Qadish

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

This entry fails WP:N. There are no reliable sources on this minor neopagan religion and hence notability cannot be established. I tried redirecting the page to Semitic Neopaganism, but one the page's primary authors apparently doesn't agree. Rather than edit war over the redirect I'm nominating for deletion. Griswaldo (talk) 02:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Griswaldo (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article's length and number of references are deceptive - most of the text and all of the legit citations relate to the history of the Canaanite religion. I don't believe general notability guidelines are met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - that reference list is appalling, looks like WP:OR. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is very little on NQ itself on the web, barring its own website (canaanitepath.com/). The article is deceptive with a lot of genuine history and books on older religions. So, fails Notability and Verifiability, unless anyone knows specific reliable independent sources? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I noticed this article a few days ago, before the redirect, and could find no reliable sources discussing it and noted that the article was basically OR trying to link ancient Canaanite religion & others to this minor neopagan religion. There's a portal and a category also up for deletion. Dougweller (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt: Pure self-promoting OR of a clearly non-notable religious "movement". The sources provided are misused in that they refer to an ancient religious concept, and not to the subject of the present article, which is a modern recreation. Nothing on Google except the movements own website. Zero independent coverage of any kind. In fact, zero evidence of any kind whatsoever that the movement has any following except for the creator of the website. Clearly fails notability requirements, and there is no hope that adequate sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not finding any reliable sources to qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Dawson will soon publish her third book on the ancient Canaanite religion and Natib Qadish (it's modern reincarnation). Natib Qadish has been featured in numerous Neopagan Websites and publications. But still you claim that there's no reliable sources to be found. Apparently, this religion needs to be kosher approved by a rabbi, or blessed by the pope himself. What kind of "reliable sources" are you looking for?--Camocon (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These kind of reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Camocon: All of these sources derive 100% of their information on the movement from Tess Dawson herself. There is zero investigative reporting, and absolutely no evidence or reason to believe that any of them conducts any fact checking. All of those sources combined could be used to source only that Tess Dawson wrote a book about the movement, and possibly that she is a known figure in the occult community (even that would be pushing it). They cannot even be used to source Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat). Dawson's statement that there are other members is unreliable to the extreme, and even if we take her at her word, there is no indication that the movement has enough members to establish notability in accordance with WP:NOTE. The only source that contains any appreciable amount of material not derived solely from Dawson her self is the first one. And even that source clearly states that all she had heard about the movement were "vague rumors" and that she had never met a member of the movement before. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the "group's" notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's 276 members in the Natib Qadish yahoo group, and I'm one of them. Let me guess... that's not enough for you and your cronies. It's ok to bully a small religion that doesn't have a large following, because you can get away with it. Whose going to take sides with "baal worshippers" that are generally not accepted by mainstream pagans? Lets just edit them out like the Levites did Asherah (Athirat), and keep the Abrahamic faiths in good standing. We don't want anyone to discover the biggest plagiary in recorded history. --Camocon (talk) 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is pretty convincing evidence that there should be no article on this religion, that's a very tiny Yahoo group and coupled with the fact that Camocon calls it a 'small religion', I doubt it merits a mention anywhere on Wikipedia. Camocon, what do you mean by 'biggest plagiary'? Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: You're trying to minimize Natib Qadish by calling it 'very tiny', like a slave owner calling a black man a boy. I said it was a small religion, meaning- in contrast to the Abrahamic faiths, and mainstream Neopagan groups. There's a lot of religious sects in the world with less than 300 members, so the size of the religion is not the issue here. As for the 'biggest plagiary', I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. This is not a place for religious debate, so I'm not going to respond to that here. --Camocon (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC) @Dominus Vobisdu: The "vague rumors" you alluded to was actually said by Galina Krasskova in her opening dialog, before the Tess Dawson interview. Galina Krasskova said- "A few years ago, I began hearing vague references to a Reconstructionist Paganism that focused on the Canaanite and Phoenician Deities". Apparently, you didn't read past the first sentence. You said- "Dawson's statement that the movement has any other members besides her (and possibly her cat)". That misquote of yours about Tess Dawson is highly misleading, because she never said anything about her (and her cat) being the only followers of Natib Qadish. You are twisting the truth to fit your own agenda. --Camocon (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and insert any material with good references into the Semitic Neopaganism article. I do think the Tess Dawson book would be an appropriate reference there, but not really sufficient to support a whole independent article until more independent sources also exist. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:20, 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 without prejudice. Recreate when this is actually covered by outside sources. Right now this article can't help but resemble a promotional brochure because nobody in the media has talked about it yet. Shii (tock) 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor

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

The association isn't notable enough per WP:ORG since most of the cited sources are self published, no notable media coverage, has no international (the lead of the article is wrong to state Australia and Europe since it isn't supported in the article), the use of facebook as a source. It may have leagues in the US however this makes it a non-notable association and in fact its own website has no rating on Alexa, one would expect that if this was a notable league it would have a lot of traffic (which would give it a rating). It seems to me that some editors (possibly the creator) have a connection to MADE and are trying to use Wikipedia for the association's benefit (self promotion). Bidgee (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per non-notable based on WP:ORG, none of the events run by the league based on the article's text appear to be covered under WP:SPORTSEVENT. Article has no significant media coverage, and few sources that are Independent of the subject. (And some of the sources just do not support that text. A website cited for at least four leagues did not mention MADE, nor the leagues on the page referenced.) There doesn't feel like a presumption of notability as the league does not appear to run national or international competitions, has membership confined to the USA and its territories, does not appear to have matches televised, does not have significant attendance numbers (at least that is mentioned in the article). Only real possibility I can see of notability is because it supports mixed gendered and men's teams, which the modern version of roller derby does not and not sure that uniqueness makes it notable in and of itself. Earlier version of article claimed members in Europe and Australia: AU site search has two results on Australian domains, none which support leagues operating under their rules. On Google News, two mentions of the league… but sources support the teams/individual member leagues mentioned in the news articles as being notable, not MADE. --LauraHale (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to note that if you are going to be submitting non-notable wikis to be deleted you should also submit your own team's wiki since they have considerably less coverage than MADE. Fair is fair, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read her profile a bit more thoroughly, you'll notice that she lives in Australia. Australia to Oakland would be one heck of a commute. TimBRoy (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bidgee (talk) 01:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: MADE is a notable organization. MADE is the 2nd largest derby association in the United States with over 30 leagues. Obviously the reference for that is the official MADE facebook page, but according to some facebook is not a reliable source of information. Never mind the fact that it is the association's facebook official page. According to DerbyRoster.com MADE has at least 20 leagues which STILL makes it the 2nd largest association in the United States. Second - MADE is THE LARGEST co-ed association in the United States. The association has leagues in at least 13 states. MADE also has a league in Puerto Rico making it international. MADE hosts the Colossal Coastal Derby Expo at the Wildwood Convention Center in Wildwood, NJ and has done so for the past 3 years. Skaters from all over the country attend. The Association and Expo have been sponsored by well-known skating companies including 808 Skates and Nutcase Helmets. A simple google search can provide over 15,000 results which include member-league web sites, teams discussing joining MADE, news and blog entries, and discussion pertaining to MADE. Yes, MADE is much smaller than roller derby's largest league, but it is not insignificant. The MADE wiki page was only created 8 days ago and hasn't been given any chance to be properly developed and referenced before this motion for deletion was submitted. Captain jim1 (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again you use facebook which is not a reliable source. Most of the cited sources in the article are questionable, reason why Wikipedia requires contributors to use third party sources which are verifiable and reliable. Your claim of "over 30 leagues" is based on a facebook page and your claim of MADE being "the largest co-ed association" is pure original research. Regards to Google, it is not a tool to see if something is notable or not based on a number of results, it is a tool to assist you in finding good reliable sources. The results on the search are mostly just facebook pages and websites who a ___domain sitting and reuse facebook pages. Bidgee (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note, Jim, that you really need to have independent sources - its own Facebook page is not that, and therefore useless to us. — Joseph Fox 04:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand that facebook is not considered reliable which is why I have since referenced the DerbyRoster.com site which lists 20 leagues. I am not the bookkeeper for MADE so I can't give you an exact number. I also understand that the number of search results is not PROOF of notability, but that is exactly what was attempted by the opposing side when referring to the number of Google News results. I was simply showing that the information is out there and is still being compiled. However, allow me to cite 3rd party pages that do include information about MADE, CCRE (their annual derby expo in wildwood, etc). I would like to remind readers that it has been proven they are international and host international events. The presence of big-name sponsors (Nutcase & 808 skates) contributing to MADE should also be considered significant and I am not going to include member-league's websites who indicate they skate MADE as there are too many.. although I can if you would like.
Roller Derby Returns to the Wildwoods Convention Center cites MADE's involvement, the large turnout from all over the country, as well as celebrity appearances.
Roller Derby Inside Track covering MADE as 1 of 7 associations (including WFDTA) while reviewing the "State of Roller Derby"
Ashburn Patch's sport section covering a local team's upcoming game. This indicates they are playing under the MADE rule-set with a quick description of the association. There are tons of articles just like this on the net. Like this one and this one.
CCRE's website indicating they are MADE
OSDA covering CCRE (MADE's expo) in 2009.
Yahoo! News covering CCRE - remember this is MADE's event. They created the event and host it yearly.
The article no longer exists, but here's the quick intro for a South Jersey paper covering CCRE in 2010.
South Jersey magazine highlighting CCRE.
The overall point is that they are significant, have the 2nd largest number of leagues in this country (a fact not disputed), host large events, and play international games. While sources aren't as plentiful as they are with WFDTA, they are there if you look for them (or give others ample time to compile them). Captain jim1 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Colossal Coastal Derby Expo, there is not a single reference to the competition on Google News. I believe an article about the event would be deleted as it would not be notability mentioned at WP:SPORTSEVENT. The issue of the fact of it being the second largest league in the United States is in dispute, as there are no reliable sources to support this. If there were reliable, independent sources that supported that claim, I might be inclined to change my vote. --LauraHale (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roller derby is not exactly the most prevalent of sports. Being featured in Google news does not make or break a sport. The event was featured on Yahoo! news as I linked above. I have provided adequate sources that show this event is large and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the Yahoo News link and I see nothing mentioned about MADE, nothing, nil, zilch. Bidgee (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is about CCRE which is a MADE created/sanctioned event. With your claim that In regards to Colossal Coastal Derby Expo, there is not a single reference to the competition on Google News. I responded that saying, it was covered in Yahoo! news. The point is that the association has started an event that has received significant coverage. I refer you back to the [ccderbyexpo.com CCRE] page and the Vicious Circle article if you need to read how it is involved with MADE. CLEARLY the association has had some impact.Captain jim1 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there is no mention in the article about MADE, whether or not CCRE is a event created and sanction by MADE and even then the news article doesn't even state who created it or sanctions it. Vicious Circle as a source is questionable, who was the author, who runs the magazine, what are there background, ect (reason why we have WP:RS and WP:V). Bidgee (talk) 15:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bar passing mentions on Google, there is virtually no independent coverage of this league which makes the claim of popularity dubious at best. I would also point out that being in Puerto Rico doesn't really make you international, since it isn't actually a country. — Joseph Fox 04:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hopefully the above mentioned articles should indicate that there are more than 'passing mentions' of the association and it's activities and member leagues. To claim there is no information out there is simply untrue. I understand that Puerto Rico is not their own country, but an undisputed common-wealth, but they are certainly not considered part of the United States by traditional terms. Now we are splitting hairs. There seems to be a concerted effort by representatives of WFDTA to remove all mention of other associations from wikipedia. The contributer of this deletion is in fact a member of WFTDA and is likely biased. How is it that the 2nd largest US association isn't notable? Seriously. Captain jim1 (talk) 04:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: As WP:COI has been implied, there is no COI here: I am not a member of WFTDA. I am not a member of a an affiliated of WFTDA. I am not a member of a roller derby league. There is no COI present when it comes to MADE and a WFTDA dispute from me. --LauraHale (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if I am correct. That assumption has been made under the pretense that your User Profile picture is the same as one featured in the Roller Derby article with the caption "Demanda Riot, a B.ay A.rea D.erby Girl (San Francisco, California) prepares to block.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a ridiculous argument that it is almost a personal attack... Lads and Lasses: AGF please!Night of the Big Wind talk 14:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Comment: I don't have time at the moment to reply to all of your comments however I am not a member of WFTDA or affiliated with any other association, never have been, so your allegation ("The contributer of this deletion is in fact a member of WFTDA and is likely biased") that I am a member is false. The fact is I have never been to a roller derby event. Bidgee (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COI was directed at LauraHale and not you. My apologies for getting the originator of the deletion motion incorrect. However, I still feel that there is and has been a concerted effort by WFDTA members to keep other associations off of wikipedia. Repeatedly they have shot down the claim that MADE is the 2nd largest association in the United States, even though I sited the DerbyRoster.com site. How come no one can tell me who the 2nd largest association is.. if it isn't MADE?Captain jim1 (talk) 14:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LauraHale has no COI with any roller derby organisation, she has an interest in watching roller derby games as a spectator and taking photographs and uploading them onto Wikimedia Commons). I have no idea why you think she has a COI when she doesn't and making such claim without facts and only assumptions is damaging (intentional or not). DerbyRoster is something I wouldn't call reliable, the list for all we know is out of date since no information is listed about when it was added and when it was last updated, also the source (reliable, third party and verifiable) needs to state that MADE is the second largest association in the USA, otherwise it's just based on your original research. Bidgee (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are you disregarding all of the sources I have mentioned above? Inside Derby, Yahoo! news, local new papers and city websites aren't considered adequate coverage? I would love to quote these sources in articles, but there was hardly any time as it has been a constant battle with people who modify every chance made. I've spent the majority of my time on wikipedia debating if it's notable rather than adding data and references. Captain jim1 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A newspaper like the Philadelphia Enquirer would be a good, reliable source - better, for Wikipedia purposes, than anything you list above. Wildwood 365 appears to be a blog, and the Yahoo link also appears to be unmoderated content. The newspaper websites are much better, but none of them give any detail on MADE, and some do not mention it. They cannot themselves demonstrate that MADE is notable, by Wikipedia standards, as they don't provide the required "Significant coverage". If MADE can be shown to be notable, then their information on the CCRE would be a useful inclusion.
The Inside Track article is definitely the best source - it is focussed on, and has lots of detail on, MADE. I believe that it is sufficiently reliable that it can be used as a source for the article, but, as it is an interview with a MADE representative, it doesn't provided the "neutral point of view" required to meet WP:NOTABILITY. None of this is to say that MADE is not a perfectly worthwhile organisation, which may well have a great ruleset and fantastic skaters. If you have these good sources to hand, I strongly suggest including them in the article, as they will be far more likely to change people's minds than any debating points you may make. Warofdreams talk 17:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do you consider this video from ABC 6 valid enough? Remember that the CCRE event is hosted by MADE and the league featured in the video is a MADE league and contains members who co-founded MADE. Captain jim1 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That video has the same problem as the newspaper articles - it doesn't mention MADE, so it cannot demonstrate that the organisation is notable, by Wikipedia standards, as it doesn't provide "significant coverage". Again, it's a perfectly reliable source, and could be used to add information to an article, but in Wikipedia terms, that is quite distinct from demonstrating notability. Warofdreams talk 08:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor is in it's first year of openly accepting members and has already grown to be one of the largest roller derby associations in the United States. MADE hosts an annual roller derby event each summer which was featured on national television, on the popular Food Network show Dinner Impossible [24] I noticed above another party commenting used a search engine to look for information on "Colossal Coastal Derby Expo." That is not the name of the event and perhaps a search done with the correct name, "Colossal Coastal Roller Expo," would yield better results. There are also a number of reputable articles mentioning MADE and their members including [25] It is known and expressed that MADE accepts individual memberships and does have members in Australia and Europe on an individual basis, but [26] does not list skaters on an individual basis. User:LauraHale is affiliated with [27] a league skating under the rules of WFTDA and with a relationship with known WFTDA skaters from the US. There is clearly a conflict of interest. [User:Raesauce|Raesauce][User talk:Raesauce|talk]])(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raesauce (talk • contribs)
I have said that I am not affiliated with the organisation. There is zero evidence that I am affiliated with the organisation. I attend local bouts, where I pay to get in and sit with the rest of the punters. I think I have made one request on their Facebook page for help finding information. Beyond that, when some one affiliated with the league came in and edited the article, I went to their talk page and discussed their contributions with them, contributions I found valuable and would have loved to used but could not source. Please stop making this accusation until you have actual evidence, other than "disagrees with me" to support it. --LauraHale (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The listed sources are valid and reputable. There is a national televised program listed, www.derbyroster.com which lists all leagues in existence proving the organizations growing numbers and the second largest and largest co-ed organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.130.122 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Contributions/24.0.130.122 has made 5 edits since October 6, all to the roller derby article and one of them being this keep. --LauraHale (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ABC 6 of Philadelphia covering the upcoming CCRE 2011 - which again is a MADE hosted event. The video doesn't specifically mention MADE, but the [event's website makes it very clear that it's a MADE event. Also, the South Jersey Derby Girls mentioned in the video are a MADE league and include several of the MADE co-founders. Captain jim1 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you play connect the dots you can quickly and easily establish that the event (which receives significant coverage) was created by, is hosted by and run by a particular association (MADE). Doesn't the fact that an association has created a notable event intrinsically make it notable? Also - how is Derby Roster an unreliable source? They appear to be the only website online to track association statistics, are 3rd party, and have been around since 2005.Captain jim1 (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't play connect the dots in Wikipedia deletion debates. The answer to your question is "no". A source that doesn't even mention the topic by name is of no use in establishing notability. Intrinsic notability and inherited notability are considered arguments to avoid in deletion debates except in narrowly limited circumstances that don't apply here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Official sportorganisation Night of the Big Wind talk 14:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What makes it "official"? WP:ORG states what is needed for an article about any sports organisation, so far nothing has been done to show why MADE is notable nor has there been any work been done to show reliable third party sources that are about MADE. The only sources I've seen and read only make a small mention on MADE or just don't meet the WP:RS and WP:V policies. Bidgee (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, the Roller Derby Inside Track article that has been referenced many times passes both the WP:RS and WP:V policies. No one is arguing that MADE is not an official association.Captain jim1 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can be mentioned on Wikipedia, in articles like List of roller derby associations and Roller derby in the United States, where it wouldn't face the issues of undue weight because of its American only nature, it's acceptance of mixed leagues, and its use of banked tracks. In these cases, the source you mentioned would be perfectly adequate for citing that in the article. The source you've cited however does not help with notability. If you believe it does, then please read the policy, find media coverage that specifically talks extensively about MADE from a main stream, non-roller derby news sources or magazine. Find a roller derby book that mentions them for a page or three. Find about five or ten sources that give even two or three sentences in main stream coverage that mention the organisation. If you can do that, I'll change my vote to keep. --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I would just like to add that Wikipedia should be about presenting good information. The WP guidelines are certainly useful in determining what stays and what doesn't, but I don't believe they need to be followed to a T. I don't think anyone can say that MADE is not a large association in roller derby (although not nearly the size of WFDTA). No one is arguing against the fact that they created a large annual expo or that they have a bunch of leagues in the association. In the US Derby Scene they have been large enough that Roller Derby Inside Track decided to include them in their article about the current "State of Derby". Let's use some common sense and allow the page to stick around. Captain jim1 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". The article reads as self promotion. It goes on to say "remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other". It is hard to fix this, given the lack of sources and the need to rely almost exclusively on their website. Wikipedia is not a directory and just because it exists doesn't mean an article for it should. Reading Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, I'm not sure why ignore all rules is being invoked here. Can you please explain why you think these policies should be ignored? --LauraHale (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means- "'What "Ignore all rules" means'... Its purpose is to keep them [the other rules] from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."
When what most are agreeing is the largest co-ed association, and the 2nd largest derby association in the country is being disallowed a page because you don't find the sources credible, wikipedia fails. Roller Derby Inside Track, SkateMade.org, [derbyroster.com/made.html DerbyRoster], Collosal Coastal Roller Expo, and many leagues all reference MADE which make it plenty referenced and sourced. Captain jim1 (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources to back up the claim of "Second largest derby association in the United States". This is pure WP:Original research. Beyond that, notability guidelines say numbers do not matter. Thus, notability built on the second biggest is not a good reason to say keep. (I can say that Laura Hale sport's library is the largest library of roller derby and netball books in the country. I can create a Facebook fan page for this and set up an official site. This library lends out material. Comparable size does not make the library notable. Derby Roster, SkateMade, Collosal Coastal Roller Expo are not acceptable sources when it comes to notability. I'm trying to help you here. I really am... I just feel like, in trying to help you keep the article by telling you exactly what you need to keep the article, I've run into a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If you can, at a later point, provide the sources requested, I will support WITHOUT PREDJUDICE, a recreation of the article. --00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
And the Roller Derby Inside Track article is not sufficient because...? Here was have a roller derby magazine, completely independent and neutral, who is covering the major associations in roller derby. They even say "Until recently, there have been few governing bodies representing these various styles of derby, but recently several organizations have emerged that warrant some comparison and discussion. As such, we’ve sent invitations to representatives of all the roller derby organizations we know of, and a few other key personnel who are influential in the sport, to participate in our first-ever annual “The State of Derby” series. This will be RDIT’s annual update on the roller derby world, heard directly from those who have a voice or position of influence within the sport of roller derby." source. The argument that it's an interview and the content is not neutral is invalid as a reason to reject the source. The decision to include MADE in the article (1 of 7 associations) proves it is not a 'minor' association. Again, as wikipedia states, it's goal is to "build a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated.". Who is trying to fulfill that goal here? You or me? Captain jim1 (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to cite "ignore all rules" but what you aren't mentioning is that you have to gain consensus among interested editors to keep what you want to keep. I see no such consensus here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand I don't have a consensus to keep -- that's why I'm commenting. The purpose of wikipedia, above all else, is to be an encyclopedia. I understand the need to have filters and rules, but can anyone really say that this association is not noteworthy, regardless if it passed the litmus test for sources? There are dozens of derby rosters, articles, association lists, etc online that have all been cited. It should be clear to anyone who is investigating this that MADE has a place in roller derby. Users should be able to come to wikipedia and find information out about associations other than WFTDA. I find it incredibly odd that no one is complaining about the other derby association pages (OSDA, MRDA) whose references have the same 'problems' as the MADE references. The MRDA references are ENTIRELY from their web site. Why is there a concerted effort again MADE and no one else? REMEMBER - wikipedia should be about finding good information, not about who has the best references. Captain jim1 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People are trying very, very hard to help you keep your article. We've repeatedly tried to explain to you what is necessary to "save the article from deletion." WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part will probably contribute to the article being deleted as we've begged for assistance in finding rules that will help satisfy the criteria of notability. Take at face value that we're trying to help hear and that you CANNOT use any roller derby related source to establish general notability or WP:ORG. What other sources do you have that mention MADE? --LauraHale (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have understood everything you've said, the problem is we disagree on the validity of sources. Apparently "roller derby related sources" are no longer valid media institutions? I understand that print, television, etc is BETTER, but you continue to expand the criteria which narrows the list of allowable sources. Captain jim1 (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" the problem is we disagree on the validity of sources" Do you understand that your approach is not going to change my mind in terms of the vote? That you're not going to get consensus to keep with the approach you've taken? Your goal should be to convince me and others to change our votes from delete to keep. So long as you absolutely understand that your arguments are valid but aren't going to lead to consensus to keep and you're okay with the article being deleted because you're more concerned with being right, then no problem. --LauraHale (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, there could be reliable sources devoted to roller derby. As far as publications, those sources would have the following characteristics: They would not be self-published. They would have independent, professional editorial control supervising and fact-checking their writers, who would either be professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write. Those publications would be referenced in books published about roller derby. Such publications would have reputations for accuracy and impartiality in their news coverage. As far as book publishers, they would be either established mainstream publishing houses with a good reputations, or specialized publishers with an established track record of publishing books considered authoritative in the specific field. I often edit articles about mountaineering on Wikipedia, which is a niche sport. I have a very good idea of which journals are authoritative regarding mountaineering and which specialized publishers put out the best books on climbing. In my opinion, the sources cited here do not rise to the level of reliable sources by Wikipedia standards.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Roller Derby Inside Track article mentioned so often here is not sufficient to establish notability. This publication shows no signs of professional editorial control as its contributors all use pseudonyms, so this should not be considered a reliable source. The coverage consists of an interview of someone active in MADE, so the information about MADE is not independent - it is presented in the words of someone speaking on behalf of MADE. There is broad consensus that such interviews don't establish notability. All the "facts" about MADE brought forward in this debate may well be true, but are insufficient to establish notability for a freestanding article here on Wikipedia because the topic has not yet been discussed in depth in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that Roller Derby Inside Track choose to cover MADE is what makes it notable. The content is essentially irrelevant given that there was a pre-decision to pick 7 associations and cover them. And pseudonyms? .. Roller Derby is all about pseudonyms. The contributors section, which does use pseudonyms, has complete write-ups about the authors. What more do you want aside from their real name? What would make this source reliable? Captain jim1 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source might be considered reliable if there was evidence of professional editorial control of this website, and might be considered independent if the information was presented by a professional journalist independent of MADE rather than by a MADE representative. Your statement that "the content is essentially irrelevant" indicates to me that you either don't understand or choose to disregard how we evaluate notability here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a couple of those comments. The use of pseudonyms does not mean that a source is unreliable; it might make it harder to evaluate, but not in this case; as Captain jim1 says, it offers biographies of their contributors, explaining their relevant expertise. As an example, George Orwell's journalism could be a perfectly reliable source for something, even though it was a pseudonym. Secondly, as WP:Verifiability states, "the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." It does not state that works such as this with amateur editorial control cannot be reliable, just that professional editorial control is preferable. I do agree with your other points, on the failure of interviews to establish notability, particularly ones with a representative of the organisation, and on the key relevance of the content to the possibility of using it to establish notability. Warofdreams talk 12:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - does the Leesburg 2Day article count for anything? The Wildwood 365 article is also independent and unbiased. Captain jim1 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Leesburg Today "article" is a user-submitted event calendar listing with one sentence about MADE. It is therefore not a reliable source since it has no editorial oversight and the event listing is not independent. Wildwood 365 is a self-published blog issued by Al Alven and his friends that promotes a resort area, and the "article" in question is simply a reprint of a press release. It is therefore not a reliable source and the reprinted press release is not independent. Both may be worthy and useful ventures, but both are insufficient, in my opinion, to establish notability on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source List - comments per source please, but no need to rehash what's been said. The point is that MADE is relevant to derby and should keep their wiki page so people can use wikipedia for it's intended purpose. I will continue to add references here for simplicity's sake.

Captain jim1 (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are all primary sources or self-published sources. Even if some are secondary sources, they have weak or nonexistent editorial control (rendering them unreliable to support a claim of notability). As for any sources like the announcement in a local newspaper's "calendar" section - that's not even a passing mention - it's not "coverage" at all.
Nobody is contesting that this organization exists. But there are no references that support its claim to significance in any way. Neutralitytalk 05:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source issues: scan of an actual printed circular has one sentence that says sponsor. Being a sponsor does not convey notability. Coverage not enough to provide notability. Roller Derby Inside Track is an interview. Interviews do not provide notability. Loudoun Times Coverage has two sentences that talk about skater certification. Amount of coverage does not provide notability. Channel 9 CBS is an event listing. Event listings do not confer notability. Ashburn Patch Coverage only says they will use MADE rules. No substantial coverage of MADE. No authorship. Many contributors are not journalists but bloggers. Leesburg Patch Coverage is an event listing. Event listings do not convey notability. MADE is mentioned only for rules. No substantial MADE coverage. Wildwood 365 is not a reliable source for conveying notability as it is run by a resort. CCDE can be used as a source for MADE information but PDF does not help with WP:GNG because it is not an independent source. List of Associations to find teams is a mirror of www.derbyroster.com and thus is not acceptable for quantity related to WP:NOTE. DerbyRoster alone does not provide significant coverage. MADE mentions are largely secondary. No real information provided about the league, just who the members are. Would argue that it is not Independent of the subject in that leagues are encouraged to submit their own information, and nothing is provided to help determine editorial control. Vicious Circle Magazine appears to be a MADE run magazine, which means it is NOT an independent source. --LauraHale (talk) 05:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the largest co-ed which is the only traditional style of roller derby organization this is an extremely important entry. --User:65.242.105.66

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Societies of Universities Worldwide

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

No references, possibly fail WP:ORG Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 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 00:16, 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 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chester See

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

Youtube musician, but does not meet WP:MUSIC, as he has had no real commercial success (apart from some Youtube views/sales), and no (album or single) listed on mainstream charts, no awards etc.. He has had a minor appearance in a film called "Monkey King", but again, no real depth of coverage. Heywoodg talk 07:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:14, 6 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, 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 00:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naduvula Konjam Pakkatha Kaanom

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

Nothing to indicate notability; film not yet made; no refs (other than removed YouTube links to teaser / trailers) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 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, 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 00:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franchezca Valentina

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO (all nominations in single year) and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Negligible reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_October_12&oldid=1142636813"