Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 21

< 20 October	22 October >

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Guiding Light

edit

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

The above articles have either insufficient or no references. There is no notability established in these articles, even if the topic is "(un)notable", despite the help of the notability of Guiding Light. Full of in-universes and less of real-world. Too much plot and trivia possibly. One article does have some real-world perspective: 2000-2009. However, there should be more room for improvements if articles must be kept; otherwise, they may have better chances of deletion than merge. Notability of a soap opera is not the same as notability of a history of the same soap opera. What is the point of keeping a history of a cancelled soap opera? --Gh87 (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vote in support or oppose. However, I can understand why they exist, since Guiding Light lasted 72 years (the longest lasting in history). Maybe we could merge the 7 articles together and cancel out this AFD?Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 00:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of All My Children was delete all. Maybe this AFD could do the same to the above article. The "All My Children (1970-1979)" page was deleted recently under WP:G4. If you want to contest that AFD, try Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Gh87 (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, that's more of a place to avoid, like bringing merging candidates here. I avoid AFD unless necessary and never read Deletion review. We should use talk page discussion to make those decisions.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 00:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please don't be afraid of Del Rev, the average rationality of discussions there is at least as great as here, and the main thing it needs is more regular or at least occasional editors to comment, so the same few of us don't decide everything. The only hope of achieving some consistency is to take important reasonably questioned decisions there, especially if a general principle is involved, as it would be in this matter, and if there's a clear error in the close or a sound argument that consensus has changed. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all ~~Comment~~ Would these be considered the soap opera equivalent of List of episodes? If so, then I assume something notable happened in the years that the show won emmies. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't awards be insufficient or irrelevant to the meets of WP:GNG and WP:PLOT for these articles' subjects? --Gh87 (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:SUMMARY should also be considered. Although I doubt we will find sources that specifically talk about a single decade from the show, perhaps if enough important information were found for notable years or events that occurred during the show, the articles would be kept on the basis that the main article would become excessively long if all the information were added to it. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that suggestion, if we want sources to cover dates, shouldn't we just merge the seven articles and source just that one? That's the vibe I'm still getting. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 10:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the state of the articles, I could see two options: 1) Delete them all and if Guiding Light later became excessively long due to cited and important information, then re-split into some logical number of history articles. 2) Find reliable sources to address notable events for each decade. If the articles contained enough cited and important information, I could see keeping all the articles and just trimming the plot. I could not personally find such sources. I searched for a number of different decades and included different characters names but found nothing useful. I don't think merging is necessary because the main article already contains a whole lot of uncited information for each decade. Unless such sources are found, I am going with delete. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know, pardoning the last 20 years of the series you'll find much online. Considering Guiding Light started in 1937, and lasted until 2009, a lot of the sources that would help would probably end up being offline in some magazine or newspaper. I'd love to see anyone who is knowledgeable in writing about soaps comment who might know of any. (I personally don't think we need all 7 articles, since 1 could cover it i.e. History of Guiding Light.) All 7 articles should go, but I don't think we need to leave a large blank.Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 19:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that they were already properly merged in a sense, into the already lengthy plot section of Guiding Light. I don't think we should have another article just to elaborate on the plot. --Odie5533 10:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Several ideas here but needs more discussion time. I'd prefer merging everything in a single article but it may result in a really long one. --Tone 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all At the outset, I state that I am not a follower of soaps, and don't like them in general. But sources exist sufficient to provide a summary of the general plot development, the stars, producers, writers and other creative staff, ratings, and awards from each of these periods. The early radio years are already referenced, and Guiding Light is well covered in standard works on radio such as The encyclopedia of old time radio. Google Books search shows a 1987 "Guiding light:a 50th anniversary celebration" by Ballentine Books, with information up to that point. From 1998 there is "Guiding Light:The Complete Family Album." with more details. There have been many magazine articles such as New York Magazine Aug 16, 1993. "Guiding Light: relevance and renewal in a changing genre", in a 2010 Kindle book, brings things relatively up to date. Details on the 2008 switch to handheld camcorders is given in Television Production. Additional books from Google Book search show no preview but have coverage, such as "All my afternoons:the heart and soul of the TV soap opera". I do not see a problem with giving as much coverage to one era of a 72 year show as a shorter running show gets for its brief run, when each period has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the debate results a merge, then I will add them as "Further readings" and/or "References" rather than inline citations. Also, I will not use Google Books as links. --Gh87 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment. The links are to the actual books. What is your complaint? Edison (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted material may either stay or go away, depending on appeals from cases of copyright owners and Google. Some pages that have relevant material may not be previewed. Later, I'll use Google Books for public ___domain books; in fact, I will add Google links of Anne of Green Gables, a PD book, to its External Links section. See Google Book Search Settlement Agreement and Google Books#Copyright infringement, fair use and related issues. --Gh87 (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all These articles are obviously spinoffs from the main article about Guiding Light and, given the extraordinarily long history of the show, it is reasonable that there should be such spinoffs. Deletion is quite inappropriate because, if we feel that this is not the right structure, a better alternative is to merge back into the parent article. Detailed sources for this general topic exist such as The daytime serials of television, 1946-1960 and Guiding light: a 50th anniversary celebration. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it is not appropiate to delete all articles nominated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of All My Children? --Gh87 (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. That was a nomination of a banned user known to have used sockpuppets. The arguments to delete were mostly weak WP:PERNOMs and illogical nonsense like "Delete because ... this can be merged". Warden (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no time requirements of reviewing the older AfD; who will review the deletion: you or I? And why do I have to rely on WP:AADD, an essay that is not officially a policy? --Gh87 (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: What is the point of keeping articles on the history of a canceled soap opera? Beats me; what's the point of keeping articles on the history of defunct nations, for instance? Ravenswing 17:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soap operas and nations are NOT the same thing. Soap operas are fictional; nations are not. Why basically comparing without sufficient depth? Why do you compare history of one soap to history of a nation? Answer yourself: what are your points of keeping them? --Gh87 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having an article of every person who played in one single game of a professional sport, or every dot on a map which was once inhabited? These articles at least satisfy WP:N unlike the minimal athlete articles, the articles about someone who served for two months in some US state legislature, or the tiny failed hamlet articles, which are kept per de facto notability policy. Edison (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Let's get back on track, all right? --Gh87 (talk) 06:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't mind if you guys want to keep them, delete them or merge them all together into a new article. But whatever you do, don't merge them into the Guiding Light article. The article is already long and I don't even want to imagine what it would turn out to be if the Guiding Light article absorbed all these articles.Farine (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my response above, I think they should be deleted because as you said, the Guide Light article is already long enough and the histories are not notable by themselves. --Odie5533 01:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep all - Seminal soap opera, main article too unwieldy for a merge. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia and a compendium of popular culture, embrace the fact. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I came here ready to vote delete when I heard about it at wp:DRV, but reading through this AFD and the articles I changed my mind. These articles include some non-plot content which is not duplicated elsewhere, namely the show development sections and season ratings. As such deletion if off the table, for that material should be kept somehow. Merging might be an option, but as others have expressed that would make the main article very unwieldy and I agree with that assesment. So I can only vote Keep all, although I would like to ask fans of this series to please clean up and standardize the articles. Yoenit (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single reference in the batch. Without reliable, third-party sources addressing the subject in detail, notability is not established. "Keep" votes totally fail to identify any sources that treat the plot in such great detail. Neutrality^talk 18:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "What is the point of keeping a history of a cancelled soap opera" Well, what is the point about keeping a history of any cancelled production? Those history books with details about broadway plays, casts, etc., in the 19th century? BURN THEM! They don't run on Broadway anymore! OK, snark aside, a mass nomination like this requires a bit more to convince me all this deletion is necessary. Yoenit makes good points as well.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge two ways into a summary in the main article and a impeccably sourced history article that contains real-world commentary. At the moment, the current situation isn't tenable, but it would lead to a spinout article. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:42, 29 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 Murder of Jeff Hall. per article creator (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Hall

edit

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

Non-notable murder, only of local interest. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article includes links to several LA times articles about the murder. Granted its not "lasting" notability, but notability does not expire. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The murder of Jeff Hall was profiled on 60 Minutes. A quick Google search shows international coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the same Jeffrey Hall as Murder of Jeff Hall? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it. The details are too much simelar to be of another case. And to be true: that article is much better then this one. Then merging (if this article provides anything useful) is a better idea! Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is established through the referencing of NY, LA Times as well as Telegraph. 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Murder of Jeff Hall. This is a biography notable for one event, and the event already has an article. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to murder of Jeff Hall. This seems to be an interesting story that should be covered somewhere. However I am open to the view that it should be covered in another article and welcome arguments. TFD (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I made a mistake. I created this article on October 3, 2011, after carefully searching for an existing article. For some reason my search did not find the article Murder of Jeff Hall, which had already been created five days earlier on September 28. I think the merged article should cover more than the murder, because Jeffery Hall was already notable before the murder. Wikfr (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wikfr that a merge would be a good idea. So keep the article and the copious detail can be merged with the other rather sparse article. --TS 16:17, 28 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Kelly, MD, PhD

edit

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

Non-notable physician. Article lacks sources to indicate notability. In addition, the article is not properly formatted. Tinton5 (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was on the edge of deleting it when I was on new page patrol, but decided to give it a chance. Since others agree tho, Ill push it to the bin. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep. This article has the smell of having been written by a public relations acolyte, which invariably leads to difficulties (please correct me if wrong). However with a GS h-index of 59 and being the head of a world famous laboratory, it is hard to see how notability could be improved, short of winning a Nobel Prize. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep per Xxanthippe and extensive citations, although the article does need some work. -- 202.124.72.74 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. He passes WP:PROF#C3 four times over (member national academy etc), and probably many of the other criteria as well, but the article is a bit of a mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see a fair amount of reorganization and rewriting needs to be done, it appears to pass the WP:GNG test, plenty of citations. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if there were nothing else, being director of Sloan-Kettering is enough to satisfy WP:PROF. Article needs cleanup and should be moved to a title not including the academic titles. --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, but the article title needs to be changed to Thomas J. Kelly (physician) or some such thing (there are other Thomas J. Kellys at Wikipedia, and Thomas J. Kelly redirects to the dab page Thomas Kelly). Also, the references need to be put in proper Wikipedia format. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd make it "Thomas Kelly (oncologist)", which is more exact than "physician". --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Formatting the page and some verification of this man's birth date are necessities. Thanks!Tinton5 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but the article is apparently written by the PR department of ?Sloan Kettering who has submitted at least one other unsatisfactory biography, Simon N. Powell, who is not as notable as Kelly, but probably notable--the citations will need checking. . I've started on it. I shall give the necessary advice, which is my euphemism for a pretty sharp lecture. If PR staff are going to do this, they should at least do it properly and produce useful articles that do not require extensive further work. DGG ( talk ) 09:25, 28 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} 01:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Davies High School

edit

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

Non notable school with no sources to indicate notability. Tinton5 (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Even the most cursory search at GNews turns up several hundred of news stories covering this school,[1][2] and not all of them are in North Dakota papers, either.[3][4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to WP:NHS, community consensus is that high schools are inherently notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would like to see some references, If they can be provided, then there is no reason to delete. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fargo Public Schools. The two non-ND references provided by Arxiloxos just announce the dedication of the school this year. It's too new to have distinguished itself. WP:NHS is an essay. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- we delete subjects that are likely, or have been shown to be, non-notable. In the case of high schools experience shows that with sufficient research enough sources to meet WP:GNG will be found, and this school clearly has them. In the case of such notable subjects we tag the pages for improvement as a much more constructive way forward than deletion. To start the process I am cleaning up the article. TerriersFan (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per standard procedure for schools and TerriersFan. Schools may not be deleted per A7 and there is no reasons why this AfD should be closed as 'delete' for a lack of references.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Setting aside the precedent for notability of High Schools, I'm finding quite a few sources about this one. Notability may be thin due to the subject's age (or lack thereof), but it's there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Through long-standing precedent, all high schools are inherently notable. Trusilver 23:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although there is debate about school being inherintly notable, I err on the side of caution in most cases. Propose WP:Snow Gaijin42 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Argues: The Movie

edit

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

just released movie, no google news, no reviews. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Can we at least TRY to find reliable sources before nominating an article for deletion? I easily found these articles:

Keep per flaws of nominator's terse nomination statement:

"just released movie".
Sorry, but woefully incorrect, as the article itself states the film was released nearly a year ago In November of 2010.
"no google news".
Incorrect, as User:11coolguy12 shares, all one need do is do a diligent search looking beyond the limitaions of the Find sources Google News archive search.
"no reviews",
Again wrong.. see previous refutation.

So while yes, the article will benefit from some work, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation within an article. THAT issue is best addressed with a suitable cleanup tag on the article, as we do not delete a new article on a possibly notable film topic if concerns can otherwise be addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason has been given for deletion. TheMadBaron (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Maybe delete the sections and just keep the main part as this is a non-funny movie which no one besides the actors could be bother actually making this better then a stud page. Ray-Rays 20:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 29 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. Longstanding project consensus is that notability is not inherited and that Wikipedia articles are not (merely) an exercise in geneaology. Sandstein 07:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian-Heinrich, Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein

edit

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

Contested PROD - This article seems to be based on genealogy. The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard. Notability is not inherited. Utterman (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Utterman (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of this person's notability has been presented. Ravenswing 17:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He was Prince of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein. How is that "no evidence of notability"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a non-notable biography. Having said that; there is a precedent for inherited notability in some of the British aristocracy articles. I agree with the premise that notability is not inherited.Stormbay (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not inherited - but nobility is. Being a prince, I'd argue that he becomes notable for that fact alone. Included in Burke's Royal Families of the World: Volume 1 (1977), The Royalty, Peerage and Aristocracy of the World: Volume 90 (1967), Almanach de Gotha: annuaire généalogique, diplomatique et statistique: Volume 177 (1940), and Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels: Volume 133 (2004). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Craig

edit

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. There are multiple, independent sources.--TM 21:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TM... Alex stop this madness please. Spanneraol (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - non-trivial sources from reliable organizations clearly pass WP:N. Nominator is showing little grasp of what the guideline actually comprises. — KV5 • Talk • 01:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No guidelines violated as I can see, passes WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's getting to the point where I'm ready to vote Keep on anything Alex nominates, reflexively. This is looking more than a little pointy. Ravenswing 17:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. It seems to be snowing in here. Alex (talk) 18:51, 23 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. Ravenswing's opinion is discounted because it does not contain an argument pertaining to the article itself (rather than to the nominator and the deletion rationale). Sandstein 08:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Crabbe

edit

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. He's nearly 50 and has never held a major league job. I don't think he has WP:POTENTIAL. Fails WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former Manager of the Year winner and current minor league manager. Spanneraol (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's getting to the point where I'm ready to vote Keep on anything Alex nominates, reflexively. This is looking more than a little pointy. The subject's age and whether he has been employed at the major league level are screamingly irrelevant. Ravenswing 17:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable minor league manager stuck at the lowest level of the minor leagues. Other winners of that prestigious award which are red links or make no mention of the award: Mike Shildt, Paul Runge, Rob Mummau, Ray Smith, Nick Leyva, Bruce Crabbe, Nick Capra, Steven Turco, Jorge Orta, Julio Cruz, John Gibbons, Joe Cunningham. Also, can someone explain how Crabbe and Jeff Carter both won that same award in the same year? Wknight94 ^talk 22:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Baseball Cube, Carter won it in 2000 and Crabbe in 1999. Spanneraol (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Class A manager with no significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notableMiracleMat (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being the Appalachian League Manager of the Year is sufficient to convey notability per policy, whether or not that achievement impresses any individual editor. The woeful incompleteness of stubs like Ray Smith (baseball) have no bearing on the notability of this article. - Dravecky (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being Appalachian League Manager of the Year convey notability? Nobody has answered my questions about why low-level awards like that make one notable. I'm not impressed with the coverage, and he has not gone on to have a notable career following the award. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant extrinsic references supporting notability. The assertion that winning a minor award "conveys notability" in itself is totally contrary to policy. Neutrality^talk 18:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Former minor-leaguer; subsequently and currently a low-level minor league manager. On this basis, no particular reason to assume subject's notability, per WP:BASE/N. Article offers a few references, but press releases and media guides are not useful to evidence notability. Once won a manager award in a rookie-level league, but Muboshgu's link illustrates the lack of notability associated with this award. My own Gnews and general web searches return WP:ROUTINE reports, primary sources, trivial mentions. Fails WP:BASE/N, fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:09, 30 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. Snowballs have a better chance. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Cox

edit

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

Non-notable baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N, WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Being on the Olympic qualify roster is not enough to merit notability. Per WP:ATH: "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." Alex (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Cox was one of the highest rated prospects for the most well known baseball team in the world and multiple sources describe his career in detail. He was not only named to the squad, but pitched in 3 games at the highest international level. This is the type of bad faith AFD which has everyone angry at you, Alex. Are you trying to prove some sort of WP:POINT?--TM 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with everyone claiming I am trying to make a point? I am trying to get rid of non-notable Wikipedia articles. It's that simple. And if people are really getting "angry," then I will pass my suggestion along to all of you that I have passed along to another Wikipedia member: (short version) "Chill." It really is quite comical watching people get so worked up. I'm not intending for you guys to get mad, but you are letting yourselves get that way. I am doing my best to improve Wikipedia, but I don't know if the same can be said about my fellow editors.

If you want to "improve Wikipedia," why don't you spend more time finding sources for the pages you create rather than wasting so much time with these PRODs and AfDs. The "keep" rate among AfDs lately has been about 95%. Why are we wasting all these hours just to get an occasional page deleted? Also, please stop acting like a petulant child by bringing every one of your failed PRODs to AfD ten seconds later. Your batting average on these is about .050, so what's the point? — NY-13021 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that.. you improve wikipedia by writing articles and improving existing articles rather than trying to get rid of other articles. Spanneraol (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to point out, citing the exact phrases and words, how he meets WP:ATH? According to Sports-Reference.com/Olympics, ([5]^{[dead link]}) Cox never participated in them. Alex (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Cox just returned from being a member of Team USA at the COPABE Olympic Qualifying Tournament in Cuba. He helped the U.S. to a 1st Place finish and an automatic berth in the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Cox appeared in three games for Team USA and allowed one run in 5.2 IP with 1 BB and 6 K'"[6] which is already on the article. I think WP:BEFORE applies here. If he was named to an Olympic team, it would make sense that he actually appeared.--TM 21:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, now Alex is worried about the "exact phrases and words" of Wiki guidelines? If it's not too much trouble, maybe Alex could use this opportunity to explain how that scout who won "Midwest Scout of the Year" was notable while seeing the guy in the Scouts Hall of Fame as not notable? Alex never did get around to answering that simple question. — NY-13021 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to his play with the U.S. National team. Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per user "TM" above. — NY-13021 (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes GNG and ATH, POINTy nom. Refer to RfC/U for more details. — KV5 • Talk • 01:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Again No guidelines are violated, why was this even considered for deletion? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:23, 22 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Corsaletti

edit

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Never reached big leagues, so he fails WP:BASE/N. Coverage seems WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NCOLLATH, "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." Corsaletti was a third team All-American. Enough said.--TM 21:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third team All-Americans are hardly notable. Alex (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? He was named to a nationally recognized all-American team, thus gaining "national media attention as an individual". Show me where the guideline says third team all-american's fail NCOLLATH?--TM 21:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about this guy... third-team all-americans in baseball arent necessarily notable by themselves. no vote for me at this time. Spanneraol (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It passes WP:NCOLLATH, well known and notable to have an article, well written enough to keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's getting to the point where I'm ready to vote Keep on anything Alex nominates, reflexively. This is looking more than a little pointy. Ravenswing 17:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. WP:SNOW. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:07, 22 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. Davewild (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Lowrance

edit

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Fails WP:BASE/N and WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now... another case of a player who is still active and can be merged when he resigns. Spanneraol (talk) 22:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full agreance with user User:Spanneraol. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I said when I objected to PROD, he was active last year and is young enough to assume a high likelihood of active status next year. There is absolutely no reason this should've been brought to AfD so quickly after declined PROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 22 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} 00:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Amos Moore

edit

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

csd declined on the basis that the father was highly notable. So he was, but the existence of sources for a player with only a future professional record may meet WP:GNG, but does not meet NOT INHERITED. or NOT INDISCRIMINATE. And even the GNG says meeting it does not necessarily mean we should have an article. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I decline my own G3 speedy (hoax) as I originally thought it was a hoax. I didn't say he's notable because his father is. He might be notable if there has been significant coverage in reliable sources. It can certainly be argued that even this wouldn't make him notable but this would imply that it's a contentious issue meaning it wouldn't apply for A7 and at the very least, wasn't a hoax as I originally thought. If I had to guess, he's not notable but I don't base my !votes on the concept of notability alone. I base it on the research I do. Your reasoning seems somewhat vague. Do you think he's not notable simply because of your misunderstanding of my statement or did you actually do any research? OlYeller21^Talktome 22:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

put simply, I thought him not notable because of his lack of accomplishments. Coverage has to be of something significant; coverage without significance is TABLOID. I'm not criticizing you, it's just that this seemed the best way to do it. I could have speedy deleted as A7, but it might have been seen as contentious. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:ANYBIO. Subject has on instance of significant coverage. On its own, not able to infer notability and I feel that it inherently does not infer notability as it was only a notable instance based on the notability of his father. One other piece of coverage exists and it was published by the professional team he signed with. I did a Google News search and Googles News archive search to find those articles. He fails WP:ATHLETE because he signed with a professional team's U-15 team and not their main team. It seems like he may be notable in the future but I don't see that any inclusion guidelines are satisfied at this time. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bob247 (talk) 05:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A classic up and coming article. Ray-Rays 20:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnie Beyeler

edit

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. Never held a big league job, so he fails WP:BASE/N. Lots of his coverage seems to be WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep current AAA manager. Has coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spanneraol, and a request to stop Alexsautographs from this behavior. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 22 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. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Kumar S R

edit

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable critic/author. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Awards earned are not notable. No independent sources and therefore does not meet WP:GNG. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable author and no evidence of satisfying WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:36, 26 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 EX-TER-MIN-ATE!. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who story title debate

edit

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

Is it just me, or is this page little more than a largely unsourced mess of minor fandom details straying into WP:OR with nothing that can't be (and as far as I'm aware is already) covered in the episodes in question's own articles? U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, by the way, the lack of any attempt to establish notability through sources since being tagged for this a year ago. U-Mos (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - where there is disagreement in story (episode) titles this is covered under article on story itself. There is no fandom-wide debate on the subject as this accretion of content implies (eg like the Shakespeare authorship question), nor is it a issue that affects the whole body of work. The subject is not notable independantly of the few stories where it occured, and there are no sources that treat the subject as other than a passing mention or briefly when discussing the story - hence fails GNG. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Improve (weak) it's not a great article, but I think that if it were refocused away from the alleged 'debate' and 'controversey' into a straight list of stories with multiple titles, it might have some value and interest. Needs a lot of cleanup and citing though, and in absence of that I'd probably have to take my fan hat off and say delete it. --ThePaintedOne (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in List of Doctor Who episodes with alternative titles? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there might be an article to be had there. On the other hand it might better left to die.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Move/Merge As is we probably can't keep the article but there are a few things to consider. A) Its been here a long time - I know that isn't a reason to keep it but that leads to B) There are several articles that link to it because of the evolution of the serials names. C) Pixley's article that is linked to in the EL section is well researched and is used by both print and web writers to explain all that went on in the determination of how we and the Beeb refer to the serials in question today. In addition to this I just got to see the 1972 Blue Peter segment that is an extra on the Day of the Daleks DVD and Peter Purves' refers to his favourite story as being the 12 part adventure called The Devil's Planet. This was the title for episode three of the serial that we refer to today as the The Dalek Masterplan. This is a good example of why an article about the story title discrepancies is useful and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as some viewers of that segment will come to WikiP to find out why he used a title that they haven't heard of before. If the article was improved and moved away from the "fan debate"/"controversy" aspects I think that it a different article would be helpful for those readers who aren't steeped in Dr Who lore (naturally I pity their not being properly addicted to our fave) as to the title eccentricities. Does anyone know of an article that it might be merged into so that we don't entirely lose the useful info? MarnetteD | Talk 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts: Only 14 articles link to this one so its not a big issue to link to a different article. Pixley's article is self published (doesn't cite sources either) and not therefore an RS. If the content needs to be brought together in one place rather than as they occur in the story articles, why not start afresh as a list giving alternate titles and build it up from there. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the few sources do not (IMHO) constitute the multiple, reliable, independent coverage that would prove notability. As GraemeLeggett has pointed out, if there is disagreement over individual titles, this is (or should be) covered in the episode's article. I won't claim this is WP:FANCRUFT, but if there's an article on an alleged mass-disagreement amongst sci-fi fans then there better be plenty of mainstream sources to back it up. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge. While some of this article is definitely unsourced, or perhaps original synthesis, some of it is cited descriptively, and much of the rest could be sourced from the various DVDs. (e.g., subtitle commentary on "The Daleks" details the various title issues.) Fact remains it's not now, of course. But I'm not really sure it's worth having the commentary broken out from articles on individual episodes (how does that benefit the reader?), and trying to draw some kind of overall theme would definitely be OR without a source. List of Doctor Who serials already has alternate titles, which should be sufficient for any reader looking for either a list of such titles, or trying to find a story by an alternate title. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This discussion was not listed at AfD; I'm listing it now, please consider the time of listing when considering when to close the discussion. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fannish bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which I frankly do not see. It simply does not hold together as a single coherent subject; the various cases present divergent issues in naming, and in a couple of cases the issues seem to be completely manufactured. Individual situations could be included in appropriate articles, but in my view they do not add up to a single topic. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm pretty flexible for what we can accept for popular culture, but this is fan trivia beyond the range of any conceivable encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 26 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} 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Hieber

edit

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

He does an "online radio program", aka podcast. He is the owner of a travel agency, 2AFRIKA, Inc. The podcast talks about tourism in Africa while also plugging specials his agency currently has. Unable to find reliable references about him. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable evidence of notability in current citations, and I don't see anything on Google. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Quoted a few times in the press but no significant coverage about him in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 24 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. Spam-b-gon The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wellen Surf Co.

edit

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

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about this clothing company; no secondary mentionsCurb Chain (talk) 12:11, 28 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 againsrt recreation once WP:TOOSOON becomes WP:SOONENOUGH. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McClam

edit

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

An actor. Entire experience is two episodes of TV, a video and two short movies. Fails WP:NACTOR and is a case of TooSoon. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While beginning to push at WP:ENT, he has not met that SNG's inclusion criteria just yet and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 24 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} 23:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual CSR

edit

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

Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party source and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another call center tech business advertising on Wikipedia: a technology company that provides call handling applications (including Speech Recognition, IVR, and Desktop Integration Applications) and agent automation Virtual CSR is known for its speech recognition and data capture applications that power some of the largest call center operations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 25 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. Sandstein 07:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Star Trek

edit

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

Apparent POV fork created to promote a viewpoint advanced by a single self-published source. Lagrange 613 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All of the actual information in this article that isn't obviously POV can already be found in other articles on Wikipedia. Even if it didn't qualify for deletion based on the fact that its a personal POV, it should still be deleted because of that.Rorshacma (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stated, a POV fork, also contains original research and reads like an essay. Sparthorse (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is mainly about the United Federation of Planets, maybe this article should redirect to that one. GVnayR (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a one-sided POV, not a broad coverage of the subject.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork, OR, WP:ESSAY, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...oh, geez, I just realised the main source (after reverting a mostly-blanking of SPS material) is an essay on stardestroyer.net. Can this be speedied? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have nominated it for speedy in a heartbeat if I thought it fit one of the criteria. But it's not a copyvio as far as I can tell, it's not a hoax, and there is non-duplicative content. It's not even really disparaging. It's just unencyclopedic, and there's no speedy criterion for that. Lagrange 613 02:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay with POV and sourcing issues, in addition to being flatly untrue based on 'facts' as presented in episodes of ST:DS9, ST:VOY, and ST:ENT among other sources. - Dravecky (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only POV and one sided coverage of topic. Naveenswiki (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pov fork and based on unreliable sources. Basically also original research--Cailil ^talk 00:52, 25 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} 23:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axl Rose feuds and rivalries

edit

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

Nominated for the same reasons as Axl Rose feuds and rivalries essentially. Undue weight and synthesizing issues regarding a list of every fight some celebrity has had with another celebrity. Worth a mention perhaps with a few examples in the main page, but standalone is getting into problematic WP:BLP territory. Tarc (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How on Earth is this encyclopedic? As noted in WP:NOT, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. I hope that there aren't more "Celebrity X feuds with other celebrities" articles - what cruft. Agent 86 (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:JUSTSAYNO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect this page to Axl's. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This doesn't merit having an article. 205.155.154.172 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even merit a redirect, frankly. Agent 86 (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. No redirect as this is not a plausible search term. Neutrality^talk 18:56, 28 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} 23:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Mustaine feuds and rivalries

edit

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

This has been on my watchlist for awhile, even tried to prod it once, but the longer it sits there the more I dislike the concept. From what I can gather, the main Dave Mustaine article ones had a "feuds and rivalries" section that kept bloating and bloating til someone finally spun it off to an article. If a person is indeed notable for getting into altercations, and it can be sourced to something reliable and not a tabloid, then it should be included in their bio if worded neutrally. But to spin out a laundry list of every beef a famous person has had with another famous person? IMO that crosses the line into synthesizing disparate sources on separate events into an overreaching topic, giving undue weight to the matter. Please note that the issue of "is the feud sourced?" is not the issue here, even though the sourcing does tend to be to questionable sites like blabbermouth.net and such. I filed this to address the question of "should we dedicate a separate article to several different celebrity fights? Tarc (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How on Earth is this encyclopedic? As noted in WP:NOT, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion. I hope that there aren't more "Celebrity X feuds with other celebrities" articles - what cruft.
Delete. Thoroughly unencyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Hullaballo on this one. If Mustaine's feuds and rivalries are in fact relevant and can be explained through an unbias standpoint, they should be included in his biography. TJD2 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 18:56, 28 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. Consensus is that the subject currently does not meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Mega

edit

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

Non-notable bit-part actor. Prod with second endorsement was removed by article creator. Main claim to fame is involvement with Glee, but not even mentioned in the Characters_of_Glee article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable actor. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I realize as a new creator/editor I made mistakes in setting up and editting the page. I apologize. I am studying and picking up as fast as I can and will consult before making more edits. On Mega notability, he has had multiple articles published on his theatrical performances and several lead roles- 2 of which earned him Column Award nominations. He is not yet listed on the Wiki Characters_of_Glee article but that article is an ongoing work. Mega has pages devoted to him, his character and his part in the Dalton Warblers on http://glee.wikia.com/wiki/Glee_TV_Show_Wiki. He has been indepently interviewed about his role on the show by masslive. Mozartchic01 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Mozartchic01[reply]

Comment Please read WP:BIO. Have tumblr accounts and Twitter followers are not among the criteria for notability. Also, please read WP:COI, as some of the comments you've made on the articles talk page suggest you have some sort of relationship with the subject (publicist? relative?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was not aware that those didn't count. I have only tweeted with Mega twice to ask if it was ok to even think about putting up a wiki for him. I did not want to put up one without his consent and then have his publicists contacting me. Other than providing me the ability to use the image on the page- he had no involvement. I did all the research based off what was on his IMDB resume and scoping the internet. I am not related nor a publicist. I have never met the subject. It saddens me that this may be deleted but I understand that there are guidelines to adhere to. Mozartchic01 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2011

(UTC)Mozartchic01

Comment Removed my twiitter/tumblr comment since it is not usable for notability 70.239.9.198 (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2011 (UTC)mozartchic01[reply]

Delete - not yet notable; see WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Orangemike. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Notable per Mozartchic - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you're agreeing that "fan sites and lots of Twitter followers" is a valid reason for keep? OK then. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really did not like the personal attack on Mozartchic. I will let closing Admin decide re notability - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no attack here. Mozartchic is a new user; you are not. I find it odd that you pop up out of nowhere on AfD noms that I've made (and I don't make that many) with !votes that fall squarely in the arguments without arguments camp. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have changed my "vote" so you won't think I am stocking you. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:42, 28 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} 01:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational Heterosexism

edit

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

neologism coined by one author. All references are from same author. Does not appear to be used in online discussions, scholarship, news, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator. The term has never been referenced before until the 2011 book titled Experiences of Single African American Women Professors: With This Ph.D. I Thee Wed was published, which has recently been published by Lexington Press and is thus cited in this Wikipedia article. With chapter 9 of the book, Dr. Howard uses (coins) and defines the term organizational heterosexism. Research has been done on heterosexism in the workplace by various scholars however this term has never been used until the 2011 book was released. Thus other sources, which describe examples of heterosexism in the workplace are included in this article, such as Wallace and more of Howard's work. Action "keep". More sources CAN be added that speak to research around heterosexism in the workplace, however this term is indeed defined and coined in a published work.
Delete. The unsigned "keep" comment by the creator of the article pretty much sums up why it should be deleted. It's pretty much an article about a neologism based upon original research. Agent 86 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Agree, the creators comment is the proof. Possibly redirect the term to hetrosexism, or add a section to the hetrosexism article. Not deserving of its own page. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Agree with Gaijin42 and Agent 86. --Kerdezo (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism which its coiner is trying to promote via Wikipedia. Not worth a redirect to heterosexism as it's an unlikely slip for "institutional heterosexism." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the article's author is arguing for deletion, whether he/she knows it or not. EEng (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Balabin

edit

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

Non-notable priest. Besides no claim of notability, the subject fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ARTIST, and WP:SCHOLAR (those are the only guidelines that I believe might apply). Unsurprisingly given when he lived, a Google News search and Google News Archive search produce no hits. The only reference in the article is to "The Catholic Encyclopedia" and a search of it for "Eugene Balabin" and another search for "Balabin" produce no hits. I searched other online Catholic reference websites like CatholicReference.net for any mention but could find none. I assume that if the subject isn't even notable to Catholics, he's not notable here but I don't pretend to assume that to be a hard rule. A Google Books search produces only one hit and it's not refering to "Eugene Balabin", it's referring to an instance where a list of names happened to include "Eugene, Balabin". I even tried a Google Scholar search which produced no hits. At this point, I would be inclined to call this a hoax if there wasn't so much detail about his life. Also, this Google search produces several similar hits to a string of text that involves "Latest News and Information on 1815 In Literature" but the links point towards somewhat bizzare websites whose goal is confusing to me. They look like they're attempting to compile news about literature from 1815 while selling self-improvement information and website creation guidance. Not a reliable source but they might point to one and I haven't found any leads from that. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I still think this qualified for A7 deletion but User:Eastmain declined my A7 nomination stating, "An article about him in another encyclopedia is a strong argument for notability." Since it's inherently contentious, I brought it here. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep An article in another encyclopedia is not just a strong argument for notability, but proof of it. WP always includes individuals whom other reputable encyclopedias have considered notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please link the policy or guideline that states that we hold all other language Wikipedias' notability guidelines equal to our own? It's always been my understanding that notability guidelines were written separately for a reason; they don't infer anything at another WP. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, for a start. St Anselm (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What did DGG say about any other language Wikipedias? The argument is that an article in a reputable print encyclopedia demonstrates notability, as the whole thrust of our inclusion criteria is that we go by the judgement of the publishers of such works rather than our own subjective opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep more or less per DGG. There may be specialized reference works that go to a level of detailed we reject -- I swear I've seen a Shakespearean one that gave the legendary pursuing bear its own entry -- but this nowhere approaches such a case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)I'm now agnostic here. The sourcing questions raised are quite good. The article reads like a bad machine translation, and most of the names involved produce no reliable Ghits. I wonder if the English transliterations are as bad as the translation. I'd like background from the article creator, whose track record does not suggest any likelihood of hoaxery. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC) And now count me as a ~~weak~~ keep. "Eugene" seems to not be the standard Westernization of the subject's first name, and the article should be retitled. I still can't make heads or tails of much of the paragraph beginning "In 1852 France joined the Catholic Church". But this reference found by GRuban [7] confirms the subject was a prominent apostate, indicating that adequate sourcing is available, difficult as it may be to access. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides not being sure that being in the Catholic Encyclopedia infers notability (I don't think it does), he doesn't appear in any of the three versions (newadvent.org, catholicity.com, and oce.catholic.com]). Can you verify that he is in that source? If you can find it, we can discuss the concept of one presumably reliable source inferring notable. I tried to link my searches but at least one of those websites seem to be blacklisted. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't appear in the catholic.org version, either ([8]). OlYeller21^Talktome 22:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request - I would be inclined to agree with you, assuming the other article has usable references, but I can't find the article on any other Wikis. Can anyone else find it? OlYeller21^Talktome 21:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ru:Балабин, Евгений Петрович - I added the "other languages" link to the article. Our article is a very close translation. --GRuban (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*A Source Check is definitely needed... I definitely have questions about whether the cited source is real or bogus. I suppose it is possible that a russian language version of the Catholic Encyclopedia might contain an entry that is not in the english language versions... but I doubt it. Also... The publication date seem off to me... the Catholic Encyclopedia, went out of print long before 2002 (the modern equivalent that was published in 2002 is called the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" - its not on-line, sorry). In any case, there are enough questions here that we should find someone who can confirm whether there actually was a Moscow printing of the Catholic Encyclopedia in 2002... and if so, does it have an entry on Balabin. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—it seems that there actually is such a book, although i haven't laid eyes on it yet. it is mentioned here: Dennis J. Dunn (2004). The Catholic Church and Russia: popes, patriarchs, tsars, and commissars. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 202–. ISBN 978-0-7546-3610-6. Retrieved 21 October 2011..— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. the bibliography of that book isn't fully available in the google books preview. it might have more info about the encyclopedia itself. i can't find the encyclopedia in worldcat, but i'm sure now that this is just a language problem.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find... and it eases my concerns considerably. Preview didn't work for me either... but snippets did... I was able to see what Dunn says about it through this search... apparently the Church did indeed publish a Russian Catholic Encyclopedia in 2002. Reading between the lines of what Dunn says, I suspect that this is not simply a Russian language edition old 1913 era Catholic Encyclopedia (the one that we see on line), nor even a Russian language edition of the more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia. My guess is that it is uniquely targeted to a Russian audience. So... now all we need to do is find someone with access to a good library in Russia, who could find a copy and see if it does indeed have an article on Balabin. Blueboar (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Oh, he was real all right, as is the Russian Catholic Encyclopedia. ru:Католическая_энциклопедия. This wasn't a Russian language edition of the English language Catholic Encyclopedia, but a separate book, devoted to Russian Catholicism. I think Balabin is notable because he gets mentioned in quite a number of unrelated books scanned by Google, both in English and in German, but I can't find a longer article in any of them. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] So I'm assuming that since all these unrelated books find him worthy of mention, there must be others that go into detail. Note, there was a different Evgenii Ivanovich Balabin who was apparently a general in the White Russian Army and memoirist, who gets more Russian Google hits. --GRuban (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reached the same conclusion: this is obviously not the same work as the English language encyclopedias. But it represents an encyclopedia, and we've given all standard non-English encyclopedias the same status as the major English ones as prooving notability . The burden of proof that the ref. is not authentic should now be on someone who can disprove it--its part of the assumption of good faith and we have always accepted printed references on that basis--not necessarily for negative BLP, but that's something special. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given what we have discussed so far a) the citation needs fixing, and the article needs cleaning up but b) it does seem likely that the subject would be in this "Russian Catholic Encyclopedia" (and perhaps some other Russian language sources). In which case I would agree with Weak Keep... fix the article, don't delete it. Fixing it may call for taking the article back to a stubby start level and rebuilding as we find more sources... but that is OK. Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep—per excellent arguments made above by my esteemed fellow encyclopedia-builders. yes, it needs fixing, and yes, it meets the gng.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Completely meets WP:GNG now that it has been properly citated. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. St Anselm (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of all the other source discussion, the fact remains that the article doesn't make any claim of notability other than saying he was "famous". Mangoe (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was a son from a Russian noble family that converted to Catholicism and became a Jesuit. That's at least a claim of notability. How much of a big deal this was at the time can be gathered by the fact that he lost his inheritance and was exiled from the country for it. --GRuban (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't think that's notable. People do convert; I did. What else did he do that was truly notable? Mangoe (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helped found the "Slavic Library" at Meudon. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe, presumably your conversion took place in a different context. actions don't imply notability so much as the context in which they take place. "Martin Luther King thought African-Americans should be allowed to vote. so do i. how does that make him notable?"— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist, though they seem to be mostly in Russian. There is enough for notability, however. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up a little, corrected some apparent errors, and added citations and new sourced material. Even without hands on the "Catholic Encyclopedia," the article meets WP:N, I think. Apparently Balabin also wrote an account of his conversion, which I cannot find. The badness of the article at nomination is explained by it being a Google Translation of the article from Russian Wikipedia. -- 202.124.73.223 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. Mentioned on several notable books about Russian Catholicism.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 13:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? I am concerned that clear-cut sources have yet to emerge. We don't keep ~~BLPs~~ BPs on the assumption that sources might exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What is not clear-cut about the sources listed in the article, including an entry in a print encyclopedia? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not only that, but this isn't a blp, as the guy died in 1895.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GRuban found sources. Dream Focus 01:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't make any real claim of notability."famous" is not the same thing as "notable".--Kylfingers (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"famous is not the same as notable" mean that famous is more restrictive than notability; anyone famous is notable, but not everyone notable is famous. It's rule preventing us from limiting Wikipedia to what would be appropriate for an abridged encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a significant figure in the history of Catholic-Orthodox relations, as indicated by multiple sources; that satisfies WP:ANYBIO #2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.74.101 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

plus, not making a "real claim of notability" is a speedy deletion reason, not an afd reason. for afd, the subject has to actually not be notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm still not completely sure how I feel about this. Mostly, I feel incapable of assessing the references as they're in Russian or only mention Balabin. I can't read the others but that doesn't mean they're not verifiable. I misunderstood others before regarding "another encyclopedia" implying notability as I assumed they meant another language WP. I'm not sure that another encyclopedia implies notability and I'm certainly not going to attempt to argue the reliability of a 19th century Catholic document (Catholic Dictionary) although I can see how someone could. I'll I can really say is that I don't have the ability to assess notability at this point. I would be making assumptions that I'm neither comfortable nor qualified to make. I didn't !vote as I'm the nominator but this would be changing my !vote to Neutral. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per lack of context, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never never say goodbye

edit

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

Google searches do not return any information about this ?? (novel? essay? poem?) It is possible the author is notable, but all sources are Chinese. The text of the ?? (poem?) is included in the page any would be copy-vio Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I'm not entirely sure what this is meant to be about, and contains no links establishing notability. – Richard BB 18:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - Per Above. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 18:09, 21 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of Santa Barbara, volume 1

edit

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

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

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

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

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

These above articles could not establish notability for their [(less) notable] fictional subjects of the cancelled series Santa Barbara. Also, no real-life perspectives and other perspectives outside fictional in-universe. No references right now; TV.com and Youtube have been recently removed due to their unreliabilities as "come and go" and user-submitted. Policies of WP:SOAPS, WP:GNG, WP:FICTION, and WP:IINFO have not been fully followed. I chose the women of Capwell family as part of volume 1; who will be next in volume 2? ~~—Gh87 (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Almost forgot: they were previously PRODded; contested with the "will edit later" comment, which struck me as invalid and contradictory. --Gh87 (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The characters should remain, as they are beneficial towards information regarding the show's history and recognizable throughout the soap world and outside of it as well. I have already included a NY Times article that references Julia Wainwright Capwell, so that character is still recognized enough to be included in contemporary news print. Bottom line, all characters should be kept.Casanova88 (talk) 03:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: "Julia Wainwright Capwell" has only one citation. The rest have not. --Gh87 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such characters are obsessively documented in sources like Soap Opera Digest, and the relevant articles are surely no less encyclopedic that than the unholy array of articles on professional wrestling performers which blithely mix fact and fiction with sourcing that is less reliable and less independent. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All There's an obvious alternative to deletion in such cases — merger into a parent article such as Santa Barbara. Please see WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Warden (talk) 09:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about List of Santa Barbara cast and characters? It has characters' entries; I hope they have not been infringed from other sources. --Gh87 (talk) 15:45, 22 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. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Roberson

edit

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

Non-notable actor whose most is best known (or so the article says) for his role as the fat man on bench in Forrest Gump. The article's content is entirely unreferenced and I've failed to find any source to solve that problem. Moreover, most of the current content is at best suspect and oftentimes nonsensical. For instance, his occupation is listed in part as "20% tipper, professional whistler". The info about his death is even more absurd. Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actor with minor roles (the highest billed one I could find in a major film is 16th in Leatherheads). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - especially with the uncited death. Off2riorob (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed all of the unsourced information. That includes his birth, his "death", all of his personal information, etc. Even while discussing deletion, we can't have that kind of unsourced material in an article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Promotional — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fullerty

edit

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

Article is about an author with no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Knight of New Orleans. He is also an academic, but going by his resume, he is has been hired by a few places as a lecturer which falls well short on WP:PROF. Whpq (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A whole lot of text and mostly irrelevant sources for a promotional article. 99.12.242.170 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following page for my overall defense--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Knight_of_New_Orleans#The_Knight_of_New_Orleans Thanks. As there, I'd kindly ask for a chance to rework this page. I won't (dare) to edit it right now, but it's years old, created not by me in fact (but by the people who assigned a book award I won), and I'm ashamedly proud of its existence since 2008, though under-referenced and excessively written. I'd love the chance to fix all that, having learned a lot in the last 12 hours about good communal editing practice-but before I write forever, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Knight_of_New_Orleans#The_Knight_of_New_Orleans Thanks! WorldEdit123 (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two discussions are obviously related, but the specifics for each article may be different so if you have specific information that shows Matt Fullerty meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, it should be presented here. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Follow the "Knight" link about to find out how the suthor of the article (who is also its subject) has been blocked multiple times for sockputting and so forth. And come on, an article which ends, "The screenplay for The Knight of New Orleans is currently with Meg Davis of MBA Literary & Script Agents" is just bedding for {{db-spam}}, and I've marked it as such. EEng (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The screenplay for The Knight of New Orleans is currently with Meg Davis of MBA Literary & Script Agents

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Frames

edit

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

No evidence of notability. The only reference is to a commercial web page which uses this term to describe one of its products, but does not give substantial coverage of the concept. (PROD contested with no reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything more than a dicdef, and concur with concerns about promotionalism. Polequant (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources about "balloon frames" as a way of displaying party balloons. There seems to be lots of source on the "balloon frame" as a building method. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 24 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 snowball keep. Swarm ^X 18:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Wang Yue

edit

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

~~Quite sad, but in no way notable. Many people die in hit and run accidents every year, what makes her different?~~ Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:11 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw per Speciate's whining, but i request it be moved to a different ___location, it's not just about her, it's about the apathy issues in China. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:17 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can withdraw with conditions; this is basically a request to redirect to another page that doesn't yet exist. Which, frankly, I doubt is going to happen. Quis separabit? 04:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of apathy ? Plutonium27 02:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: this comment was made prior to the nominator redacting an earlier comment. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, If there was a way to put this in an article about Chinese apathy or something similar (without breaching NPOV of course) then that would be good. But yes, this article is not notable, it's just another death amongst the tens of thousands that happen every day. (gonna check that statistic) Akjar13 (talk) 15:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The death has elicited wide-ranging media coverage around the world, clearly meets WP:GNG. Pundits are citing this incident as being symptomatic of a numbness and disengagement in Chinese society. WWGB (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pundits are citing this incident as being symptomatic of a numbness and disengagement in Chinese society." -- this is aimless general speculation, nothing more, nothing less. Quis separabit? 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hot topic now, but in later years, it won't be. The child didn't do anything that spectacular to acheive article status. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:30 21 October 2011 (UTC)

As pointed out later by DanS76, this article is about the accident,her death and the consequences, not about tthe child per se. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepCrystal ball gazing such as predicting a falloff of coverage is not a legitimate tactic in AFD, since it is just the opinion of the editor. 8 days into coverage, it has not stopped. We can revisit in 6 months to see if it has the legs of the Kitty Genovese bystander apathy incident (people get stabbed all the time, ya know. What has made that incident special?). "Many people die in hit and run accidents," but their deaths do not get international coverage nor do they cause "a nationwide wave of mourning" in the worlds most populous nation, as this one did. Press coverage worldwide continues 8 days after the hit and run. "What makes her different" is that it is a particularly callous instance of bystander apathy and apparent indifference by the drivers who ran over her and drove on, resulting in the people of China questioning the "seeming lack of morality in Chinese society." Appears to satisfy the notability guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) so far as one can judge this soon after the event. The article does is not a memorial, nor is it a biography,so the accomplishments or lack thereof of the toddler are irrelevant. The article properly covers the incident and its impact on Chinese society. Edison (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: What happened is a tragedy but we all know that notability doesn't normally derive from being a victim. The circumstances of a death, killing or murder may be notable ("Death of..., Murder of..., etc.), but this one doesn't reach that threshold, in my humble estimation, notwithstanding a rare case of media hysteria in China.

"What makes her different is that it is a particularly callous instance of bystander apathy and apparent indifference by the drivers who ran over her and drove on, resulting in the people of China questioning the "seeming lack of morality in Chinese society ... -- the above paragraph is so POV and non-neutral it would be deleted from any article in which it was placed, except as a limited quotation.

"We can revisit in 6 months to see if it has the legs of the Kitty Genovese" -- Yes we can, so let's do so -- no need to create the article now then, by your own logic. Quis separabit? 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no need to delete it now, either, just because we can undelete it in 6 months if the coverage continues. Are the servers half full, or half empty? Edison (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, sadly, they are all empty. If the article is notable now it will be notable in six months. Deleting an article through AFD is harder than creating one, as well you know. And in six months after everyone has forgotten about this poor little girl, except her family of course, and an AFD is made to delete the article then the same keep voters will be out in force to protect it, whereas if the article is notable in six months there will be nobody to criticize its creation. In fact I vow I will support the article if the incident is still in the public eye in 180 days. Quis separabit? 17:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Fully Meets WP:GNG, no guidelines are violated, has recived signifigant media coverage offering opportunitioes for more references and expansion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.• Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG - DrachenFyre > YOU! (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is notable and first example of a global witnessing and reaction to an event like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.138.2 (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying an actor who played a background character in Avatar is notable because the film went on to become the highest grossing film of all time. The person is essential a key component to the news that generated from it. Which is why i retract my delete and submit a withdraw, with my reccomendation it be renamed. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:47 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is not about her, its about the accident and its consequences. Keeping these 2 distinct is important. DanS76 (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Point. Zhanzhao (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's move it to a different ___location, like "2011 Chinese hit and run incident" or something, cause, like stated above, it's not just about her. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:43 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That title makes it non-notable and unclear. It is Wang Yue's accident specifically that is drawing the international media's attention.Zhanzhao (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhanzhao: We need to distinguish between legitimate notable events and sentimental desires by some editors to enshrine this tragic child by name on Wikipedia, which, harsh as it sounds, is not a memorial site. Quis separabit? 02:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most people (or cats) who die in hit and run accidents do not make the headlines all over the world or lead to calls for a fundamental reassessment of a country's culture. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been here in China for months now and it isn't the Chinese media but "western news outlets [who have given] the story top billing"? Should they have? Perhaps not. But they did and Wikipedia's general philosophy has been to be a follower as opposed to a trail blazer it terms of what to cover and how. Generally our job is simply to assess the level of attention not whether it is warranted.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "western news outlets [who have given] the story ... top billing": Can someone tell me how come (and I live in New York City, which is not exactly a remote village) I learned about this on Wikipedia and have not yet seen or heard a single thing about the ugly incident so far on the news here in the Big Apple. Quis separabit? 02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was reported in an extensive article in The New York Times. Perhaps you are spending too much time on Wikipedia? WWGB (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said "on the news" -- I watch, as I do every day, several hours of news on TV and haven't heard a word, unless I missed something at 6 am. I don't read the New York Times, which is a left-wing rag. Quis separabit? 03:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Secondary sources claim this is affecting the future direction of the People's Republic of China, with its 1.3 billion people. It has been compared to the Kitty Genovese case. Speciate (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Secondary sources claim..." constitutes ~~WP:POV~~ WP:RS and WP:SPECULATION. Quis separabit? 21:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous statement. There are many reliable secondary sources that have made these claims. WP:POV is not even applicable to AFD arguments. Speciate (talk) 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, my bad. Quis separabit? 02:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are many similar cases around the world, there is no reason why this deserves its own article.-- Koresdcine (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please identify the "many other cases" with an equivalent amount of worldwide coverage, and which are said to have influenced the psyche of a nation, which have no articles. Perhaps they also satisfy WP:EVENT and should have articles. A Los Angeles Times article says it is "the Chinese equivalent of the infamous 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese" and that the provincial leaders held 3 days of meetings to discuss the implications of the case. A group of lawyers are drafting a "Good Samaritan" law as a result of the case, to penalize people who fail to help in such a situation, and to indemnify those who do render aid. Edison (talk) 19:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scale of the coverage alone has been exceptional and makes this a notable subject for an article. I would compare it to the Tank Man article in terms of coverage, and also how it achieved significance when the subject seemed like one out of many similar incidences that undoubtly happened that day. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable incident, fueled a lot of coverage and question by the media Worldwide— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.235.109 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wang Yue herself may not be notable before, but the coverage of the accident that lead to her death, and he discourse it led to, definitely meets the criteria for notability, considering the scope and scale of the coverage. DanS76 (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "What makes her different?" the nominator asks. It doesn't matter. The scale and scope of the coverage demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a video out there of a group of chinese men kicking and punching a small Caucasian boy. it did not make headlines but this one did so as per WP:GNG, i really do not see a reason as to why it should not be kept, but it should be expanded with pictures of the child and the incident...--Stemoc (talk) 23:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by Stemoc makes absolutely no sense. Quis separabit? 02:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ORLY?. If any of you have seen the vid of a group of chinese men punching and kicking a small caucausian boy who was "allegedly" caught stealing, you would know what i'm talking about. It shows people there seem to be living in some fuc*ed up world but nothing was done about it and we don't know who that child was and what happened to him afterwards, it was pretty much swept under the rug. Something similar has just happened, only this time it was to one of their own. Had international media not made a big deal out of this and shamed China, they would not have taken this big step to make sure its not repeated...--Stemoc (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the death of a child is indeed tragic, there is nothing notable about the victim. They are neither famous, infamous, or well known in some other capacity. This is simply a tragic event, but hardly worth a mention on Wikipedia. --Comwhiz2002 (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this should be kept or redirected. Paradise coyote (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why all the confusion? The article is about the event described as the Death of Wang Yue. Its not about the person. It is a notable event. It has garnered "significant media coverage" as per our guidelines.- Kiwipat (talk) 05:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speculate, without the shocking video, this news story (even if it broke out into news) would have been a mere blip. It would simply be Child run over by car, dies. And that'll be the end of it. Yes, I've seen the video; I was shocked by it like many of you. But, in retrospect, this story does not warrant an article of its own. A good mention of it can be put into bystander effect. Or, some article talking about the culture of China. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 06:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, who knows how much of this incident will go on to affect further incidents in China, just like the incident of Kitty Genovese or even that of Mohamed Bouazizi? Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful encyclopedia that is informative - does that mean that just because these incidents are frequent doesn't mean that they are notable to be kept on Wikipedia? When the incident is notable and has caused quite some impact or reaction (do check the many Chinese forum sites, be it Baidu, Tianya or Sohu, with regards to this event), it is deserving of an article for itself, otherwise those many articles about minor fictional films, cartoons or games can also find no reason to exist. At the very least, we can keep it on hold for about 6 months (like one of us has suggested above), check for further updates or mentions before making final decisions about this discussion. No News ! 07:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to bystander effect. Wikipedia is not the news. Hekerui (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the news about this girl already a hit in my country and surely all over the world. The death of this little girl need to be recorded and saved because it get attention from all over the world. If you asking what the differences with other accidents? Well:

Others doesn't make big news.
There are also other "no different" article such as killing of a person,suicide,abduction and so on but why they have their own article?
This news has change a lot on cultural and community. The way people think about China and their rules.
Well,if we combine all the news source, we can get a complete Wikipedia page.
Its TEACHING EVERYONE A LESSON. --Syukri Abd Rahman (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has made Al Jazeera and NHK. Notable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Clearly as notable as anything else on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not the news, but this isn't a news story, its a documentation of a Worldwide response to the tragedy amongst MANY other things, like it says on WordswithMeaning! - "It has become one of the most talked about thing on the news and on Social Media and yet its article was listed for deletion, yet Rebecca Black's 'Friday' response hasn't been flagged for lack of notability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.206.118 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already "voted" above, but reiterating that the article is not just about the toddler, or just about the accident, but also about the exceptional media coverage, official responses and other repercussions by this incident. Admittedly, the article in its earlier versions did focus on only the death and accident, but the other components have slowly being added in by different editors and will probably continue to improve. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG with lots to spare. Anyone who is still wondering "what makes this different?" hasn't looked into the aftermath at all and should probably stay away from AfD. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know about you, but I've never seen a hit-and-run, whether it be of a toddler or a cat, make international headlines before. Meets WP:GNG, and if not keep, then Redirect.
Weak keep. It did spark a huge international reaction and will likely be one of the top stories of 2011, but I'm not sure how it will be viewed in a historical context. A tragedy nonetheless. --Zerbey (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Death of Wang Yue is a notable event which has garnered ample "significant media coverage" as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. For those concerned about historical importance, I believe this article qualifies for many reasons, one of which is that China is drafting a "Good Samaritan" law as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FredBoudreau (talk • contribs) 17:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is covered widely here in Ireland, and is causing huge revulsion on sites like Boards.ie. It's rare that a Chinese story would make it over this far. The manner of her death is clearly worthy of an article. 109.77.220.202 (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This story is about the incident, not the victim, so the issue is the notability of the incident, not the notability of the toddler who was killed. Some of those saying "delete" seem to be confused on that point. It is notable, as can be instantly seen by the references to reliable sources. 65.175.183.196 (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:GNG, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list". I think coverage in New York Times [16], Washington Post [17], CNN and multiple world wide media in multiple languages completely satisfies the requirement for notability. Plus, not to be disrepectful, Phan Thi Kim Phuc [18] is most notable for her appearance in Nick Ut's photograph. Hazel Massery [19] is most notable for her shouting at Elizabeth Eckford. They enjoy their own page in wikipedia mostly because of one famous photo. I would argue this video is no less famous than these photos, as it has been viewed tens of millions time over the globe. Plus, this page is not about a person, but an event, as pointed out by numerous people ahead of me. If this article is deleted, then the other pages should be marked for deletion as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizhu2011 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Death of Wang Yue or Wang Yue incident. Meets all WP:GNG criteria. Has received extensive media coverage. Incidentally, the submitter of this AfD has exhibited callous and sickening comments here attempting to justify and poo poo away the greater ramifications of this incident. By comparing this child's death to roadkill, he has made me question the underlying intentions behind this AfD. - CompliantDrone (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my nom to Withdraw yesterday, FYI. I do apologize to anyone who thought i was comparing this to roadkill. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:44 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep, verified by international 3rd party reliable sources, circumstances similar to Kitty Genovese. - Mailer Diablo 05:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage, thus meets the Wikipedia guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabinho (talk • contribs)
Delete . It was an ordinary accident in China. There are thousands of similar accidents in the world every day. Wikipedia is not wikinews.--Coekon (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this kind of thing just happens all the time, right? I saw three of these just yesterday. It's not like there's been any real reaction to this at all, it's just ordinary. I would refer you to the comment I made above. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : the media coverage in Chinese is extraordinary and not comparable to other incidents. People who say "similar accidents" happen in the world every day-- Really? Where? I do not believe that eighteen people walk by a bleeding, dying 2-year-old child on a busy urban street every day around the world, that two trucks run over the child without stopping, much less that an incident that causes nationwide soulsearching and the proposal of sweeping new laws is "an ordinary accident." This incident is going to make a big difference to Chinese people. I've been following China for many years and have never seen anything like this before. I don't see why anyone would want to delete this article when far more trivial incidents are all over Wikipedia without deletion requests. The incident has been covered in hundreds of articles in mainstream French and German media as well. Also, for the person in China who said he didn't see anything-- that's because it is embarrassing for the Chinese government; the main Chinese television station didn't mention it, but instead covered an incident in which bystanders together lifted a car off a 22-year-old girl. What is remarkable is how much reaction there was in China even before any official coverage of the incident. Evangeline (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a first hand report on breaking news. The criteria do not apply. This article does reflect current and up-to-date information on a notable event. Relevant criteria should be WP:GNG, which it clearly meets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jizhu2011 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Edison's comments above. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - has had an effect on chinese society.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Has swept the world and brought greater focus not just to the Chinese apathy problem, but also what society has become in this age. It is a notable event that should be preserved. Silverwing 9 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this story has been in international headlines for weeks and many other less significant news events have articles here. Bus Uncle is a featured article for crying out loud and barely got any major coverage outside of Chinese language media or youtube.--T1980 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bigger picture

edit

New section brought in because there is probably a larger phenomenon going on here, than just one child getting run over by a vehicle. Here's some other news: [20]. I know; it's Sankaku, not the best of sources. Summation: this time, it was a boy getting run over by a large truck, where the driver actually deliberately reversed the truck to ensure the child dies. Silly question, but will this child get an article too? No. There's no video associated with this incident. So, I suppose here: I propose a more generalized article on this issue. An article like this can go much farther and more in-depth than just one sensationalized incident. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Genovese was neither the only nor first case of the Bystander effext, but the incident's place as a catalyst for studies and reflection was never understated. I would hazard to say the same applies here. Note that for the American context, there are a lot of bullying/cyber-bullying cases that led to suicide which is an article by itself, yet quite a few have dedicated articles for specific cases. Notably Megan Meier and Phoebe Prince. Btw both articles started whn the cases originally got reported, before prosecution/followup. For the case you mentioned, the coverage is not on the scale of that of Wang Yue, and all coverage of the new case referenced Wang Yue, which demonstrates the place that original case holds in respect of other cases that followed /is compared with. Zhanzhao (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zhanzhao. The issue here is not that a child gets run over by a vehicle, per se. (And, thus -- following the logic of that argument -- that the two incidents should merit equal treatment on Wikipedia.) The issue is the very different levels of coverage for the two (virtually) identical events. In one case (Wang Yue), there was intense international and global coverage. In the other case, there was little-to-no coverage. Hence, one incident merits a Wikipedia article, while the other does not. The notability does not stem from the incidents having similar circumstances and characteristics (i.e., a child being hit and killed by a vehicle). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

In this truck run over boy twice story, there are huge differences. 1) After police investigation, they concluded the truck didn't back up to run over the boy twice[[21]], as asserted by the villagers. You may distrust the police investigation, but at present time, no evidence of the truck backing up has surfaced. 2) The driver didn't run. As far as I read, he stopped and after found the boy under the front wheel, he called police and stayed. This is a traffic accident. Jizhu2011 (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Zhanzhao. How are these incidents similar except for the truck? In one, an accident happened, and if it's true that the driver then reversed the truck, he was a particularly evil person who tried to kill a child. In the Wang Yue incident, a large number of "normal" people walked right next to a dying toddler without stopping to save her life. It is the "large number of normal people" that is relevant and makes this case so remarkable. Only one out of 19 people stopped to help a dying child. Some of them actually stepped around her or stopped to look at her. This is in many ways like the Kitty Genovese case but even more in-your-face as it was a very small child that obviously could not help itself, and the child was in their paths. If the case turns out to be forgettable in a year, which I seriously doubt, fine, delete the article then. But this case-- the callousness, not the child's death-- is making headlines around the world and I can't see why on earth anyone interested in current events would want to delete it. There are dozens of articles on Wikipedia about manga characters and creators of 1950s television shows, for heaven's sake. But somehow an incident that is causing a huge uproar in a country of a billion people is nominated for deletion. It would certainly make me take Wikipedia less seriously if this article were deleted. Evangeline (talk) 22:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Evangeline's comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamatari (talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Shamatari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, i withdrew 5 days ago. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:07 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm reluctant to call this a "keep" consensus, as some of the "keep" opinions are not the most persuasive in light of our inclusion requirements. Sandstein 07:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Hampshire Liberty Alliance

edit

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

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

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

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

Insufficient notability. Rostz (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm less concerned with its notability than I am with the lack of reliable sources, although it seems to have made little impact even in its home state. I can find little beyond blog entries talking about this group. The article cites a single newspaper story about a dinner, but a search of that paper's website shows no other references to it. Agent 86 (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page should be built up, not deleted.

I've been told by a NH state rep that the NHLA is one of the two most influential groups in the NH state house. The House Republican Leadership, the House Republican Alliance and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance are all places state reps tend to look at when they are unsure about a bill. A state rep told me that some reps look at the NHLA gold sheet before they look at the HRA pink sheet. That makes sense as the NHLA is non-partisan and around 1/4 of state reps in NH are Democrats. Whatitisallabout (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011

Keep Seconded - as a current State Rep, I'll also confirm this is a group that is active in the NH State House. I've also been involved with it for many years on and off. -- SethCohn —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

There are media mentions of the NHLA. For example, this Union Leader article from 2006, http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5966.0 For example, this Union Leader article from 2007 http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=13277.0 For example, this Nashua Telegraph article from 2009 http://forum.nhliberty.org/index.php?topic=2399.0 For example, this Union Leader article from 2010 about the Liberty Dinner http://forum.nhliberty.org/index.php?topic=3067.0 Many top candidates attending including the former mayor of Manchester but present day Congressman, the past Republican nominee for NH governor and the current person leading in polls for the Republican nominee for governor. For example, this Union Leader article from 2011 which is still online http://www.unionleader.com/article/20110719/NEWS0602/707149987 Additionally, the NHLA is also brought up from time to time on several of the top blogs in NH including the top 2 conservative/Republican blogs and the top libertarian/anarchist blog. For example, all three of the top blogs that I just mentioned talked about and linked to the 2011 NHLA Liberty Rating. Whatitisallabout (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we agree that at least some of these sources meet WP:SIGCOV?Jsorens (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only if by "some" you mean "one". The blogs really don't seem to be reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. Agent 86 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I confess the page isn't quite up to snuff right now, but the organization itself would be clearly recognized as notable to anyone active in New Hampshire politics. It has been frequently covered in the papers, but the Union Leader, Concord Monitor, & Nashua Telegraph unfortunately do not maintain online archives of their articles. If other state-level think-tanks and pressure groups (random example: Texas Public Policy Foundation) are notable, it seems the NHLA should be so considered as well.Jsorens (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF regarding this kind of argument. Rostz (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the argument I was making. My argument is that NHLA belongs to a category of organization that Wikipedia considers prima facie notable.Jsorens (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though obviously it needs updating with various info from news article and it would be a good idea to do that ASAP. :-) CarolMooreDC 02:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic, article requires improvments, but it is extremly salvagable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is so salvageable, then find some reliable sources. It seems at least a few of the "keep" comments are by those with admitted vested interests and little contribution beyond the article itself. This is not a !vote, so something more than mere assertions that this article is of a notable organization with verifiable sources. Agent 86 (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a sitting state representative in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, I am a source and can tell you definitively that the NHLA's Gold Standard is viewed by a majority of the members of the House and that the organization's positions have influence over many votes. The organization also rates every bill that will be voted on by the N.H. House and Senate, which provides a useful and well-used online voting guide for representatives and senators. If such an organization is not worthy of note, then Wikipedia is not worthy of use. -- Rep. Andrew J. Manuse, R-Derry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanuse (talk • contribs) 15:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, Mr. Amanuse, if you are who you say you are, but you're not a "source" under Wikipedia policies. Agent 86 (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would send him to Conservapedia, but the group is redlinked there. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm showing 81,000 Google hits for the exact phrase "New Hampshire Liberty Alliance," which is indicative of more than a shadow existence. Rick Santorum is touting the group's endorsement I also see. About 15 pages deep and it's all blogs so far, but I don't have the slightest doubt that a search of the Union Leader will show sourcing gold. I am strongly supportive of maximum encyclopedic coverage of political organizations of this sort on general principles, without regard to their ideology. This is the sort of material that should be in an encyclopedia. Now it's off to the Union Leader I go for something more substantive... Carrite (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can assure you that the NHLA did not endorse Rick Santorum.Whatitisallabout (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 18 UNION LEADER HITS for the exact phrase "New Hampshire Liberty Allance" (paywalled). It does seem that the group's annual banquet is covered (at least since 2005) and that it is regarded as a significant grass roots political group in the state. Do remember also that politics in New Hampshire is magnified in importance due to its status as the first primary election state in the American Presidential election process. Carrite (talk) 05:38, 28 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 only reason cited for deletion is WP:BALL. No explanation is given as to why WP:BALL applies to this album given the sources that confirm its anticipated release date. Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moonchild (album)

edit

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

WP:BALL ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete Unreleased album Gaijin42 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to delete this article just because the album has not been released, see Category:Upcoming albums.
Keep - parent album of top-ten UK single "Wherever You Will Go". 11coolguy12 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When November 21 rolls around in just under a months time this will no longer fall under WP:crystal, any decision to delete should not be made until after that date. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlene Soraia until November 21, then Keep. End of problem. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:42, 25 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. Davewild (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambisinister

edit

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

No evidence of any significant coverage of this concept. The references are essentially to sources about handedness, but not about "Ambisinister", which is not even mentioned in any of the references that are available online, and the reference to "Psychology for A-level" is unverifiable, as there is more than one book that could refer to. PROD was contested purely on the grounds that the word is listed at dictionary.com, and therefore exists. However, existence is not notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Oxford English Dictionary doesn't include "Ambisinister" (and what's an adjective doing as an article title anyway?), and refers "Ambisinistrous" to "Ambilaevous", marking this as "rare" and defined as "As it were, left-handed on both sides; the opposite of ambidexter.". If there is no word for the noun form, it cannot merit an encyclopedia article. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article does not establish remark-ability for the subject.. whatever it is. Perhaps the original author can sandbox the article and make it suitable for the article namespace, however, as of right now, delete it. Petiatil^»Talk 15:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's basically a made-up word, a few silly entries found by google of the here's-a-word-you-haven't-heard and because you didn't study classics at school it sounds reasonably impressive to you. Not. WP is not a dictionary. Utter b***ocks. (OK, Not Notable). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Although the obscure term exists in some dictionaries, there is no evidence to support that is is a distinct medical entity or a term for which an article can be composed about the term itself. Additionally, a quick review of sources shows that the Scientific American source does not mention anything related to some sort of non-dominance.Novangelis (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy, it should be transfered to wikitionary. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:37, 25 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} 03:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic Tower of Hanoi

edit

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

The current references are all self published websites or papers written by one of the main authors of this article. I can not find any independent reliable sources that discuss this variation of the game. I do not see anything that establishes that this is a notable variation of the game. GB fan 12:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article appears to have been heavily edited by the author of most of its sources, a significant amount of the article was created and edited by another user who, based on assuming good faith, is independent of the sources and the article. Moreover, while the sources may have been written by an editor of the article, that user did not add them to the article. They were cited by the creator of the article. The source is from a reliable and established publication (and is not "self published" by the user editing the article). There is also no absolute prohibition against an author of a reliable source from editing an article so long as it conforms to WP:NPOV. The article is suitably NPOV (although it could stand some cleanup), so there should be no real concern. Agent 86 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Davidm0508 (Oct. 22, 2011): A new reference has been added from 1989. Thus, there are now three separate and different sources to variations of the MToH. Two of these sources (1 and 3) are published, and thus assumed reliable. Furthermore, the MToH is a self contained, stand-alone and unique system of puzzles with a full and detailed mathematical analysis. Thus, I think it merits a separate article.— Davidm0508 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Uri Levy:

Reference number 2 went to Mathematician Fred Lunnon who is a tower variations expert:

1. "NEW VARIATIONS ON THE TOWER OF HANOI", PAUL K. STOCKMEYER AND FRED LUNNON, http://www.cs.wm.edu/~pkstoc/greece.pdf.

2. Hanoi Variations, Fred Lunnon, Workshop on the Tower of Hanoi and Related Problems September 18 - September 22, 2005 Maribor, Slovenia, http://164.8.24.171/toh2005/abstracts.htm.

Making a count of three independent reliable references.

Also - What appears to be "heavy editing" on my part is actually a small set of very minor changes. My major editing was the addition of three 1984 images to the Origin section. I think they have encyclopedic value.

Uri-Levy (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — Uri-Levy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. A non-notable variant of the puzzle, never mind the COI concerns and that it largely seems the work of SPAs.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete/merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 October 2011‎

Delete. I see too many single-purpose and conflict-of-interest accounts here, and too little (if any) third party coverage as required by WP:N. Sandstein 07:29, 29 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/Snow Keep per discussion, and apparently with nominator's acquiescence. Whether to merge is an editorial decision and can be discussed on the article talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Schrafft's (restaurant chain)

edit

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

Regrettably, I do not think this article can be saved. User:Goodvac delisted the article citing "chain has received a fair amount of coverage", diff How ever, User:Goodvac's search only pulls up one source and, we surely want multiple sourcing and, we sure don't want the article to permanently have the tag, Template:One_source as this would indicate a biased view. Keeping with due diligence, I have also searched for Reliable Sources but, could fine none. Also, see WP:Notability#cite_note-3. Planetary ChaosTalk 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schrafft's, which for some reason doesn't mention the restaurants at all. There is a book on the chain, and a substantial listing in The Oxford companion to American food and drink, and probably there are web sites too. All the little old ladies of NYC are rolling over in their graves at the notion that Schrafft's isn't notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (or ~~merge~~ per above)(back to Keep again, what with all the new sources found): This is one time that the overwhelming quantity of cultural references, over a long period, absolutely establishes notability. It seems there's only one apparent source with any depth -- and that one apparently not independent of the subject -- but that again I say that the cultural references are enough to establish notability. The dearth of sources just means it will be difficult to write an extensive article. But the non-independent source is enough for a short article, and there's no reason it can't stay that way until someone digs up a business school case, a chapter on S's in a book on the history of franchising in the US, or whatever. EEng (talk) 13:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC) P.S. I see now the previous poster in fact found a book chapter just as I predicted. Given the sources are so small a merge as proposed makes sense. It can always be split later f material on the restauruants, specifically, grows big enough.[reply]

MergeI do agree with a merge to Schrafft's. As always, if the "restaurant chain" grows large enough and, it could warrant it's own separate article, it could always be split off later on. Planetary ChaosTalk 15:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merger is acceptable as an editorial matter but there's plenty of sources available here to support the notability of the restaurants. A little looking turns up sources: first pages of GBooks search produce, for example, [22][23][24][25][26]. And then there are copious results at GNews including, for example, this 1974 headline from The New York Times: "Landmark Schrafft's Ends An Era as Genteel Refuge; Rent Is Doubling Favorite of Women"; and this one from 2008: "Streetscapes: Schrafft’s: Midday Havens, Lost to a Faster-Paced City" Those two articles alone would yield enough information to support an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE. All sources (except for the book) are from a single source,"nytimes". That was in the original argument above, Planetary ChaosTalk 17:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were true, it's not exactly a compelling case for deletion to acknowledge that there are hundreds (or thousands) of articles about this chain in The New York Times[27] plus a full length book plus a detailed entry in the Oxford Companion. In any case, other sources have already been pointed out, and here are some more non-NYT sources: "Advertising: Schrafft's Gets With It", TIME, October 25, 1968 (about an advertising campaign designed by Andy Warhol); John S. Margolies, "TV--The Next Medium", Art in America, September-October 1969, p. 48 (same); "THE COFFEE BREAK: New Industry Turns Problem into Profits", TIME, Feb. 27, 1956 ("The best-known coffee-break business in the U.S.—and probably the biggest—is operated by Schrafft's East Coast restaurant chain. . . . Schrafft's now grosses some $4,200,000 a year from coffee-break service, employs 500 waitresses to deliver 20 million cups of coffee and 13 million pastries a year to offices in Manhattan, Philadelphia, Boston and Newark."). --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! for all the sources you (collectively) have found and posted here! As poster of this (first?) attempt at a separate article for Schrafft's (which believe was known better as a restaurant than anything else: Wasn't there a scene in "I Love Lucy" where they went to Schrafft's?) will make every effort to improve the article as soon as possible. Am just coming off post of revised Luchow's (another NY restaurant) article - which was a bit of a strain - having told myself over & over again I wouldn't do it. But am beginning to see how THAT goes. Best Wishes, BruceWHain (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge (See below) This restaurant chain has been discussed in significant, independent reliable sources—"Midday Havens, Lost to a Faster-Paced City" from The New York Times, "A Period of Elegance and Grace - Recalling Fond Memories of the Famous Schrafft's 'restaurants'" from the Syracuse Herald-Journal, "Schrafft's" from The Oxford companion to American food and drink, and most of all, When Everybody Ate at Schrafft's. That an entire book (204 pages) focuses directly on the restaurant chain is a strong testament to notability. In addition there are two citations from From Betty Crocker to feminist food studies that further establish notability:

“

On Schrafft's see "Schrafft's to Expand Restaurant Chain in 1925," The Restaurateur, January 3, 1925: 3–4. For a nostalgic remembrance, see Julie Baumgold's "Schrafft's," New York, December 21–28, 1987: 72–73.

”

The subject sufficiently meets WP:CORP. Goodvac (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator, you'd save everyone wasted time by withdrawing the nomiation. It's clear it's a keep now. EEng (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would still say, merge but, was this a waste of time, really? Was sourcing this article a rough deal before before this discussion? Yes. Here's how. I goggled "Schrafft's (restaurant chain),Schrafft's restaurant and Schrafft's" and I only came up with the article, Schrafft's, See, (D. Sourcing search) . All this searching out side the name of Schrafft's Schrafft's (restaurant chain), and Schrafft's restaurant brought up to the forefront, new sourcing discovery's. That's a good thing! Sure, after I searched for, Andy Warhol on Schrafft's, did I find a slew of sourcing. Is that reasonably expected?. I brought up this nomination because I couldn't find sourcing but hey, if I hadn't of and, going by the plethora of the only sourcing that was found at the time, (NYTimes) that would have been one source, no matter how many times that one source mentioned or ran a story on, Schrafft's restaurant. So, my hat's off for all of this help! Now, I would still say, keep but merge in an attempt to improve and expand Schrafft's after all, the two are the same thing at least. That's what all the sources that I've read say. Dairy Queen is a perfect example. They started out as a company who sold icecream and later, expanded to restaurant chains. Planetary ChaosTalk 23:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point there. I was more concerned with proving the notability of the chain, but now that I understand that the candy company and the restaurant chain are really the same company, I have changed my vote to merge. Goodvac (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability has been established above. The article still needs a lot of work to add that information, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I like that, "AfD is not for cleanup" and a little further down, you will run into this, AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. As per my last comment above, Schrafft's (restaurant chain) and, Schrafft's are the same and should be merged. Yes, I did change my vote on the deletion as there is NotabilityPlanetary Chaos Talk 03:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well wadduyaknow, now I'm for merger too. Since they are the same thing, but think maybe the restaurant aspect should get more slant. That Time Magazine article cited in the Schrafft's - not the restaurant -article (about Andy Warhol's ad) says they had 55 locations in '68, that would make the restaurant a lot more important than the other business. (autosigned in wrong place)BruceWHain (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceWHain (talk • contribs) 06:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I think I have made (or have had made) clear the unquestionalbe state of Schrafft's Restaurants' considerable Notability! (See Above under: "All the little old ladies of NYC are rolling over in their graves at the notion that Schrafft's isn't notable.") BruceWHain (talk) 18:37, 22 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. WP:SNOW v/r - T P 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who have held a barbecue

edit

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

This is WP:LISTCRUFT and may not meet WP:NOTE. Whimpe30 (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely nothing notable about this as a topic at all. Made me chuckle, though -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - silly trivia andy (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally non-encyclopedic, and inevitably wildly incomplete anyway. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much more to say! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivia. WilliamH (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly without encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No wait, we could redirect to "List of celebrities who found fluff in their navel". On second thoughts, maybe not. Completely pointless list that has no relevance whatsoever. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What in the fuck is this? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:14 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Delete - Brilliantly trivial. Well done. Dayewalker (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pileon Delete Plus it is entirely unsourced! How do we really know that Donny Osmond actually held a barbecue?? Agent 86 (talk) 19:09, 21 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 not delete. There is consensus to not delete the article. However, at this time, there is no consensus whether this deserves its own article or should be merged to Occupy Canada. Further discussion can take place on the article talk page if parties are interested. I do note that in the past, Wikipedians have given wide latitude to articles on current events receiving significant media coverage. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Toronto

edit

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

This has not been a notable protest. There are more media personnel than protestors, and the whole thing has been portrayed as a joke by most media outlets in the GTA that are not the Toronto Star Weekly, having no clear message and far less participators than anticipated. The other movements are notable, this one is a fizzle and doesn't deserve an article.

For example:

On Saturday or Sunday, the CBC showed up at the Stock Exchange for what was supposed to be a "big" event. Three people showed up.
The largest protests gathered less than 1000 people, on the first day. The Toronto Waterfront Marathon, held at the same time, attracted over 20,000. The Leafs game in the nearby ACC attracted well over 10,000. The Stock Market, that these people protested in front of, had more people working inside than protesting outside. This is news because its news elsewhere.ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 11:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According with below, I'm changing my nomination delete !vote to Merge to Occupy Canada. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been discussion about these types of articles at WP:ANI#Occupy?. We should be looking at the possibility of redirecting (e.g. to Occupy Canada), not deleting. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I thought about it after posting and it may be best to try and round up all the not so notable cities (aka not New York, Austin, Athens, where it is significant or where violence has broken out) into an article on the general occupy movement. Right now this just feels like a rallying call for the protestors, using the encyclopedia as an account of events that are participated in by less than 1% of 1% (which ironically doesn't add up to 99%) of the population in Toronto. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Occupy Canada. Agent 86 (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also agree to merge with Occupy Canada DivaNtrainin (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per several reasons that establish topic notability:

Reliable sources present in the article— Passes WP:GNG
The availability of reliable sources [28]— Passes WP:GNG
The manner in which this is an ongoing event receiving significant coverage in reliable sources over a significant period of time [29], [30] — Passes WP:GNG, passes WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
The manner in which the coverage is not routine, and how the event itself is a non-routine type of ongoing event.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GNG determines the notability of a topic, it doesn't determine whether a topic is worthy of an independent article. The coverage of the Toronto incarnation of the event is humongously influenced by the general Occupy movement taking place in many cities. The availability of sources isn't really called into question (dead-tree sources are happily accepted). It's been 7 days, so not really a significant period of time to determine the impacts of the event. And finally, I'd beg to differ on the last point; the coverage has certainly been monotonous, and the thing I've read in almost every new outlet (except the CBC and Toronto Star) is that there is no message and that it is disappointing compared to the US. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is some media coverage, but will there ever be enough content to destub the article? If I could think of a valid merge target... till then, reluctant keep. Something happened there, and seems marginally notable. I do however support the other editors who think we may need to think about some reasonable merge option. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy Canada would probably be most appropriate. The combined coverage of all the cities would definitely be something that could go on to be a fulfilling article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A humorous side note. It's kind of funny that an ongoing event involving people in protests and demonstrations endorsing financial, corporate and social change is ~~perceived by some as less notable and encyclopedic compared to, say~~ up for erasure from Wikipedia, while much more trivial topics such as entire articles about episodes of the Simpsons remain. – link. = ) Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Events are still occurring, the topic seems to be quite notable at this point – (October 22, 2011.) "Occupy Toronto marches, rallies at City Hall." Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that. It's just that when these are going on in every city around the world, we don't need to create a new article for every city. The events are pretty standard from city to city in Canada. The article you just posted verifies everything that has been said. "The movement had dwindled earlier in the week to a rag-tag group of people living in dozens of tents and makeshift shelters in downtown St. James Park. During a demonstration in the financial district at Bay and King Sts. on Tuesday, for example, police easily outnumbered the three protesters." In all honesty the surge today was likely solely due to the ill sentiment the downtowners have towards Rob Ford. There has been nothing to set the Toronto event out against places such as New York or Athens. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The comparison was just a humorous anecdote - this article up for deletion while many other much more trivial topics aren't nominated for deletion. From the article link I posted above, to establish significance: "Approximately 1,000 occupy protesters marched to Toronto's City Hall just after 2 p.m. on Saturday to protest the cost-cutting measures taken by the administration of Mayor Rob Ford." Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and between the two deputations held this summer, over 700 people spoke at city hall, but we still don't have an article about it. Again, if this were a one-off event only happening in Toronto, it would certainly deserve its own article... But when there are equally lacklustre events in most major Canadian cities, it makes much more sense to combine them into one article when that resulting article will be more comprehensive and informative as a result of the combined information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Northamerica1000. CallawayRox (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000 has provided stellar reasoning for the article passing the general notability requirements (WP:GNG), but hasn't made an argument as to why the Toronto event requires a separate article from Occupy Canada, which covers the rather identical events in other Canadian cities. What makes the Toronto event stand out? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it gets coverage on its own, and because the article is filled with enough valid information that it'd not fit merge well with the other article. Keep, of course. Dream Focus 21:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per Floydian - Haymaker (talk) 10:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - a handful of wikipedians cannot deny notability and legitimacy to these protesters and their event. That it be distinct from the Occupy Wall Street movement is also important. A merger would dwarf the event. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't distinct. The article already makes it clear its part of that bigger movement. Wikipedia is not an indication of the legitimacy of an event in any way. We are not the news, nor a news agency. We are not a content-developing medium either, and the opinions on the articles here need to reflect more than just the desire of the protesters. Again, what makes the Toronto event distinct from other Canadian Occupy events in Montreal, Winnipeg, Calgary or Vancouver? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep or Merge into Occupy Canada. While I'm iffy on whether it warrants its own article or not at this point, it certainly should not simply be deleted. Mnmazur (talk)
Strong Keep, per all of the above 'keep' reasons. Some small US cities are able to get away with a dedicated article with a few locally notable events. EelamStyleZ (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Some small US cities are able to get away with a dedicated article..." - see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It's not a legit argument. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. Any discussion to merge can take place on the article's talk page. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow is a reason to close a discussion, not a reason for keeping or deleting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy Canada after merging any relevant, reliably-referenced material. Neutrality^talk 18:58, 28 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 Mafia–Camorra War. v/r - T P 22:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Charles Ubriaco

edit

Note: AfD was opened with page at Charles Ubriaco.

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

Ubriaco does not pass WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N/CA and move to Murder of Charles Ubriaco.. (I am now cinvinced that a Redirect is the best solution). Half a dozen books available online covering the early history of organized crime in the U.S. discuss this murder that took place 95 years ago. The New York Times discussed it at the time. A notable crime. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly moved the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ubriaco fails WP:CRIME and his murder fails WP:EVENT. The murder is already dealt with in Morello Crime Family and Mafia–Camorra War. There is no need to have a minor event listed three times on Wikipedia. - DonCalo (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps, but here's the 1916 story in the New York Times, and this shows that paper covered the aftermath of the murder for 10 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The murder only makes sense in the context of the broader Mafia–Camorra War. In other words an article on the murder of Ubriaco would basically repeat what has been written in that article. Such a repeat does not seem to be necessary, imho. - DonCalo (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CRIME, minor criminal. --Cox wasan (talk) 08:10, 16 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, Rcsprinter (message) 10:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to either delete or redirect this article to Mafia–Camorra War. - DonCalo (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is still delete --Vic49 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Charles Ubriaco to Mafia–Camorra War and delete Murder of Charles Ubriaco. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Cullen, WP:N/CA applies here, has been covered in books/media. Also the move of the article name makes it now about the murder itself and not the biography.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N/CA does not apply here, the murder is already covered in Mafia–Camorra War and the article does not mention anything noteworthy beyond the murder. - DonCalo (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you still agree with Cullen, that would mean a redirect to Mafia–Camorra War. - DonCalo (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect. From WP:EVENT (of which WP:N/CA is a part): "In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine." This is a clear fail on those counts. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Charles Ubriaco to Mafia–Camorra War and delete Murder of Charles Ubriaco. Bushranger proposes the best solution IMO. The murder is notable within the context of the war, but not otherwise.--Kubigula (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ubriaco is not really noteworthy, his murder is, so I would suggest to redirect the current murder article to Mafia–Camorra War is best. - DonCalo (talk) 22:25, 30 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. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Vertel

edit

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

Unimportant semi-professional basketball player. Does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Article was created by his agent, User:Boundlessagency, which violates WP:COI. bender235 (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet WP:NBASKETBALL by having played in a notable league. Fails WP:GNG without multiple sources of significant independent coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. the Swiss basketball league does not cut it. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 27 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. Sandstein 07:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three-finger salute (Balkans)

edit

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

Unsourced sub-stub, comparing two completely disconnected salutes from two unrelated historical periods (WW2 and 1990-today), which happen to be used by ideological opponents (Serbs and Ustashe). A textbook WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It is true that the coincidence has been noted across "sources" such as Internet forums and readers's comments, but I fail to see why should Wikipeda have an article about it. No such user (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly unreferenced synthesis. It looks like a content fork of Three-finger salute (Serbian), which in turn is a bunch of irrelevant synthesis itself, that could easily be merged into a single section of the article Serbs or similar. It's a constant struggle to find a way to handle all these superficial, talking-point articles... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a fork of Three-finger salute (Serbian) and I don't see how anything other than WP:SYNTH could expand the topic to make it a "Balkan" occurrence. The Serbian version probably merits some coverage but maybe it would be best to merge it into Serbdom or National symbols of Serbia. If there were reliable sources talking about the WW2 Croatian and modern Serbian usage in more detail it might merit standalone articles (compare Nazi salute and Bellamy salute), but I just don't see it happening. Timbouctou (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (rap) 10:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FORK as mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax; apparent joke page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tinsel tyas (sexual fetish)

edit

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

I believe this is a hoax as there is nothing on the Internet about it and this site ain't a dictionary. I've never heard of it and there's no ghits for it, so this should be deleted. Lohhuton (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality ahd gender-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly complete drivel originating from some sort of infantile in-joke. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is a blatant hoax / joke entry. Does not exist as a term; is already being boasted about by someone, presumably the creator and his kindred ("Scotty McCreery With music made the world « Music Pop 2011 Blog

musicpop2011.wordpress.com/.../scotty-mccreery-with-music-made-t... 5 hours ago - ←Created page with 'Tinsel tyas is a sexual fetish where the partner requests the other one wear a bikini top and hot pants, mainly PVC whilst wearing tinsel. It.. ...") etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 11:41, 21 October 2011 Jac16888 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Male bikini-wearing" ‎ (G3: Vandalism) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Male bikini-wearing

edit

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

Obscure sexual fetish, uncertain notability. Lohhuton (talk) 09:40, 21 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. –MuZemike 23:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magicka School

edit

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

Looks like a huge advertisement, only claim to fame seems to be this: New Statesman article. I'm not entirely sure myself if it should be deleted, but it looks like it should be discussed. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 09:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a little digging and couldn't find anything for the site that would be considered proof of notability. It looks like this is pretty much an advert for the school. The article above isn't bad but the school only gets a brief mention at the end of the article, so that might not be enough notability to warrant keeping the article and I don't see where it's really been in the news since. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 21 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. –MuZemike 23:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Krugman

edit

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

Does not pass WP:CRIME, he is mentioned in the Lufthansa heist article. Cox wasan (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor character in the Lufthansa heist, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Krugman is mentioned in the Lufthansa heist article. --Vic49 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete him - not notable at all Rogermx (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lufthansa heist per nom. Articles indicate he was an important figure in that, but not quite noteable. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:32, 27 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. –MuZemike 23:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parnell Edwards

edit

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

Does not pass WP:CRIME, he is mentioned in the Lufthansa heist article Cox wasan (talk) 09:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor character in the Lufthansa heist, fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 07:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Edward does not pass WP:CRIME. --Vic49 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Rogermx (talk) 17:26, 27 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. WP:SNOW v/r - T P 19:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spigning

edit

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

Uncertain of notability, although not a WP:HOAX for certain, it's an article that may be within WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Thaxspeed9005 (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:CB. I help run SABRE and have never heard of this - also the name of the society is wrong. --Ritchie333 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the "Botched Roadsigns" thread on SABRE mentioned in the article is an unreliable source. It's user generated content that can be created by anyone. While there are reliable sources hosted on SABRE, all of them are verbatim transcripts from the MOT, DfT or other government organisation, and that is the actual source. The other two sources are also unrealiable, as they fail to establish any notability (or, indeed, factual evidence) about anything else written in the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No grounds to delete this. --Julaime6606 (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the creator of this article may have a WP:COI, or the entire thing is a WP:HOAX. But it's certainly of dubious notability, to be honest. --Tedrogers86 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Internet Meme. There's really no good reason for this to have an article to itself. Many internet memes don't and this hasn't really distinguished itself enough notability-wise to where it's on the same league as say, lolcats. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - The Bus Uncle has a page about a transport-based Internet meme, this one is notable too, same as My Little Pony:_Friendship is Magic. --KFRTanya (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)— KFRTanya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I'll be a little more direct now and declare my own WP:COI. I develop some of the software for the SABRE forums, as cross referenced in the article, and have some responsibility for overseeing what goes on there. I have never heard of the concept of "spigning" thus described - and indeed, a complete search for the term on the SABRE forums here yields no results other than a report on this AfD article. Furthermore, I should declare that from the administrator logs, I can see that a user with similar diction and manner to Julaime6606 was banned from the SABRE forums on Sun Oct 02, 2011, and will be happy to supply the IP addresses used in posting to the administrators here if they need to verify it is the same person. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to alert KFRTanya that MLPFIM has an article because it is a television show and The Bus Uncle has been covered in multiple papers and other sources. It's not like they got an article just for existing. Also, be aware that article deletions are not decided on the number of votes but a consensus. You need to be able to justify why spigning is notable enough for an article by providing proof of notability via wikipedia-esque sources, not by pointing out other memes that became notable enough to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Delete There's a limit to how much ghost chasing I'm willing to do on this, but there are no GNews hits, and most web hits seem to be for places claiming that there is a meme, rather than much evidence of the meme itself; a lot of them are irrelevant or in Italian, or are obvious typos of "spin" or "spine". A real internet meme would light up with examples;this one produces nothing. Everything points to a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish notability. Far too many of the sources are just twitter feed links or user generated. Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bogus mythical "internet meme" with obvious involvement by strangely covert entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - made-up nonsense, does not exist as a meme on the Internet or anywhere else. Pure Hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not bogus, it's a neologism and I didn't invent this. --Julaime6606 (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, see WP:NEO then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Complete hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a made-up, neological hoax. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism - per WP:NEO. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CB. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not for the reasons above. It may not be madeup but rather a term that's obscure to the rest of us and known to a small group of people, and although the software does exist, it almost certainly shouldn't be in this article. To me, this seems like an article that's a "puff piece" praising the software, and using phony celebrity endorsement to give the appearance that it's reliably sourced. I did look it up on Google, and although there's few Ghits for such a thing, this certainly doesn't seem like patent nonsense, it's just in an inappropriate place. Whether this was written by an employee of the firm or a fan of the software (which doesn't matter anyhow), this article doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Not speedy delete-worthy, but for now it should be deleted, or at least moved offsite. It doesn't appear to be a spam campaign, more of an attempt to try and get free publicity for something, but it fails. My vote: delete. --Denyanode16 (talk) 19:09, 21 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. –MuZemike 23:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aboo Thaabit

edit

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

Looks like a resume, which violates WP:AUTO. Only sources are Facebook and a personal website. No notability what so ever. bender235 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't even begin to pass the notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 21 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. Davewild (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chakra Linux

edit

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

Non-notable software sourced only to its own website (and that won't open). I restored from SD only because of doubts whether it was covered as software, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let users extend and improve the page, before it's deleted again... Plus the website loads, but it's moving to a new platform these days, thus the problems in opening it. --jmc (talk) 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Distribution is curretnly in the top 15 at Distrowatch (I know that is just a statistic, nevertheless...). We also have some coverage at the somewhat-reliable Linuxtoday.com [31], two by Distrowatch this and this and also some Softpedia coverage [32], in addition to this tuxmachines one [33]. I know this is not that much, but that's what you reasonably expect from a Linux distro that is not one of the giants (Ubuntu, Fedora, Red Hat, ...) --SF007 (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Although I admit the article was/is terrible, I've improved it somewhat and am happy to improve further if it survives AFD. --SF007 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well referenced, and descriptive, I see no guidelines violations. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular distribution. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is non-notable? It is a top 20 distro in distrowatch. And it have reviews, its the only half rolling and GTK free linux. That makes it unique. --Dryfit (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. –MuZemike 23:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Yang

edit

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. yes she has worked for notable entities and interviewed notable people. but that doesn't make you notable. there is a complete lack of coverage about her as a subject. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While some might question her as a journalist, it's a bit more difficult to dismiss her producing and starring in 46 episodes of CNN's World Beat from 1999-2001, among other things... and so can be seen to pass WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE for her work as a director and producer.[34] While the article requires cleanup though use of availabe sources, addressable issues do not always demand deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
to me that's only one significant role. Perhaps a redirect to CNN World beat may be appropriate. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That my response picked an obvious highlight certainly does not mean there was only one. As the article itself asserts more, I always find it helpful before commenting to actually see if multiple assertions are verifiable.... and in this case they are. WP:CREATIVE does not demand more than just one production, just so long as long as the production with which she created, or played a major role in co-creating, was a significant or well-known work which was subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. As both producer of and actress in CNN WorldBeat (meriting an article itself) she qualifies as that production received such coverage,[35][36] as also did her Spy School: Inside the CIA Training Program,[37][38] and as did other works to a somewhat lessor degree. I see her body of work as verifiable, and both ENT and CREATIVE being met. It helped me to widen my search and eliminate false postives for other persons sharing that name, finding that she has herself also received coverage in relationship TO her works. To restate: while the article does require cleanup though use of available sources, addressable issues do not always demand deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please state which sources? LibStar (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:CREATIVE FFreelancewriter (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC) FFreelancewriter. — FFreelancewriter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Nicolas Sarkozy#Carla Bruni. Also neatly covering both parents! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giulia Sarkozy

edit

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

Daughter of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. She was just born on October 18, 2011. Nobility is not inherited. Being just born, she probably hasn't done anything notable (insert baby jokes here). Bgwhite (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See, this is amusing. The examples section of WP:NOTINHERITED has all these non-literal usages of the word "inherited," and here we have someone whose only claim to notability is literally that she inherited it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom, see WP:NOTINHERITED--Cavarrone (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - clearly the baby deserves a mention on her dad's page but not an article to herself - she hasn't [created any works] of her own, (Laurence Sterne). Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Delete. Most likely she will be back in WP some day, but definitely now there is no inherited notability. --Nepenthes (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Merge and redirect to papa (and, therefore, don't delete). --Lambiam 14:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not to mother? Are we patriarchic? :P --Nepenthes (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in "Sarkozy, Sarkozy, ... wait a second, isn't that the husband of Carla Bruni?". 77.250.167.51 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Infant children of important politicians often get press coverage, but it is adequate to mention them in their parent's article until they are old enough to be doing noteworthy things on their own. Edison (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ginsengbomb. After deletion, allow a redirect to one of her parents' articles, but just being the child of a famous person does not usually warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this page to become a redirect page to Nicolas Sarkozy, you should not recommend to delete it. --Lambiam 21:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & redirect Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & redirect to Nicolas Sarkozy seems like the most sensible thing to do. 142.207.112.179 (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. At Nicolas Sarkozy, I just added (well, copypasted) the bit about Giulia being the first child born to a serving French president, which completes the merge. There is nothing here that isn't there, so redirect per Bgwhite. CityO fSilver 22:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the immediate family of heads of state are notable, in exactly the GNG sense: a good deal is written about them. I support the idea of abandoning the GNG in favor of some standard for "doing notable things". in cases where we can actually define "notable things" In some fields we do: books, academics, recordings, athletes. For general interest by the general public I thing the GNG has a necessary place--otherwise we are judging on the basis of what ought to be important, which is a version of ILIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 26 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. –MuZemike 23:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Promenade at Coconut Creek

edit

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

Not notable, tagged for over a year. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Apparent lack of coverage in reliable sources.~~ There is coverage present in reliable sources, but it is of routine and insignificant nature. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a shopping center. Mangoe (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No sign of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smallish (less than regional sized) shopping center with no apparent claim to fame to justify an article. Edison (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant delete~~ - makes me with there was a Floripedia for the little things like this, but a Wikipedia topic this ain't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for it. I don't know why I really started this thing, must have thought it would grow in time. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I was able to add reliable third-party sourcing from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Miami Herald, Nation's Restaurant News, and South Florida Business Journal plus, according to an article in the Palm Beach Post, the "Promenade at Coconut Creek mixed-use development was featured in Construction Today magazine in April of 2009." I suggest any editors review their !votes in light of these additions. - Dravecky (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, let's see. Miami Herald: "grand opening this weekend". SF business journal: a "top office lease deal". SunSentinel "mall to open". That isn't notability, that's snoozeworthiness factor 10. Sorry. It's still a Delete Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; these are routine mentions typical pf pretty much any development. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Nation's Restaurant News is beyond the routine and I was unaware that there was an "exciting" threshold to go along with verifiability and notability. I'd be interested to read that new guideline. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just good old Notability, WP:N that's all, which I suggest it fails. If opening a building counts as establishing notability, every public building is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm still not 100% sure if this should be kept, even with the added references, but I'm convinced it shouldn't be deleted, which is enough. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources and content just make it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sourcing found by Dravecky is just enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 27 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} 06:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imprinted brain theory

edit

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

This particular subject, which is speculative and tentative, was already discussed on Talk:Causes of autism. The subject is the very recent research work of Badcock and Crespi. It has not yet been assimilated by academics and it has not been assessed in review articles. In 2010 an article "A meeting of minds" by Nicola Jones appeared in Nature Medicine (Nature Medicine (2010) 16, pages 353–355, doi:10. 1038/nm0410-353 [39]). This report, not mentioned in the article, contains comments by experts on the work of Badcock and Crespi and confirms its speculative nature. There is also a 2009 book by Badcock, "The Imprinted Brain - How Genes Set the Balance Between Autism and Psychosis", not mentioned in the current article. The content of the article is based on primary sources. According to at least one recent survey of possible causes of autism, of which Badcock and Crespi's proposed theory is just one, [40] there are no definitive findings or theories at present. I found two academic reviews of Badcock's book: [41] this confirms that the theory is in an early and untested stage; [42] (from PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 55(24), 2010, doi:10.1037/a0020160) here the ideas are described as interesting but speculative. In the absence of secondary sources, I cannot see that this material is suitable for inclusion on wikipedia at this stage. A brief reference to this proposed theory, without entering into detail, might be appropriate in some other article, possibly evolutionary psychology or Causes of autism. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC) some new material added. Mathsci (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was proposed on the talk page of Causes of autism that the theory deserved on an article of its own which I have therefore created. A review article is cited in the sources. The sources also include articles in Nature (journal) and The New York Times. The first source Mathsci cites is a student journal and thus not a reliable source which has been pointed out to Mathsci but yet he cites it again. PsycCRITIQUES does not seem to be a peer-reviewed journal. Regardless, none of these sources reject the theory. Regarding evidence see the article. There are more than 50 articles about the theory in Google scholar: [43]. To quote one regarding new genetic evidence in favor of theory in 2010 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America ([44]):

"Here Crespi, Stead, and Elliot extend such analysis of autism and schizophrenia to the impacts of copy number variants (deletions and duplications), further single-gene associations, growth signaling pathways, and brain growth (16). They make a plausible case that the risk of autism is increased by disruption of maternal interests and the uninhibited expression of paternal interests, and that the risk of schizophrenia is increased by the disruption of paternal interests and the uninhibited expression of maternal interests. This is an unconventional but creative approach to serious mental diseases. If it is correct, it will be one of the least expected and most surprising connections in the history of human evolutionary biology."

Also have a look at the 2008 New York Times article: [45]

Here is an quote from an recent, 2011 secondary literature review by Schlomer, Del Giudice, and Ellis in Psychological Review ([46]) regarding the theory:

"Recently, Crespi and Badcock (2008a; Badcock, 2009) argued that genomic imprinting can help explain the evolution of the human brain and the origin of some important psychological disorders. They reviewed a large body of evidence linking imprinted genes to the etiology of autism and psychosis, and proposed that autistic-spectrum conditions are associated with a "paternally biased" pattern of brain development (i.e., over-expression of paternal genes and/or under-expression of maternal genes), while psychotic-spectrum syndromes would be associated to a "maternally biased" development. Although Crespi and Badcock’s model is still speculative in several respects, and has been met with criticism by some researchers (e.g., Dickins, Dickins, & Dickins, 2008; Keller, 2008; Thakkar, Matthews, & Park, 2008; but see also Crespi & Badcock, 2008b; Crespi, Stead, & Elliot, 2009), it does hold considerable promise for an integrated evolutionary theory of psychopathology, and may be useful to understand normal variation in personality as well (see Del Giudice, Angeleri, Brizio & Elena, 2010). A better understanding of the genetic and epigenetic basis of autism and psychosis may also permit the development of improved methods for the early diagnosis and treatment of these conditions."

Miradre (Talk E-mail) 11:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This really shouldn't even be controversial. Articles on high-level topics should avoid primary sources, but that don't apply to subarticles, and the more restricted the topic of an article, the less it applies. The article is well written, neutral, and based on reputable academic sources. Looie496 (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (1) The topic is clearly notable, with multiple independent sources (2) The nominator's rationale is not a deletion argument, since being "speculative and tentative" or "very recent research work" are to do with how to write the article, not whether it should exist (3) The nominator's !vote is internally inconsistent since "merge" contradicts "delete" (4) The article had only existed for 15 hours before nomination, with no attempt and not nearly enough time to resolve notability or sourcing issues on the talk page (5) There are serious questions about the interactions between the nominator and the article creator. Tryphaena (talk) 11:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)— Tryphaena (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. confirmed sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user Echigo mole / A.K.Nole[reply]
Keep Notable. Respectable authors. No more flaky than anything else in the field. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources give it ample coverage. If you think its nonsense, find a reliable source that says so, and quote it in the article. Keep everything neutral and balanced. Dream Focus 15:51, 26 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} 06:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization

edit

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

Non notable board game Gaijin42 (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches show that the game is real, well respected, and good quality. How about considering all the minor websites, etc. and pretend that's "reliable coverage"? I don't expect the New York Times will be doing a story on it. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In full agreance with User:Steve Dufour's first sentence, Google searches show that the game is real, well respected, and good quality, however this article is lacking proper references, perhaps its external links could be turned into citations? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The game is definitely real, appears to be well respected by those who have written about it, and those who have written about it seem to agree that it is of good quality. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that I can find that the game has been the source of significant (or, well, any) coverage in reliable sources. Conversion of the article's existing external links into citations will not address this problem as neither link directs to a reliable source. I'll try and check back in on this to see if anybody else has better luck finding sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable board game — I have added some citations from some quick online searches and will add more from reviews when I get a chance to go through my gaming magazines (which are not online). Note that this game is outstandingly good and the designer is gaining quite a reputation in this field. It has won multiple awards and so deserves a place here on merit. Warden (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources are light in the article, but there. My personal opinion is that anything in the top 50 or so at BGG is very similar to hitting a major album chart and so should be included for similar reasons. Hobit (talk) 17:14, 21 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. Basically, this deletion discussion boils down to that the sources provided do not sufficiently establish notability (the deletion side) versus that the sources provided do sufficiently establish notability (the retention side). Neither side came out on top. –MuZemike 23:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Phelan

edit

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

Non notable. All references are BY the subject, not about the subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This journalist appears to have signifigant notability, by reporting for multiple stations and websites, and repoting on many countless events, her work is also scattered across the internet, she has many news reports on youtube, a quick bing search[47] reveals many more results than the 19 references provided. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misunderstand the notability requirement, but her creating reports does not make her notable. There would need to be reports ABOUT HER. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are not misunderstanding the notability requirement, Gaijin. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gaijin is not misunderstanding the notability requirement. It is clear that Lizzie Phelan has written many things, but it is not clear that many things have been written about her; and the latter is what would establish notability. WP:AUTHOR covers journalists, and makes plain what we would need for this article to pass muster. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is whether and how to document and present the 'alternative theories' regarding the 2011 Libyan civil war. The mainstream media avoid to report on this part of the story, so we rely on information provided to us by somewhat controversial media: [48], [49] (Iranian TV channel PressTV), Dissident Voice, [50] Voltaire Network, [51] Russia Today. However biased the information may be, it could be considered as a significant coverage published by notable media. I think that we can compile a decent and neutral article about this journalist. The decision of how to process the information is on our readers. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the question. You don't create an article about a journalist as a way to back-door a content fork. Agricolae (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, this is my first and not last comment in this discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in fine Wikipedia is an aggregator of verifiable facts, which this article does. Most of Russia Today sources provided here are not by Lizzie Phelan but rather quote her. The ongoing vandalism tends to demonstrate that there is a very high emotional intensity on the subecjt. Being a journalist myself, I can confirm you that any journalist has a point of view. Yet, I have no doubt that collective intelligence will prevail in balancing sources in this article if such thing is needed.

In a nutshell : That Mrs Phelan was in Lybia during the war is confirmed. That she was held at the Rixos Hotel is confirmed. That she testified before the Global Civilians for Peace in Libya" is confirmed [52]. That she testified in october 2011 before the Stop the War Coalition is confirmed [53]. In my experience Mrs. Phelan seems imbued with the same interest than non-aligned Vietnam war correspondents. That her editorial policy be not Stars & Stripes is therefore little surprising. That she be notable in this policy is not either. Nor is it that she was hired by Russia Today GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

confusion I am the original nominator for deletion. It seems that there may be some breaking news regarding lizzy, being kidnapped or rescued or some such. The sources may not reliable (imo). My (original) objection to the article had no reasoning involving politics, the topics of her reports etc, just merely if she was personally notable. If her notability is changing as a result of breaking events, then we may need to reconsider, but I would like others to review the sources and weigh in. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second these comments. There's no purpose served in arguing over Phelan's politics. I also agree that it's possible that she's notable if it can be demonstrated that enough other news sources consider her a valuable independent source of information...which may be what her notability hangs on. Difficult to assess the reliability of current sourcing. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She is even notable if enough other news sources consider her a raving lunatic - as long as they talk about her. Agricolae (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add her positions on Libya's fall in the Wikipedia entry "History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi", "2011 Libyan civil war", "2011 military intervention in Libya", " 2011 Libyan rebel coastal offensive, "Battle of Tripoli (2011)". This would do her right both in the role she has had in being a critical independent observer of the happenings in Lybia, and cover the issues of notability, as a few days of press coverage are indeed not enough for impact assessment (though do not exclude it in the future). --HarpsiMario (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, she is known mainly due to her radical political views related to the 2011 Libya events. Her (potential) notability rests largely on her participation in the conflict. However, her opinions are heard in some parts of the world, it is a fact and it is verifiable, no matter how biased she or the sources could be. People may like it or not, but we should provide facts and relevant references. We shouldn't let the information disappear. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

addendum Lizzie Phelan is more notable than I reported, as it turns out she reported under her real name, which war correspondents do not always do. This name is Lizzie Cocker, here are references: [54] [55] and here is a Google news tread on Lizzie Phelan [56] and another on Lizzie Cocker [57]. What are the scientific, rational and objective criteria we will be founding or notability decision upon, so that it is legitimate beyond our unrepresentative group of 5-10 and does not merely constitute an arbitrary obstat from an unelected Censor Librorum? Also, in the future, who should I ask and on which ground before starting the rather time-consuming creation of a sourced article? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS As a reporter from the UK Morning Star alone Lizzie Cocker returns 485 results, here is the reference [58] she has also been reporting for the Daily Mail and here is the source too [59]. Last but not least, Lizzie Cocker is quoted as a reference (from the Morning Star) on the wikipedia entry of anti-war rapper Lowkey (see reference nine as of today). I am adding this information to the article. Also, non notable subjects are not vandalised. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find our general guideline on notability here, and the specific section on journalists here. These are our objective criteria for determining notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference of here is this : The topic that lizzy writes about is notable. She is very prolific in her writing, and so many references (mostly by-lines) of hers can be found. But things that she writes do not count for the purpose of notability. Things must be written, by others, about her. Some of the references you mentioned above may satisfy that criteria. In that case you would need to find, and use those specific references in the article. The more independent (unrelated to her, her publishers, organizations she is involved in), the more notability those references will imbue. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salvaged. I have provided more than four third-party references covering Phelan's works, plus a few discussing it. It is also important to note that absolutely no reference I have provided so far is self-published. An accredited journalist does not self-publish but rather goes through the approbation of his/her credentials (here: RT, PressTV, Voltairenet, Morning Star) which are not only the legal publishers of the article but also fully liable for its content. Journalistic publication is submission-based. So unless it is on a personal blog, a working journalist never self-publishes, and I have not quoted any source from Phelan's blog or facebook account. Finally, the page has registered an average of 400 views p.d. in the last three days [60] which is the same order of magnitude of say Steven Chu [61]; it has also been reported in the Ukrainian and Russian wikipedia. And again, non notable subjects are never vandalised; this one had registered four acts of vandalism by two different sources in the last 72 hours...GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews/day and instances of vandalism have nothing to do with notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete You are either very obtuse, intentionally trying to game us, or actually unaware of wiki policies and standards. For the sake of argument, I will assume the latter. To be included in wikipedia people must be notable. Please read the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page, and pay particular attention to the basic criteria : Independant of the subject, and intelectually independant of each other. Also read the footnote (#6) on "trivial", specifically excluding passing references such as "so and so said" or "according to so and so". Since you have a problem with this criteria, I will go through all of the references you have put on the article, and try to explain why they are not contributing to notability. this does not mean she is not notable. you just have to find references that actually indicate that!. I also note that you failed to provide URLs for many of the references. This could either be laziness, or intentionally trying to make reading them (and therefore validating their value) more difficult. Google to the rescue! The main problem is that very few (none?) of these articles are ABOUT lizzie. Most are BY her, some quote her, some introduce her and then let her report. Nobody is saying "hey, we need to write an article that is actually about lizzie, and what a cool person she is". As a reporter, lizzie will have many articles.Also, other related publications will quote her as an "on the ground" journalist. That doesn't make the article about lizzie. Also importantly - none of the articles are critical of lizzie in any way, which indicates they are not independent.

#1 - #3, Quotes lizzie. Qualifies as an "in passing" reference, as she is not the subject of the article
#4 - Is just a link to a report by Lizzie. The fact that she was selected to testify does indicate some notability, depending on who she was testifying to, and how she was selected to do so.
#5 - Link to same report above. Does provide some commentary about lizzie. Source fails the "intellectually independent" criteria,and possibly the reliability criteria. However this one is a grey area. Even if counted, this link by itself would not establish notability
#6, The same report again!
#7, In passing
#8, in passing ( although at least in this case there is one sentence that is actually about lizzie, rather than just by lizzie.
#9, By lizzie. The fact that pravda is publishing her, diminishes the notability "mojo" that all other pravda articles would otherwise grant her, since they are not independent of each other.
#10, Same testimony link. Identifies lizzie as a member of the journalist team of voiltaire, thus removing the independant criteria again
#11 - #17, By lizzie
#18, Counts towards notability, but lizzie is only mentioned as one of a group that were involved, so is notability for the group or organization more than for lizzie directly. But getting close
#19, In passing
#20 - 22, Mostly in passing, links to several of lizzies reports. Might be breaking the "intellectually independent" part.
#23 - Mainly a link to another lizzie report, does provide some coverage of lizzie being in danger.
#24 - Link to lizzie report.
#25 - Mostly in passing. Mentions lizzie in danger. +1. Mentions lizzie as a friend. -1
#26 - Mostly in passing. Mentions lizzie in danger.
#27 - Major publication. +1. Blog -1. Mentions being in a panel with lizzie -1.
#28 - #30 in passing. all regarding the same speaking event that lizzie was in.
#31 - In passing. Possibly not intellectually independent.
#32 - #34, By lizzie. All from Voltaire, which identify lizzie as a team member
#35, Directly about lizzie +1, blog -1
#36, Directly about lizzie. I personally dont think the source is reliable, independent, but I will leave it to consensus to decide.
#37, About lizzie and others in danger (notable as group?) +1. Published by the employers of the group (Voltaire) - 1
#38, Voltaire. Only mention of lizzie is in the caption to a picture. includes the phrase 'we can testify that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had personally given the order to execute him' which hurts the reliability of the source quite a bit.
#39, twitter feed, doesnt even linnk directly to a post so no way to know what it references

Gaijin42 (talk) 14:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gaijin. Thank you for reviewing all the new sourcing -- this is extremely helpful. Question for you. Do you think, based on your review of the sources, that Lizzie Phelan could pass muster per criterion #1 at WP:AUTHOR? That is, do we have evidence in here that she is "widely cited by peers"? I have not done the detailed review of new sourcing that you have, so I'd like to defer to your judgment on this. IMO, the only way Ms. Phelan can be viewed as notable is via that particular criterion. I'd be inclined to discount her being "widely cited" if the "peers" at issue are mostly or all of the type that are going on record saying that Hillary Clinton is signing execution orders, but I'm curious to learn your opinion on this. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. The majority of the sources are closely related to lizzy, using her as a freelance/affiliated corespondent. Many of the sources are very small, radical left outfits, that I do not think are reliable. The sources that are more reliable (examiner, etc) are really all from a single author which doesn't lend itself to the "widely". Gaijin42 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Examiner.com references cannot be considered as they fail both the WP:RS test and the WP:GNG independence test. Examiner.com is a content farm using volunteer writers who are given micropayments based on clicks, without an editorial filter or fact-checking. The Phelan references fail the independence test because they share the same political advocacy as Phelan and echo her own reporting. patsw (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seem to be plenty of sources both written by her and written about her, so I think this should be enough to establish notability. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a borderline case. The subject is known mainly for activities related to a single (recent) event, but I still think that keeping or merging the information to a more suitable article would be better solution than deleting. The article could be possibly called Critical reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war. However, there's no such an article. At the moment, we have several pages describing the reaction and criticism of the international intervention in Libya:

Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya
International reactions to the 2011 Libyan civil war
Free speech in the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war- the title of this article is a bit misleading, as it "...describes the ability of domestic and international media to report news inside Libya free from interference and censorship during the civil war."

I'm not sure whether any of those articles would be suitable for this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major news sources around the world cover her activities, quoting her often enough. Dream Focus 02:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment One thing I just learned, examiner is generally considered "not reliable" and is quite often in the spam blacklist on wikipedia. That reduces the weight of some of the links mentioned above. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - self promotion of a not notable journalist using Self published sources. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the sources are self published, she was given space in important (I'm not talking about bias or reliability) media in countries that 'opposed' the intervention. It is a verifiable fact, see [62], [63] (Iranian TV channel PressTV), [64], [65] pravda.ru, [66] Russia Today. The information could provide context and background to our readers. I agree that it is probably not enough to warrant a stand alone article, therefore I asked above whether it is possible to merge the information elsewhere. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're Wrong Off2riorob a journalist does not self publish but is published by her credentials which are accountable for the publication. You're not familiar with journalism are you? GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of your comment has nothing to do with the subject of this discussion, GrandPhilliesFan. Please, focus on commenting on the content of the article, not on the competence of other editors. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear - this person is a journalist - she writes for a living as such all the articles written by her that are being used in the article - and that is most of them , do nothing to assert independent wikipedia notability, they just serve in using wikipedia in a self promotional manner in a cite farm situation to articles written by this journalist. For example, this section, Lizzie_Phelan#War_Crimes_reporting - is nothing but her own opinions cited toher own writing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I completely support Vejvancicky's notion of incorporating any verifiable content from this article elsewhere, where relevant. I don't think there's any reason to squelch alternative POVs on the Libyan war such as Ms. Phelan's. It'd have to be a fairly careful merge -- the sources supplied vary widely in terms of their reliability -- but I think on principal that's a perfectly valid solution. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second (third?) this solution. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be a compilation of her reporting. It's a good compilation, but it's not a biographical article. Her reporting should be edited into the articles she reported on, if it has not been already. A request from me to the advocates of the inclusion of this article: the default arrangement of the References doesn't quite work in this article. They need to be grouped into:

Reports by Phelan
Reports quoting Phelan reports
Content that is actually about Phelan

Biographical articles need content which is about the subject, independent of the subject. This article fails that test. It would be helpful for keep voters to discuss the WP:AUTHOR tests and not keep repeating sources exist -- each of those votes will be discounted. patsw (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Per Gaijin. Lack of third party coverage about her. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ick, I don't like this discussion so far, lots of weak !voting that will probably get dismissed, and therefore probably some pissed off people one way or another. That being said, the significant and independent coverage of the actual subject required by the GNG is not met here unfortunately.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - We are at 8 days, does something need to be done to either cause the vote to be tallied, or if this discussion should continue, to make sure it doesn't drop off the admin's notice? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well votes aren't necessarily votes, per se, and it's not really tallied. The discussion is closed based on the strength of the arguments. But it can also be relisted; 7 days is not always the limit.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I jus twant to make sure this isnt lost. Im fine with letting it linger without relisting, as long as it wont fall off some noticeboard and never get closed. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No risk of that - they all go in a queue based on when initiated, and administrators who do closes look at those on the top of the queue that are past the 7 days, and either close them or relist them (sending them back to the bottom of the queue), or if they feel they don't have the time or competence in the area to do a close for one, leave it for someone else. The higher it gets in the queue, the more imperative there is to address it rather than leave it, so rather than falling off, it is climbing to the top. If you want to see where it currently stands, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 21, where it is #68, and about half of those above it have been closed (and all from the previous three days, meaning that the admins are keeping up with the task as well as can be expected of volunteers). Or just check back tomorrow and it will likely be done. Agricolae (talk) 22:14, 28 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} 01:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Julian

edit

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

BLP with no reliable sources. Only appears to have one major role, so having an article on this subject also appears to be unnecessary in light of WP:BLP1E. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reference to this page, but i'm not sure if it is enough.Vincelord (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Sale of the Century article as it's her only notable role. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Not notable enough. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to disagree with the above statement that she's not notable enough. In fact, she's not notable at all. What does the bit mean about her being let go due to "her failing in the cue cards" -- huh? EEng (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of lasting notability, probably no evidence of any notability at all. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne Press

edit

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

No notability, as per WP:CORP, also fails as it is promotional, and the author has (in my opinion) been making promotion edits to other pages. This has had a disputed proposed deletion, but I think "Queen anne Press" has already been deleted previously. Heywoodg ^talk 10:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Queen anne Press" was my very first effort, which I freely admit was rubbish- even the name was not capitalized! Mrs Alice Lucy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the association with Ian Fleming would seem to confer some measure of notability. LadyofShalott 14:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Heywoodg - this is my first article and thought it was quite well informed! I have now added more printed references which should provide enough notability, but if not, please let me know what else I can do. There are a number of publishers entered on wikipedia and thought this would be a good candidate to list. Mrs Alice Lucy ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, I have removed the other stuff from the talk page, but feel free to put it back if you need to (otherwise people can go and take a look by clicking on "talk" at the top). I have also put a "keep" at the front to show that you want to keep the article (which is how it appears from your post, and helps people know at a glance). Cheers Heywoodg ^talk 21:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to keep it, but only if it meets notability requirements- a couple of other users suggest it may. I though adding links elsewhere would help its exposure, but you say it is promotion- I thought articles carried more weight with a good amount of links? Thanks again for your help and guidance. Mrs Alice Lucy (talk) 10:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.

Comment Probably ok for notability, but needs major improvements. It didn't take me long to find a sentence that was a word-for-word copy from here [67], so there are WP:COPYVIO issues here.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any original text is quoted from the QAP website here [68], with their permission, so no WP:COPYVIO issues should exist - other websites may have used the same blurb, which I think is what you refer to here [69] I suggest the article concerns historic significance rather than promotion, although I accept there may be some cross-over. Mrs Alice Lucy (talk) 12:35, 10 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) 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's some evidence that the subject is notable, given the plethora of independent, probably reliable sourcing, its association with Ian Fleming, etc. That said, sourcing can always stand to be improved, and the article needs some work as others have mentioned above. The opening section has been substantially improved from a content standpoint since nomination, which definitely helps a weak keep vote go down a bit easier. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:19, 21 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 Model figure. v/r - T P 15:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chase figure

edit

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

I cannot find anything reliable to support this concept. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here are two sources:
1. William Silvester (2010). Harry Potter Collector's Handbook. F+W Media Inc. p. 19. ISBN 9781440208973. Retrieved 2011-10-07.
2. "Toys: General Information / Variants, Chase and Surprise Figures". Spawn.com (McFarlane Toys official website). July 23, 2008. Retrieved 2011-10-07.

I'm not sure that is enough to confer notability; particularly the first source gives somewhat shallow coverage; it seems to assume the reader is familiar with the term. --Lambiam 22:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This would be much better covered within a more general overview article on toy collecting or toy figures/vinyl figures. Since no articles directly covering those topics currently exists, maybe merge to Model figure or Figurine for now. Siawase (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering now, after seeing chase card in the article, if I shouldn't have simply redirected the article to some subject or other. But here we are. Should we look for an article to merge this in? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I noticed the way chase card was handled too, and it looks appropriate. For now Model figure looks closest in scope as it mainly covers modern figures, Figurine is broader and this topic would likely end up being WP:UNDUE there. If someone eventually creates a more appropriate article this can always be redirected. Siawase (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Model figure seems the closest target for now. We have articles on "X collecting" where X is any of Bicycle, Book, Button, Casino chip, Coin, Comic book, County, Element, Fossil, Human trophy, Insect, Irish music, Knife, Mineral, Movies, Patch, Plant, Police memorabilia, Record, Scouting memorabilia, Sneaker, Stamp, Topical stamp, or Video game, but we appear to have no articles on the notable hobbies of Toy collecting and Figure collecting, the latter of which would have been a perfect merge target. --Lambiam 13:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's typical of toy coverage on Wikipedia (and likely many other areas.) There are still a lot of low hanging fruit articles missing. Collectors write articles on their specific interests, but a lot of the time no one gets around to writing the broader overview articles (which often would be of more encyclopedic interest.) Redeco and Repaint are two other articles that may be better off merged, but there really is no appropriate merge target. OOAK is a similar article which was already deleted. Siawase (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 11 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, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this article was sourced there is still so little to say about the topic (which the article now does well) that it really should just be a sentence or two in a larger article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Model figure. --Lambiam 21:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 15:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kadhal Samrajyam

edit

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

Unnotable film featuring newcomers which was shelved in 2002 and which will not release. Editor 2050 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think it's an unnotable film, it was directed by a National Film Award-winning director and would have marked the career start of all those actors (who are no newcomers anymore, they debuted later in other projects and quite well known now!) Furthermore, the soundtrack had been released, which was very well notable. Why can't we keep it as a cancelled or unreleased film, the films listed in those categories do have articles as well, though they have never been released. Why don't we delete Naan Aval Adhu's article, too, which certainly will not release either? This film is as much notable as Naan Aval Adhu. Fact is, this film was a anticipated project when it was in production. Principal photography was held and filming had been completed, even its soundtrack with some popular songs was released. This article should be kept! Johannes003 (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work to add to the article - but still am not sure if it is notable. Editor 2050 (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No part of the article mentions any sort of success or acclaim fetched by the soundtrack or why it was anticipated during production. Even though the film is directed by a National Film Award winning director several of his films are certainly not notable - Selvam, Ee Abbai Chala Manchodu and Aiyampettai Kaliaperumal Indran being example. Kadhal Samrajyam falls closer to these films considering that the cast was full of debutants rather than Agathiyan's bigger films like Kadhal Kottai/Kavithai.

Also these actors have appeared in two other unnotable films before this which did not release, Poonjolai and Wanted - with the former also having it's audio released, and neither are really notable. Most of those films in those categories you have mentioned are notable hence why that's why they exist, with the only Tamil film there being Engineer - which is notable. I guess it's not really fair to compare articles, but I guess that Naan Aval Adhu's article may also be deleted due to it's lack of activity. Editor 2050 (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, obviously this article exists mainly because of the soundtrack. The songs have been released as part of this film, they are available and they will not be reused in any films. That is why this article was created in the first place. (And on a sidenote, this film's cast is not full of big stars but other than the films you mentioned, all the lead actors are known by now!) There is another long-delayed film Sadhurangam, which probably will not release, and its songs have also been released (and are well known as well!) I would also want to create an article for that film. I don't know if the release of a soundtrack is sufficient to keep such an article, but there are quite a lot articles for much more unnotable films, which do exist only because the films have seen a theatrical release. When does a film become notable? Anyway, I have nothing more to add. Johannes003 (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to either Yuvan Shankar Raja or Agathiyan would be the most apt decision possibly. Editor 2050 (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Admin This nomination appears to have never been properly listed in the deletion log. I'm adding it as of Oct 13, please use that as the date of listing when considering it for a close. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very Salvagable, appears properly citated, organized, I see no reason to delete. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:02, 21 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} 01:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanstha

edit

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

WP is not a dictionary. Mattg82 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC as noted above. The article is just a definition of a term. Since it's pretty much just a translation of another language's word for definition, I don't think it warrants being added to wiktionary.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete as one of the clearest offenses against WP:NOTDICT I've ever seen. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's literally no information here beyond translating a word into English. If someone wants they could add it to wiktionary in about ten seconds, but it doesn't belong here. --Miskwito (talk) 22:08, 21 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} 00:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xevoz

edit

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

Very not notable. I've trimmed the cruft already, and then found nothing underneath. See, for instance, this and this. Also, this--there are no reliable sources for this toy. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 11 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, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 00:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely lacking in sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G7 Acroterion (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carina Saunders

edit

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

Otherwise unremarkable murder victim, fails WP:BLP1E. Acroterion (talk) 00:12, 21 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. Invalid nomination rationale. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashfaq_Munshi

edit

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

Orphan article. Person does not need wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirao62 (talk • contribs) — Abhirao62 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You have not provided a valid reason as to why this article should be deleted. We do not delete articles because they are orphans and we do not delete articles because of someone's subjective opinion on whether or not the article is "needed". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural keep - Invalid nomination rationale. Also note that nominator blanked the page before nominating. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Definatley an invalid reason to delete, I see no guidelines violated, properly citated. Its a stub, but stubs can be expanded by experts on the subject. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:06, 21 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} 00:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Web services allowing access from any origin

edit

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

The topic of this page is a list of web servers that make use of a particular web standard in such a way as to allow cross site scripting.

My reasons for deletion are that the inclusion criteria for this list in no way limits itself to the importance of its members which are potentially vast. There are literally millions of sites that allow this sort of cross site posting. The article does not provide any information that is not already in the parent article Cross-Origin Resource Sharing.

I do not believe the topic is encyclopedic in nature as it does not convey any information that is established by third parties. The citations given are not reliable. By compiling our own list based on loose criteria and non-reliable sources I believe original research is being done.

I believe this should be made into a redirect to Cross-Origin Resource Sharing. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 15 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) 00:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly all external links, ie. a WP:LINKFARM. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Violates WP:LINKFARM and WP:NOTDIR, and besides, one has to expect that this information is extremely ephemeral. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a reliable source presented to indicate that the topic qualifies per WP:LISTN. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:28, 23 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} 00:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Private World

edit

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

This article could not establish notability for the series itself, despite the series's role as the spin-off of As the World Turns. Also, it has never added references for four years since the maintenance tag. Any notable interest, such as the predecessor and the network CBS, would not help the article stand on its own. The entry is poorly written and has barely improved for lifetime. Optionally, there must be real-world perspectives to help the article stay strong. Even any amount of external links is insufficient to keep an article strong and healthy. Don't persuade me to vote for merge to As the World Turns; I will vote some other time. —Gh87 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC) other than soap fansites, there has not been one single reference of this show in and out of that article. The fact that the article has not improved for years influnces me to think: this article's subject has been less popular now than it had been then. It may be likely to merge to As the World Turns; this show has been mentioned there already, so I'm not certain if redirect or merge is necessary. I have dealt with unreasonable re-creations not well enough, but I don't want to revert edits because that would waste more data energy and logs. Preserving history may be a noble thing; too bad I go for deletion to erase history to prevent vandalism. --Gh87 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 15 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) 00:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion rationale provided, to the extent I can follow any rationale. The criticism appears to be that the article currently lacks references, which is not a reason for deletion; and that no one has worked on it for a long time, which per WP:NOEFFORT is also not considered a valid reason for deletion. It's a television series that was broadcast by a major TV network. As noted in WP:OUTCOMES, "television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I see no reason to change that. If Gh87 doesn't want to "waste more data energy and logs," then he should not start AFDs in this manner. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must fully agree with User:Postdlf, no reason to delete other than lack of citations, meets all other requirements, I found two brief but promising links[70] [71], not sure if it qualifies but at least it is some effort towards improving the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have added them NOT as references BUT as "External links". That still won't suffice; even some "improving" articles during AfD may be deleted under AfD. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I won't use TV Guide or IMDB as references for any circumstances other than self-references, such as notable episodes from IMDB per Star Trek: The Original Series. --Gh87 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postdlf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:20, 22 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. "Keep" !votes don't make any assertions beyond "It's Notable", without demonstrating how it's notable or providing any new sources. No prejudice against recreation if sources turn up. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon Network Universe: Project Exonaut

edit

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

Article has only one source and not enough sources to provide it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ghits are to game publisher or to minor-looking game forums and blogs. Can't find it in Metacritic or cnet. Happy to have another look if someone can find substantial WP:RS's, but looks like it fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cartoon Network is a giant company and this is on their website. I do agree that it needs more references though. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this is enough on it own but at the very least it should be a good start [[72]]. The site in question is also listed a reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Very Notable, a well written article, a detailed description is given, meets most of the requirements, Citations are the only thing it lacks, anyone who knows any good references please add them this is entirely salvagable. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well written article on a notable topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of notability from reliable secondary sources, in the article or coming from a search. It's not surprising, MMOGs in general outside of a handful of titles like World of Warcraft are generally ignored by the press, and this appears to be a comparatively simple Unity-based game, not a sprawling MMORPG. No prejudice against recreation should sources appear, though the lack of them some months after the game's release suggest it's unlikely. Someone another 17:43, 25 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. This is a very weak keep closure. ExaltedQC is a single purpose account and I am not sure of Inter rest's knowledge of policies to make a strong argument but I've given both !votes normal weight because their arguments are in fact good arguments for an AFD. v/r - T P 15:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Biega

edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Comment. Please note that the current article is about a lawyer. The article deleted as a result of the first AFD was about a hockey player. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Alex was a notable and very well respected lawyer for over 50 years, achieving the designation of “Queen's Council”. His book, The Ukrainian Experience in Quebec,continues to be the first source of reference on this subject by government and academic writers and researchers.[73] This article is well sourced with on-line links to several independent references, with the promise that there are many more sources that can be located in hard copy dating from before the digital days of the Internet. ExaltedQC (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh possibly notable through editing of the book-- the references to it are counterbalanced by a complete lack of any reviews that I could see. Otherwise, he's just another lawyer. Mangoe (talk) 14:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:20, 26 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 The Dandy Warhols. v/r - T P 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Holmström

edit

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

Does not appear to be notable/worthy of own article, e.g. no notable articles about him independent of The Dandy Warhols. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Now noticed all the bands members pages have been created and are now all up for deletion. Merge with The Dandy Warhols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontforgetthisone (talk • contribs) 23:48, 16 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) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with The Dandy Warhols, or Delete. No significant coverage of the individual on his own merits.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:51, 21 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 The Dandy Warhols. v/r - T P 15:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brent DeBoer

edit

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

Does not appear to be notable, e.g. no notable articles about him independent of The Dandy Warhols. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Dandy Warhols. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 23:49, 16 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) 00:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge with The Dandy Warhols. Not quite notable on his own merits.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:44, 21 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 minor DC Comics characters. v/r - T P 15:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puppeteer (comics)

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as there is no evidence that he has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The content of the article relies exclusively on primary sources, so, with a lack of reception or significance in reliable secondary sources, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:20, 16 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) 00:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:44, 28 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} 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of the top ranking countries of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

edit

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

Fails WP:OR, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:GNG. The few words written between the tables are confusing to anyone who doesn't follow that competition. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 16:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's fairly obviously WP:OR - but where else would this data be accessible? I'm not sure that it really fails WP:NOTSTATS as it's a standalone statistics page, and NOTSTATS is more concerned with excessive stats in regular articles. 10:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asnac (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons of poster and above. Grk1011 (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial and does appear to fail WP:NOR. Perhaps a nomination for List of the top ranking countries of the Eurovision Song Contest should be made as well. CT Cooper · talk 10:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial. Nothing that can't be mentioned in the main article. --Neutrality^talk 17:11, 27 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 minor DC Comics characters. v/r - T P 15:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolphunga‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable fictional character who does not meet the general notability guideline and has no reception or significance in reliable secondary sources to presume that it can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of minor DC Comics characters. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:47, 28 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 minor DC Comics characters. v/r - T P 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appa Ali Apsa‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that the fictional character as a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to presume that he meets the general notability guideline. Without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information and, therefore, it is an inappropriate topic for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:21, 16 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) 00:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either List of minor DC Comics characters or Guardians of the Universe. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in one of the other articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:49, 28 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. Davewild (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Berry (Professional race car driver)

edit

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria and no indication that general notability guidelines met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NSPORTS implies that the Trans-Am series carries some notability, but the article doesn't indicate that this driver raced in that series. I can't find any evidence that he ever raced in a notable series, and the article itself is terrible; it reads like a press release. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As noted, participation in Trans-Am could infer notability - but he hasn't competed in that. And (despite the horrendous disambiguation) the vast majority of other SCCA-sanctioned series are not professional at all. Maybe in 2014 with that Caddy they're talking about he might get notability, but right now this isn't notable, smells like a press release, and might well be copyvio as a cut-and-paste of such. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 28 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 List of minor DC Comics characters. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bana-Mighdall‎‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional nation does not meet the general notability guideline and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 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 List of Wonder Woman enemies. v/r - T P 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Magician

edit

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that any article about him can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. --Neutrality^talk 17:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:50, 28 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 List of Wonder Woman enemies. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Devastation (comics)‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it does not meet the general notability guideline, and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achilles Warkiller‎‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources, any article about him as a subject can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DC Comics. The charater is not notable in itself; a redirect seems appropriate.
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New, unnotable character who's appeared in a half-dozen recent Wonder Woman comic books. Nothing substantial to be found. Suggested redirect destinations don't list this character. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:17, 21 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 Wonder Woman enemies. v/r - T P 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angle Man‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. No evidence that the fictional character as a stand-alone subject has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so he do not not meet the general notability guideline. Without reliable secondary sources that give reception or significance to the fictional character, any article about him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information, unsuitable for Wikipedia. A quick search engine test does not show anything different to presume that the character deserves a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:22, 16 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 28 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 Wonder Woman enemies. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness Paula Von Gunther‎‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character as a topic does not meet the general notability guideline. As there is no reception or significance for her in reliable secondary sources, any article about her is unsuitable for Wikipedia since it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On emotional basis mainly, as I'm not sure where to start looking for references and such, keep. But if no acceptable arguments for this are found, please consider to redirect/merge per J Greb. --Ever wonder (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where to look for sources? High up on this discussion you see something saying: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Especially if you follow the "books" link, you'll find a treasure trove of reliable and independent sources providing non-trivial coverage of Her Ladyship. --Lambiam 15:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notable enough; just do the standard Google book search. Whatever happened to WP:BEFORE? --Lambiam 15:03, 21 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 List of Wonder Woman enemies . Black Kite (t) (c) 23:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Snowman‎‎‎

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about her can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 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, 21 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 Wonder Woman enemies. v/r - T P 15:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Poison

edit

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

Contested PROD. Neither of the two fictional characters with the same name meets the general notability guideline and any article about them can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 28 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 Wonder Woman enemies. v/r - T P 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Deception

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character as a stand-alone subject does not meet the general notability guideline and the article can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and could probably be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies. This B-list villain seems unlikely to have coverage significant enough to meet the WP:GNG as anything more than an entry in the list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 28 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 Wonder Woman enemies. v/r - T P 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Clea

edit

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

Contested PROD. The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and any article about her can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work and an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfgslo (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Character is in List of Wonder Woman enemies and can probably be redirected there.SPNic (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If not kept, redirect/merge to List of minor DC Comics characters is a better course. Perhapse something that should have been proposed prior to PRODing and then AfDing. - J Greb (talk) 15:23, 16 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, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The only real reason to delete is a lack of references, If I could find some, then could this be kept? – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could find ones that dont mirror Wikipedia, I hate to see an article of this legnth go, If any one can find sufficient references, please do so, you may tag this for {{rescue}} if you can provide at least one realy reliable source. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk)

Merge and redirect to List of Wonder Woman enemies. It is a nicely-done article, but, alas, fails the WP:GNG for anything more than a list entry. Perhaps there's a DC Wikia somewhere where information like this could find a more prominent home?. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 28 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.