Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 17

< 16 September	18 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oysters Rockefeller (film)

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

Notability uncertain; film has not yet been released. Google search for ("Oysters Rockefeller" + "Charles Rogers") does not indicate significant coverage. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + WP:COI, as the film writer and article writer appear to be the same. This leads me to believe the article is being used as a promotional piece. -- WikHead (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for now per WP:NotJustYet. While the author's COI is always a concern (indicating that returning it to him is not the best option), the article itself is written in an encyclopedic manner with very neutral POV and does not seem to be promoting the film any more than other Wikipedia film articles "promote" other films. That said, this one is premature, does not merit being an exception to WP:NFF, and needs to be released and get coverage before an article is to be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, as it currently fails WP:NF. The article will be a good candidate for deletion review if the film is released and receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt. Moogwrench (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zigetvar Eyalet

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

Unlike Karesi, this Ottoman province is mentioned in several sources so it's pretty certain that it did exist, but it was for just 4 years, in the late 16th century. It was one of about a dozen provinces created in the 16th century that existed for a matter of months, but it's the only one to have its own article. It's unlikely that we'll ever have enough material about it to keep it as an independent page, so I suggest redirecting it to Szigetvár#History. eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This (Sigetvar Eyaleti ) was a short-lived eyalet.

Sadık Müfit Bilge, "Macaristan'da Osmanlı Hakimiyetinin ve İdari Teşkilatının Kuruluşu ve Gelişmesi", Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi dergisi, Sayı 11, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 2000, p. 68, 75 Takabeg (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — inhabited places, even if defunct, are generally considered notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's notable doesn't mean that it should have a separate page, especially since there's so little to write about it.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it existed it should have its article on Wikipedia. Redirect to Szigetvár is not appropriate because Szigetvár is city, while Zigetvar Eyalet was a province that was governed from that city and that included many other settlements - these two subjects are definitely not same or even similar. We have articles about political entities that existed for much shorter time. I also disagree that "we'll never have enough material about it" - new material about various things is introduced each day and there is no evidence that additional material about this province will not be available to us. PANONIAN 07:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia, Akhaltsikhe, Dagestan, Dmanisi, Ganja, Gori, Győr, Kakheti, Lazistan, Lorri, Moldavia, Nakhichevan, Poti, Sanaa, Shemakha, Szigetvár, Shervan, Tabriz, Tiflis, Wallachia, Yerevan, Zabid. All of these eyalets exist for some months. But out of all of them, Zigetvar is the only one with a separate article about it, the rest are redirects. Panonian, how would you expand this article? Can you prove that it can ever be brought beyond stub level?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — this isn't a convincing argument for deletion. see WP:OTHERSTUFF. anyway, if what you wanted was a redirect, you could have just done that by ordinary editing without bringing it here. deletion will destroy the edit history of the page. perhaps you should consider withdrawing your nomination and making the article into a redirect, and then if editors who want to write more about it show up later, they can resurrect it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is a legitimate result of an AfD, it doesn't have to be deleted - maybe Short-lived Ottoman provinces would be a good idea to have? It could pick up all of those redirects. I picked one at random and found Shemakha Province, Ottoman Empire points to Shamakhi Rayon which doesn't even mention the words "Ottoman province" or "eyalet", so it's a bit unclear as is. A summary article with a proper collection of links and context would be preferable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we should merge this article with what exactly? It is bad idea that article about province is merged with article about city and there is no corresponding modern region that have same or similar territory as this province. There is simply no proper similar article that could be effectively merged with this one. PANONIAN 20:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into the more generically named article. Later, other analogous content can be added to that which would not be subject to deletion either. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My current inclination is to merge to Kanije Eyalet - but I will admit that this is based on somewhat informed guesswork. The entire four-year period is in the middle of the Long War. and it looks as if the Ottomans were adapting administrative structures along their north-western borders to cope with it. From what is said here and in related articles, it looks as if the Zigetvar eyalet was formed when parts of south-western Hungary and Croatia (formerly in the Budin Eyalet and Bosnia Eyalet) were put under the command of Tiryaki Hasan Pasha, who was apparent based in Zigetvar in the late 1590s. Kanije was apparently captured by the Ottomans in 1600, and Tiryaki Hasan Pasha then made that his base. At which point, presumably, the administrative centre and the name of the eyalet were changed - but we are looking at two successive stages of the same administrative division. Can anyone come up with evidence from reliable sources for (or against) this? PWilkinson (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might be good proposal. According to older version of map from Euratlas site that show situation in 1600, Zigetvar eyalet had more-less same borders as Kanije eyalet (which is shown in newer version of same map - I have both map versions in my computer). This indeed might be same eyalet that changed name. PANONIAN 04:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Panonian's rationale. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - to a line in Szigetvár#History - Off2riorob (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Panonian. This is not destined to be a long article, but not every article needs to be long. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). v/r - T P 03:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Denley

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

Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with the topical notability guidelines for authors or politicians, or the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 23:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. There is some coverage in local media even after discounting the coverage by his former employer, but nothing above what would be expected for a candidate. VQuakr (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how you went about determining that coverage in local media is the same, more or less, for other candidates? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All coverage that I could find in independent sources was basic news reporting on his candidacy. Per WP:POLITICIAN, merely being a candidate does not imply that the person is notable enough to merit an article. I did not compare the subjects coverage to other people in the election; we use external scales to judge notability rather than comparing an article to other articles. VQuakr (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia's not for electioneering, and he hasn't done enough to be especially notable otherwise. PK T(alk) 11:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not for electioneering? Why not? I personally believe elections are an important part of democracy which cannot exist without free access to information – and what better way to get unbiased information than at Wikipedia? As it stands the Ontario elections are getting very poor coverage at Wikipedia - too few Wikipedians are actively involved in editing pages and way too few readers from Ontario are paying attention when the elections are only two weeks away. This could have been a golden opportunity to change the mindset of some Canadians about Wikipedia, if only... Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles just because the topic is in the news or because someone thinks the article's existence furthers a worthy goal. I agree that Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias. Compromising our notability standards is not the way to correct this. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech, your talk page shows that you've been concerned about how comprehensively Ottawa elections are covered for at least four years. Some things haven't changed in that time - Wikipedia is still not a news site and still requires other sources to cover a person or event first. Wikinews may be a better place for you to improve the coverage of these elections, which understandably don't get a whole lot of reliable coverage outside of the province itself.--~T P W 01:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am astounded that no one from Ottawa has come to Mr. Denley's defence. Not notable? Just about any Ottawan would disagree. Randall Denley was well-known as an Ottawa Citizen columnist way before he decided to run for office. Why there is not an existing article about him here is anyone’s guess. As Wikipedians I believe we all have a common goal of promoting Wikipedia, but how will we do it if we are turning off a very large audience by declaring that their people are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being well known in Ottawa might make him notable, but it doesn't have to. Do any of the criteria at WP:BIO#Creative professionals apply, for example? Lagrange613 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Mr. Denley has worked as a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen for almost 20 years. I don't believe he would have lasted this long in this major newpaper if people did not think that he was an excellent journalist. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone can be good at something and still not notable, even if many people agree. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:POLITICIAN~~. My guess is that there is not an article on the gentlemen because he does not meet the general notability guideline, which should be applied evenly in all cases. However~~, the politician guideline is clear that deletion is not the preferred option in such a case; the relevant information about Mr. Denley can be included in an article about the campaign itself.--~T P W 02:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sayng that there are no articles aboutRandall Denley? - If so, you must have overlooked the five references llisted in the article, and if this is not enough just google. You will find dozens! Ottawahitech (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Are you saying that any subject that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines has a page on Wikipedia?~~ Ottawahitech (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still confused about why everyone here seems to think that Randall Denley is not a notable person. If you take the time to click on the links, conveniently located on the top of this page, you will see the following:

google web About 33,900 results

google news About 133 results

google books About 14 results

google scholar Results 1 - 10 of about 15

So my question is: how many links does it take to make a person notable enough for Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is that Google hits do not confer notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tens of thousands of google hits are not significant when considering notability at Wikipedia? So what does? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the general notability guideline and then the notability guideline dealing specifically with people, which reads, in part, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics". Lagrange613 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to Wikipedia:BIO#Invalid_criteria then I do not see the relevance to Randall Denley. He is not famous/infamous because he is related to someone else, nor is he part of the adult film industry. Also is this of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive#Does_955_Google_hits_and_some_media_attention_merit_inclusion.3F_-_Yes

Ottawahitech (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the entire guideline; I quoted the second bulleted paragraph under "Invalid criteria", not the first. The "Common outcomes" page is inactive and retained only for historical reference. Consensus on notability has shifted in the eight years since the discussion you're referring to, as evidenced by the links I've provided specifically refuting the argument that Google hits impute notability. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there doesn't appear to be a PC candidate page for this election. This candidate does not warrant an article based on this reason alone. Other attributes are non-notable. Suttungr (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the PC party is not notable? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page for all candidates in the election here. I'm not sure how that relates, though, since notability is not inherited.--~T P W 22:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). We can always flesh out the page to an article should it be warranted. Moogwrench (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Lainton

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

Non notable footballer. Hasn't played in professional league or cup competition. Fails WP:FOOTY Quentin X (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage, and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has yet to make first team debut. Muur (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Sanchez-Munoz

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

No evidence that this footballer has played for Malaga CF as per LFP, FootballDatabse.eu and Soccerway, therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also a lack of any significant media coverage means he fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Abbatemarco

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

Frank Abbatemarco does not pass WP:CRIME, he is only known for being murdered. There is information on Abbatemarco and him being murder its found in the Colombo crime family#Gallo-Profaci War (1960-1964) section and the Colombo crime family#Former members section. Vic49 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that Abbatemarco was a marginal player in the Colombo drama. I agree with deleting the article Rogermx (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. Relevant information already in Colombo crime family#Gallo-Profaci War (1960-1964). - DonCalo (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:CRIME. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sof Strait

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

Non-notable woman who got in the Guiness Book of Records by performing a trick. Only local coverage, very few Google hits that are not from You Tube, Facebook, Flickr of her own website. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Even the author of the article can find very little to say about her apart from trivia: "waiting for her certificate", etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of the Cornella

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

Alleged trilogy of books by 15 year old. No ghits outside Wikipedia and Facebook (not even Amazon). Prod removed by author of article. Other involved articles are Bethany Ward and Elyra, Land of Nymphs. Might be a good series, but as yet apparently unpublished. Peridon (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing online to indicate it even exists yet, let alone any show of notability.--Dmol (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beefeater (band). There is unanimity that the subject is not sufficiently notable for his own page and without any sources in the page there is nothing that can be merged. It is, however, a potentially useful redirect. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred "Freak" Smith

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

No evidence of notability for a musician. Speedy was declined based on him appearing once on Jay Leno as a comedy act, but little online about that either. Conflict of interest from creator. Article created by one of his band colleagues, who also created an article about himself and other members.(Since deleted}. Dmol (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beefeater (band). -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggest, or delete -- he badly fails WP:CREATIVE. Lots of people get their one shot to appear on Jay Leno. You need multiple appearances per CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Lagrange613 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lina_Murr_Nehme. v/r - T P 03:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baalbek, Monument Phenicien

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

Previous PROD was removed. No notability established or claimed. Deadly∀ssassin 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into an article on the author. As I said on my talk p. (I was asked about this a few hours ago, since she is writing articles for many of her books): As a practical matter, she is perhaps notable as an author, since two of her books are in many but not all of the major French university libraries, so an article on her and a merge seems reasonable. There's even an English language source about her, [1]. Worldcat & the French university Union Catalog, sudoc, [2] give only 5 holdings-- the superlative German-based international union catalog, Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog KVK , [3] adds only one or two. I think however a thorough search would probably find reviews of the book--I think a thorough search would find reviews of essentially all academic books from major publishers, and if we took BOOKS literally every notable author would have some or all of their books separately notable, as would many non-notable authors. (To summarize my view of that guideline: books, as well as sports and popular entertainment, are among the things over-covered by the press, especially the coverage of academic books by academic journals, and so the GNG for these subjects is way too broad. To the extent Wikipedia:Notability (books) incorporates it as criterion 1, it is way too broad.) I am therefore not going to do such a search for this article, as I do not think the book or her other books appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I can't search for every Wikipedia article , so I work if I can on those things most likely to be notable in some real sense. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little better than spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is part of a series of articles being introduced by the same editor all promoting what appear to be non-notable books per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Rooney's portrayal of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's

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

Does not conform to the WP:Notability standards set by Wikipedia. I do not think that someone's portrayal of a minor character that lasts about a minute in the whole movie is appropriate for a full Wikipedia page. Anonywiki (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep — this is off-the-charts notable. look at this search if the panoply of references already in the article aren't already enough for you. i don't know how many minutes he was on screen, but it's not relevant. his role qua his role is widely discussed as a thing in itself, and is therefore notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced, and too long to merge into Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood. Pburka (talk) 21:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Notability standards being met in droves. It does not matter one whit that the character had little screen time. What matters is the continued discussion and commentary in multiple reliable sources over a many years period. Per the sources available, the article merits further expansion, but definitely not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). As notorious as Rooney's portrayal of a Japanese man in the film has become, I'm not sure why the response to it doesn't belong in the article about the film; neither article is so long that a merger would be unreasonable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). The article is less about Rooney's portrayal than modern reaction to it. While the reaction is notable I strong think that this would be more effective in the film's article where it can be judged in context. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a merge to the film article is that Rooney's characterization is a trivial one-minute scene when compared to the film's overall story and comentary in sources. The portrayal being seen in a negative light by multiple sources is years after the fact and deals with the director's choice of Rooney as an Asian. In the film article it would be a trivial sidenote, but as a seperate article, the topic is worthy of expansion through the multiple available sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above, but rename to I.Y. Yunioshi. I saw the film for the first time a few years ago, and was shocked by this scene. Sources provided prove that it's notable, but the title is excessively long and clunky. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the title is clunky. Your suggestion is a term as used in the sources, and is thus a resonable search term. Nice choice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I.Y. Yunioshi also appeared in the Truman Capote novella the film is based on. The character in the novel is not, as far as I know, controversial in any way. I would be reluctant to conflate the character with the controversy. The existing title, while verbose, is consistent with Portrayal of East Asians in Hollywood. Pburka (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i'm with Pburka on this one. it isn't the character that's notable, but rooney's portrayal of the character in the film. thus, as lousy as it sounds, i think that the current name for the article is the correct one. right now, a search on "I. Y. Yunioshi" leads to exactly what it ought to lead to, which is this article, the film, the portrayal of east asians, and lastly the story by capote. perhaps a dab page is in order, but i don't think that the issue is pressing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a less clunky Mickey Rooney as I.Y. Yunioshi? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just do I.Y. Yunioshi. The article can be about the film character with a note in the footer about the novella having a character with the same name but in a completely different role (as a Japanese photographer). I think I saw in one of the sources that the film's Yunioshi was based on a non-Asian character from the novella but was changed. In short, all the coverage talks about the film's Yunioshi and not the novella's, so we don't have to disambiguate with "Mickey Rooney as" or with "(film character)". Erik (talk | contribs) 16:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG on all points. I believe the current title is appropriate. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet WP:GNG? At least one of the "citations" listed there is a link to a review of the film that happens to mention "racist" and mentions nothing about any protests. This is all it says: "For an overtly racist Orientalist representation in American film, see Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)." Another so-called citation was an article that had this in it: "Mickey Rooney's Mr. Yunioshi, Holly's landlord, was a cringe-inducing stereotype.", and those are just the first two I went to. Ironically when I saw the term "angry asian" I thought it was referring to the protestors. Protests occur all over the world for many different reasons, they don't all demand a Wikipedia page of their own. Typically only protests involving tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people get Wikipedia pages. And how many people have gone on hunger strike protests in the world? It strikes me as being very Western-centric and propagated by a few people, which is what we don't want on Wikipedia.

So I don't understand how it fulfills the WP:GNG criteria, in particular the links to movie reviews and articles that mention the alleged racism are ridiculous links. There are people protesting all the time, people setting up groups on Facebook, people who climb trees to save the planet, they do not all deserve an individual Wikipedia entry. Maybe it could be listed in a page entitled something like "protests about American films" in addition to being merged with the main article.

And if the page is about the protests, shouldn't it be entitled something more like: "Protests over Mickey's Rooney's portrayal of I.Y. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's"? We're not discussing all aspects of his performance, just the controversy over it. I also think the page is quite offensive to a lot of people, Mickey Rooney himself has been deeply hurt by the allegations. Anonywiki (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAnonywiki, you say " people who climb trees to save the planet, they do not all deserve an individual Wikipedia entry" yet we've had an article on Julia Butterfly Hill for nearly seven years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — (also to Anonywiki) whether or not it satisfies gng is related to the sources available, not to the sources in the article. admittedly a number of those are problematic and should be removed, but a simple google books search shows that there are many reliable sources which discuss rooney's portrayal at great length. these, along with the multiple reliable sources in the article, are what shows that this satisfies gng. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:NRVE states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." WP:Notability makes no demand that the available sources be immediately IN an article, only that the BE avaiulable. As multiple sources have been offered, we have a meeting of the GNG, whether or not the improvable article has made use of them or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment towards User:Anonywiki: If there is a reliable source that indicates Mickey Rooney's response to his portrayal of this character, it would be an excellent addition to this article. Can you provide the source? This article could grow into a very interesting page showing how the portrayal of racial stereotypes have evolved over the years since this film was produced. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's (film). Does not warrant it's own page. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and truncate name to "I.Y. Yunioshi". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More sources for info to develop this article: ^[1] and ^[2]. Also, ^[3] seems to indicate that there is a featurette on the Breakfast at Tiffany's DVD that discusses this issue. Steamroller Assault (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there appears to be significant coverage about the portrayal. However, I would also be okay with making the content part of Breakfast at Tiffany's (film) if it was ever developed into a stronger article. The examples in this sub-article feel somewhat localized where I think that the portrayal itself could be explored more closely. After all, the portrayal is still tied to the film, released in a particular time of cinema. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Richard about truncating the name to I.Y. Yunioshi per WP:PRECISION. Judging from the coverage on the film article, director Blake Edwards supported having the character, so the truncation would be a way to cover the character in more than just how the actor (Rooney) played him. This is a good source to use to that end. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Pburka and truncate per Richard Arthur Norton. Mlpearc powwow 22:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is met. Here is significant coverage from independent secondary source Breakfast at Tiffany’s at 50: We Need to Talk About Mr. Yunioshi, Movieline.com--Larp30 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to consider

^ Yamamoto, J.K. (25 August 2011). "Disclaimers Precede 'Tiffany's' Screenings in L.A., N.Y." Rafu Shimpo. Retrieved 19 September 2011.
^ Chang, Gordon H. Asian American art, 1850-1970. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Murray, Noel. "New on DVD: 'Bridesmaids' 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' 'The Kennedys' and 'Set Up'". LATimes.com. Retrieved 19 September 2011.

Keep – Per more sources listed above that establish notability of the topic, and reliable sources in the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and truncate title to I.Y. Yunioshi. The film character has received enough coverage to be considered notable. Unlikely confusion with the non-notable novel character can be dispelled with a sentence in the article. Lagrange613 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Clarke (footballer)

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Lack of signigicant media coverage means he fails WP:GNG as well. --Jimbo^[online] 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Gray (footballer)

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 21:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 21:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - per nom. He has not received singificant coverage, nor has he played in a fully pro league. Therefore, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RaceRender

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

Appears to be not really notable. Declined CSD G11 by User:Ironholds. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of sources to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches turn up lots of download links but no coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BlueXephos

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

Declined CSD A7. However there may be notability issues but I feel more opinions are needed. I have no stance on the article itself and just doing this procedurally. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: one other thing though, if it is kept, it will have to be rewritten rather hardcore. Kwsn (Ni!) 21:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find any reliable sources for this. Pburka (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a preliminary search shows no notability or reliable sources whatsoever. OSborn^arf_contribs. 03:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one who tagged it as A7. Youtube is not a claim of significance. →Σ τ c. 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like self-promotion, no evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Do not have time to source this out as much as I would like, but "Yogscast" generated 1.4 million Google hits. That alone makes me think there might be something here. Regardless, it must be rewritten and is unsuitable to remain in its current form. Trusilver 00:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a fan of Yogscast, but as an article this fails WP:N. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If you are familiar with this Yogcast, maybe you are the one the be in the best position to find sources for it if it is actually sourcable? So many google hits make me think there must be something out there. Trusilver 02:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Ferreyr

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

This person played in a Brazilian soap opera for about 7 months. Although the program has its own article on the Portuguese Wikipedia, Ferreyr does not. Beyond that, the only thing she appears to be notable for is being Soros's girlfriend and suing him. The rest of the material in the article, to the extent it's even notable, is unsourced. All the press coverage seems to be about her and Soros. Bbb23 (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being in a show for 7 months sounds to be a reason to preserve this article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:ENT states that the person has to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." It's stated in the plural, and it's not even clear her role in the soap was "significant".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim above does not accurately reflect the carreer of this actress. She was a child star. She played in innumerable national television commercials and has been famous since the age of 9 years old. See video below and refefence. She played a lead character on a major prime time soap opera in Brazil that was also played in many different countries. This was one of the most popular soap operas in of all times in Brazil and she became an instant sensation in the country. Remember Brazil has mainlly soap operas as a form of entertainment and they are considered a lot more prestigious then then the ones here in America. They are also shorter in nature.

This page does not contain a third of her work since a lot of her work was done when magazines did not have a presence online yet.

By Jane77765— Jane77765 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024790/George-Soros-refuses-ex-lover-Adriana-Ferreyr-1-9m-Manhattan-apartment.html

Comment. This user below Bbb23 has deleted all the references that I have previously included in this page.

previously. See below:

^ Marisol in 2002 http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1222268// ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#her-career-started-to-take-off-when-she-was-nine-when-she-starred-in-two-mcdonalds-ads-3 ^ http://www.bellenews.com/2011/08/12/world/george-soros-sued-by-brazilian-ex-girlfriend// ^ http://www.istoe.com.br/reportagens/118907_GEORGE+SOROS+E+UM+AMOR+BRASILEIRO/ ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#she-already-has-own-business-which-she-founded-5 ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#she-also-started-her-own-charity-6 ^ http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#shes-got-beauty-brains-and-talent-1 ^ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/george-soros-the-girlfriend-and-the-apartment/ ^ http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ex_suit_vs_billionaire_hits_home_1WkMc2LdCpnWCi5DzJ7A6J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Hap791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sources. The sources were removed for reasons and were spelled out in edit summaries. businessinsider.com is NOT a reliable source. Most of what it reports is derivative of other unreliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. The Brazilian source said virtually nothing. The other sources are either still in the article or something like them are still in the article - there are tons of sources about Ferreyr and Soros and the lawsuit. Indeed, that's about all there is about her period, at least in the English-speaking world. Don't know if there are any Brazilian articles about her short stint on the soap.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am leaning towards delete here - I am open to investigating new reliable externals. if anyone can find any, that support more wikipedia independent notability but imy search has not provided them - the subject is a circular redirect on the Portuguese wiki. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source when it comes to biographies but it is a VERY RELIABLE SORCE when it comes to proving work done in the entertainment industry extremely accurate and it was included to prove her work in the Soap Opera Marisol. Business insider IS A RELIABLE SOURCE if this is not the WHAT IT IS. These were written by PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS THAT HAVE TO OBIDE TO THE RULES OF THEIR PROFESSION. This is a major news source that is liable for the accuracy of what they write. SHE WAS A MAIN CHARACTER ON THE SOAP: SHE PLAYED THE ANTAGONIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Reference BellowHap791 (talk

http://www.businessinsider.com/adriana-ferreyr-biography-2011-8/#her-career-started-to-take-off-when-she-was-nine-when-she-starred-in-two-mcdonalds-ads-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Business Insider is not a reliable source. It is a gossip site headed by Henry Blodget, who was banned from the securities industry by the Securities and Exchange Commission. He has carved out a niche for himself with a website that is tabloid journalism for big business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We could live without the caps and please sign your contributions. One of the businessinsider cites was for her starting her own company. It says at the bottom of the web page that the source for that information is Linkedln. Another of the bi cites was for her playing in the McDonald's commercial, and it says the bottom of that web page that the source is IMDb. Ditto for the starting of her own charity. None of this is reliably sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her article...being a major soap star in Marisol is substantial enough to keep this article up... She's a childhood star and I've found her commercial on youtube... In fact, you can find a lot of her work (including interviews and talk show appearances)on youtube.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.13.78 (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — 76.119.13.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Source. Wall Street Journal describes Ms. Ferreyr as 28 years old Brazilian soap opera star--Hap791 (talk)

http://dealbreaker.com/tag/adriana-ferreyr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hap791 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article. If she he is notable and that she was in a latin soap opera soap her page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.109.64 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — 69.248.109.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Article. Not notable. Has acted in 1 non-English language television programme at the age of 19. Has done nothing in the 9 years since.

Marisol (the remake) does not even warrant any information on IMDB. Unlike the original of 1996 its IMDB page does not have 1- storyline section 2-did you know section 3-FAQ section 4-any user reviews.

The cast is stated alphabetically. To see Ms Ferreyr you have to actually click the "see full cast" link. Usually on IMDB if a cast member is a star they head the list. The show managed to gather 16 nominations to a Brazilian Awards Show. Of the several nominations available for the female cast members,Ms Ferreyr was not selected. The show won no awards.^[1]

The only news links associated with the show's IMDB page are those of the Soros / Ferreyr legal situation.

William de Berg (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — William de Berg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to George Soros unless outstanding sources demonstrating her notability entirely independent of her relationship with Soros are produced. Notability is not inherited. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability can be inherited. It is one of the ways of being or becoming a notable person. Look at Price Williams, Princess Diana, Wendi Deng, Monica Lewinsky, Princess Catherine when she was dating Prince William, Pippa Middleton, Prince Harry, The girlfriend of Russian billionaire Alexander Abramovic Dasha Zhukova among others. However Ms Ferreyr has been notable enough without her relationship with George and prior to the law suit. This page has been up long before the law suit and there were no problems before-- she was considered notable enough by consensus. Strange that only now with the law suit this has become an issue. I wander why....????[User:hap791|hap791]] (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Hap791 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There's nothing "strange" about it. Information about the lawsuit was added to the article, but improperly, which was then raised on WP:BLPN. After I had cleaned up the article (not completely, actually), I decided she was not notable and nominated it. As with many BLP articles I review as a result of BLPN discussions, I'd never heard of her (or the lawsuit) before.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The statement: "This page has been up long before the law suit and there were no problems before-- she was considered notable enough by consensus." is a little bit skewed. The article was started on 16 August 2010. Here [4] another editor noticed that this was an unreferenced biography of a living person and placed the appropriate deletion tag on the article. Here [5] the tag was removed. In reviewing the intervening edits [6] it would appear that the concerns of that tag were not addressed, as it was added back here [7]. Looking at the article on 26 August 2010 when it should have been up for deletion as an unreferenced BLP here is the comparison between the tagged version and the version on 27 August [8]. It is still an unreferenced BLP. If that is consensus to keep it, then that is pretty weak consensus. As the article stands now, the only reliable sources are about the lawsuit. There seem to be no other reliable sources to show her notability. In looking at notability guidelines for entertainers (Actors/Actresses): WP:NACTOR she does not seem to meet the criteria. Yes the soap opera she acted in was notable, but that does not make her notable, see: WP:NOTINHERITED. EricSerge (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oppose redirect to Soros - leaning more towards delete than keep - limited WP:RS articles about her have been found/presented - imo she has other notability albeit perhaps not enough for a en wikipedia biography but imo it would be unfair to ignore that notability and redirect her name to Soros. Off2riorob (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per BLP/N discussion about Soros - there are way too many reliable sources to deny that she has notability. Were it only the Soros suit, then it would be mergeale, but she has sufficient other notability to meet Wikipedia standards. (note: some of the reliable sources are Brazilian). World's most notable actress? Nope. But that is not a requirement on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out which reliable Brazilian sources give her notability, apart from the Soros connection and apart from noting in passing that she was on a soap.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, the ones from the past month all mention Soros. That is in the realm of the obvious. They also, however, tend to call her a "well-known actress" which, to me, shows notability as far as Brazil is concerned. And I do rely on the web translation which I do not think afects notability <g>. Collect (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure which source(s) you mean. But if you're relying on only the adjective "well-known", that's pretty thin and fails WP:GNG..--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She definitely has enough notability. Agree with user Off2riorob that it would be unfair to redirect her name to Soros. Best, Bob.--Superbob2 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)— Superbob2 (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. Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest TV Moments

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

Clear violations of copyright as detailed in WP:FU#Text_2: "A complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner.". Articles are offshoots of 100 Greatest/100 Worst, which contains all information acceptable and necessary. (see also previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages as they are also violations of Channel 4's copyright for the reason given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further note This edit rationale, is not accurate. The fact that another organisation has published part of one of these lists does not justify a belief that the material itself is copyright free. The poll results remain the intellectual property of Channel 4 ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell, I considered starting a mass AfD just like this one, only I was distracted by other business on-Wiki and it kept slipping my mind. They're interesting pages, but the nominator's concerns regarding WP:COPYVIO ~~are still completely~~ nevertheless seem accurate. Furthermore, none of these articles meaningfully substantiates the notability of the TV programmes in question, which is probably a strong rationale for deletion in itself. Similar 100 Greatest/100 Worst spin-out articles not listed in this AfD have been (often more than once, depending on whether or not the article was re-created) variously AfDed, PRODed or SPEEDYed over the years. In my experience, "countdown"-style pages such as the ones listed above are also popular targets for vandalism (people oh-so-subtly changing poll results to reflect their own opinions as to which is the best/worst TV show/comedy film, etc.). For multiple reasons, therefore, deletion is seems to me to be appropriate. Super Mario Man 01:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge all The Channel 4 shows are based upon polls and so the rankings are not creative in the sense meant. The 100 Greatest TV Moments example just list the top ten and so this is a fair use summary of the most significant part of the results. The main issue, to my mind, is that there are numerous clip shows of this kind and so there's some scope for merging our coverage. For an example of the notability of this phenomenon see Consuming history: historians and heritage in contemporary popular culture. Warden (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to a footnote at WP:NFC: "... polls are likely to be protectable as well because the parameters of the survey are chosen by those who conduct the polls and the selection of respondents indicates 'at least some creativity.'" The same text recommends that polls be accompanied by critical commentary so as to meet the criteria for fair use. Keeping these separate articles doesn't seem to be an option - the majority are full or partial reproductions of polls without commentary, which seems to violate the fair-use principle. Perhaps fleshing out the main 100 Greatest/100 Worst article with a handful of results for each programme (Top 10? Top 5? Top 3?) and critical analysis from book sources - therefore a partial merging - would be an acceptable compromise. Super Mario Man 19:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That footnote on Unacceptable use, Text example 5 was added March 2011 following discussion at WT:Non-free content/Archive 51#A little different question. The discussion and the footnote state that it is advice from the "Wikimedia Foundation's associate counsel". Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not buying the footnote. This seems to be copyright paranoia which has been added to the guideline recently and does not represent settled policy. What it suggests is that we'd have to delete lists like List of number-one country hits (United States) because these are based upon Billboard's "creative" selection of country music. I do not believe there is community consensus for this. Warden (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with that argument:
1: the Billboard chart is "calculated weekly mostly by airplay and occasionally commercial sales". In other words, List of number-one country hits (United States) is a compilation of hard statistics based on actual events (plays and sales). The Channel 4 shows were based on loose polls of opinions of people who felt like voting and there is no way of independently verifying how much input Channel 4 themselves had in the final results. Therefore, the two cases cannot be compared.
2:That argument in general seems like WP:OTHERSTUFF.
3: It is my understanding that copyright rules (which, after all, are based on the law) over-rule any consensus/settled policy/personal opinions that may (or may not) exist. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a more current case, the process was that a panel of experts selected a short list of 100. This was then voted upon by an online poll and an opinion poll conducted by the polling organisation ICM. The results of the two polls were then combined and the experts broke the ties. I'm not sure that the process is significantly different in the case of record charts, so far as copyright is concerned. There's a process of expert involvement there too - choosing representative sources and determining genre classifications. Neither of these seem very creative. They seem to be more sweat of the brow in nature and this is not a copyright consideration in the USA, where Wikipedia is based.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is very relevant here because it's not a single article that has been nominated but a big bundle. It is therefore appropriate to see what else will be affected by this broad brush action.
The support for this action is WP:FU which is a guideline not a hard policy and so has a fair amount of wiggle room. Fair use is, by its nature, a matter of compromise and discretion not an exact rule or law. I don't see how it makes any sense to say that we can summarise the plot of a story like Harry Potter or report who won the Oscars but that we can't summarise the findings of a Top 100 poll like these. What's the difference? Warden (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Long-time magnet for copyright violations, and the list article contains sufficient detail.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: don't normally like mass deletions but this is copyright infringing territory. The way to summarize these and escape infringement is to incorporate individual ranks into the "reception" section of individual creative works. Quoting entire segments of the lists is asking for trouble from the copyright holder. I don't like how copyright law denies power to consumers. But there it is. Dzlife (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've asked for input about the possible copyvio problem at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup. Novickas (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation's attorney was approached about this matter when a similar list was brought to the copyright problems board, and her expert opinion is quoted liberally in that footnote. I had been working on a guideline at the time we received her recommendation (User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists), but it has not been completed because I could never launch a community discussion about how to handle it. People don't generally like to talk about copyright concerns. Previously, we had always felt confident with limited selection of much larger lists, such as the 10 out of 500 listed at The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time, but she expresses some concern that the top 10 are the most commercially valuable part of the list. Time 100 is an example of such an article that does not reproduce the list at all, but it is easier for that list to critically discuss contents because it is variable. More information on what she recommends in terms of handling these can be read at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free content/Archive 51#A little different question and especially the subsection on "Attorney feedback." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the feedback. I'm extremely interested to see the result of this AFD as it seems a clear precedent may well be set.
My interpretation (and I'm open to correction, naturally) is that these articles would only be acceptable if they were not lists but rather objective analyses of the subject matter (based on coverage and commentary from reliable sources) that contained a few references to poll positions (no pun intended) as part of the overall evaluation. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair summary of her position. Based on her feedback, I would say that the specific article in discussion here makes a poor claim for fair use, as there is little transformative about it. Actually, in the version tagged for deletion, there was no critical commentary whatsoever; the only possible appeal to our readers is the list, which would supersede the original. It is only the top 10 of the list, but, again, our attorney points out that the higher numbers are the more commercially valuable. That said, I have just noticed that the only critical commentary that existed was removed without explanation at the time that the list was truncated from complete to the top 10, here. While not restoring the full list, I've brought everything else back. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under A9. — ξ ^xplicit 22:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shy (song)

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

A single by a redlinked group released by no label with no reviews or indication it made the charts. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close please. Ten Pound Hammer has slapped it with a WP:SPEEDY. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Igralište Kraj Drave

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

A 300-seat football stadium which is the home ground of a non-notable football team. No evidence of standalone notability - rather unlikely, given the statium's capacity. Prod was declined. GregorB (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable stadium for a non-notable team. Giant Snowman 19:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication the subject meets WP:GNG. Given that the team it hosts in notable as well, this is not all that surprising. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep – nominator has withdrawn, and there are no remaining "delete" recommendations. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confident (chair)

~~Unsourced and I doubt it's notable~~ JDDJS (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't WP:VERIFY that this name is actually used for this type of furniture. Pburka (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new version, and rename appropriately. BTW, I've added the old picture (of a tête-à-tête) to the Courting bench article. Pburka (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is generally called a Courting bench or tête-à-tête. We could redirect to the former, but this is unsourced. If there was more to this article, I'd suggest a merge but there's nothing worth moving and what's there isn't sourced. Would anyone actually search for the term "confident chair"? These are also called s-chairs or s-sofas, which are more sensible redirects. Unless someone can come along with an authoritative source using this name for this chair, there's no reason to have this article. freshacconci talktalk 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You're being misled by an incorrect picture. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, had the article's creator had a better grasp of English, xe would have used the correct French name for this article of furniture. This, in turn, would have led people to discover that Britannica has an article on this. If it's good enough for Britannica to have an article, it's good enough for us. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Now I got it. Googling "confident + chair" came up with results, none of which were relevant. And yes, the photo gave me the impression the article was about a different chair. Thanks for the clarification. freshacconci talktalk 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

question— what is it in the britannica under? i just checked the 1911 to no avail, but would like to check the current edition, because i'd really like to be able to say keep to this one (not saying it quite yet, though). — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep per Uncle G's clarification and article improvement. An entirely different piece of furniture. freshacconci talktalk 23:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep— sorry to be dumb, i didn't even think to look at the article again. nice work. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn due to the recent developments, the page should be kept and this AFD closed. JDDJS (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nivedita Jain

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

Not a notable person JDDJS (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article on a former Miss Bangalore[9] who was written of in The Hindu: "Following her debut in the Kannada film Shivaranjini, Nivedita was offered roles in many other films including Balina Daari, Amruthavarshini, Shivasainya, Premaraga Hadu Gelathi. A winner of Miss Bangalore crown, she was on the starcast of the under- production films, Mister Puttswami and Sketch".[10] I think the comparison argument can be made per WP:CSB that if a Miss America is notable to the United States, then a "Miss Bangalore" would be notable to Bangalore, and notable, even if only to Bangalore, is notable enough for en.Wikipedia. More importantly, that same article lists multiple films to have her meet WP:ENT and multiple awards to meet WP:ANYBIO, and the Find sources above shows multiple article that meet WP:GNG.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn due to Schmidt's determination to expand the article to prove notability. JDDJS (talk) 04:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Appreciations on the withdrawal and your instruction that I might close it.[12]. Being the article defender, and having opined above, it is best I do not close it myself. BUT anyone else is welcome to do so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Schmidt, who seems to have no difficulty at saving AFDs :). 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Walshaw

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Choo-Choo

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

Only a short explanation that it's a cartoon isn't enough to make it an article Mbch331 (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a valid stub with plenty of room for expansion. The topic is notable as demonstrated by the large number of Google books hits. Pburka (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the article is short has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be kept or not. On the other hand, the fact that the cartoon is referenced in scholarly work (e.g. [13]) certainly suggests that it should be kept and tagged with {{expand}}. In any case, outright deletion is an unacceptable solution since this should at the very least be redirected to some appropriate target. Pichpich (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all articles have to start somewhere, this was tagged for deletion within an hour of creation! Ϣere SpielChequers 20:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep — i added six sources to newly created further reading section, could have added plenty more (thanks, WereSpielChequers!). this is clearly notable, discussed over many years in many, many contexts. easily meets gng. afd is not about whether there's enough in the article to make it an article, it's about whether there's enough in the world to make it an article. perhaps nominator could look over WP:BEFORE? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — i fixed this up a little, just to show what could be done. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To me, the nominator says "It's too short. Instead of expanding it myself, I think it should be removed entirely". WP:BEFORE and all that. →Σ τ c. 22:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More reliable sources added to article. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Butch Gang

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

Falls into the WP:Notability crime section Cox wasan (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient references to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — it's the same argument as all the others. this is a notable subject because it's covered by multiple reliable sources, which are listed in the actual article. yes, there are no inline citations, but they are not required. this feels like a huge waste of time. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article already establish notability. If you click on Google book search, you can look through those results and find additional ones if you want, but two is all you need. Dream Focus 04:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - established notability trough references.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 dermatome (anatomy). v/r - T P 03:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dermatome (embryology)

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

Very little information in the article. Looks more like a dictionary entry in stead of an Encyclopedia entry. Mbch331 (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article can cover dermatomes in embryo but it needs expansion and reliable source under WP:MEDRS. I think author must be given time to expand this topic Dr meetsingh Talk 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't have to be complete to keep it, but it needs more information than 1 line even to be an {{stub}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbch331 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — this is a truly notable body part, as, almost certainly, are all named body parts (yes, even the Philtrum). i added four sources to newly created further reading section in article, but could have added dozens more. this body part is implicated in herpes zoster and other notable diseases. really, afd isn't a place to say that articles suck, it's a place to say that the subjects of articles make the articles inherently unencyclopedic. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing this article could say that ought not to be covered in the existing article dermatome (anatomy) instead. This article has no useful content, and there is really no existing information that belongs in it. If dermatome (anatomy) was such a huge article that it could not be expanded, then this might be justified as a subarticle, but that's very far from being the case. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More sources in article now. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! None of the listed sources relate to embryology. There is no question that dermatomes are notable enough to deserve an article, but we already have one, dermatome (anatomy). Looie496 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— striking my keep per Looie496. i'm not as careful a reader as i like to think i am, it seems, and i don't know enough about this to have an opinion — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. We have dermatome (anatomy). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to dermatome (anatomy), add info on development and on phylogeny. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Punyamurtula_Kishore

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

WP:SOAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PROMOTION#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, section 4. No self-promotion:

I don't find this physician to be particularly notable, and all his links go to outside sites, some of which don't work. I also find it suspicious that the person who created this article has no other activity on Wikipedia, aside from editing this article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. A GP specializing in addiction medicine who runs a chain of clinics in Massachusetts. Google Scholar results are negligible. Google News finds a few mentions (you have to search under P.S. Kishore - which also provides links to other people of the same name, but Punyamurtula Kishore finds nothing at all). The article contains many exaggerations and outright inaccuracies, as exemplified by this claim: "He began his medical career as a primary care/family practice physician and then moved into a position as the Medical Director of the Washingtonian Center for Addictions, the first organization in the U.S. to recognize addiction as a disease. Their philosophy was an early precursor to the AA or 12-step program movement." A good trick, considering that the AA movement was founded in the 1930s and the Twelve-Step Program was published in 1939. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/09/22/brookline_doctor_pleads_not_guilty_in_medicaid_kickback_case/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.136.35 (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for that breaking news. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that this recent development is not a reason to keep the article. The charges are only that, charges - and Wikipedia is understandably careful about publicizing unproven charges against living people. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symmetry454

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

This topic does not appear to have sufficient notability to merit an article. Google books hits 0, Worldcat hits 0, Google scholar hits 1, JSTOR hits 0. The topic might merit a brief mention in an article on calendar reform. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge (somewhere). The article includes four references from reliable sources spanning an eight year period. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Calendar reform#Proposals. There are sources here, but there's not a lot of material. It could easily be covered in the table there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — it could be covered in the table there, and probably should be covered in the table there, but the fact that it could be covered somewhere else is not an argument for page deletion. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — four reliable sources over a multiyear span more than meets the gng. yes, the article needs work. yes, the sources should be cited inline. but the sources exist and they speak to the notability of the topic. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe others have a different idea of a "reliable source" from me. I had some idea that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources [...] in history, medicine, and science." I note that alf.laylah.wa.laylah has kindly classified this discussion into the science category. If this was a notable scientific topic, it would have received attention in scientific peer-reviewed journals. It has not (the school magazine of Dr. Bromberg's university, while undoubtedly an academic publication, is not an academic journal). Ergo, it is not notable. Or at least is not notable enough to merit an article; Calendar reform#Proposals is probably a good place for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — the specific notability guidelines don't override the gng and this article, in my opinion, meets that guideline. the fact that it's not discussed in scientific journals, if true, would be because calendar reform is a political issue, rather than a subject of scientific investigation. the scientific problems of calendars are generally well understood by this point. i transcluded it over there because it seems like people who are interested in this kind of thing might watch that list, not as a comment on the suitable notability guideline. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hemphill Brothers Coach Company

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently the US Secret Service bought 2 buses from them for 1.1 mils each, as said here and here. The Telegraph also says that they supplied buses to Madonna, Beyonce, Jennifer Lopez and the Pope. These buses seem all fancy and state-of-the-art, AND are being covered by foreign media as well. Sounds notable to me. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable enough to me, too. Enough coverage in reliable places. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Judging from the amount of easily accessible sources via internet, it appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion. This article shouldn't have been referred to AfD in the first place.Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Therefore, I request speedy closure of the AfD, to include the article in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's genuine disagreement on the sufficiency of the sources with no consensus either way. Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Mineo

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

Blurred63 (talk · contribs) nominated as an RFD with this rationale:

This is not a notable person. It is a local musician; the only citations are to local publications. Artists should not be listed unless they have some degree of notability, which this person does not. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 18:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 19:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't sound notable. Local musician, with no indication of notability outside his township. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: the New Times Broward-Palm Beach, the Sun Sentinel, the Salt Lake City Weekly, and The Palm Beach Post. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic (see above). Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Salt Lake City Weekly is trivial coverage as it just a paragraph to announce a tour date. We are left with three non-trival local sources that were generated within months of each other. All talk about how local kid as new album out and where you can see his shows. There is no references or any indication of notability outside of Broward County. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Paul Eric. Hobit (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feararchy

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

No indication that this term has come into common usage even in academic circles; see WP:NEO. PROD was contested by author. Significant COI issues here, as well. VQuakr (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. Google search indicates it has failed to gain acceptance. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Can't find popular use of this term anywhere using Google. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a notable neologism, and one person's pet theory. It is estimated that over 70 to 80% of all American organizations, corporations, federal and state governments, universities, and others are feararchies, subduing employees and contributing to the downfall of the organizations and society. I probably ought to get working on using fear to bring about the downfall of society, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little disappointed that with a handle like that, you're not pro-Feararchy, right or wrong. :) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's comments, a merge doesn't appear to be appropriate. Consensus is to keep the article/content so further merge discussion can happen on the talk page. v/r - T P 03:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Horowitz

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

Falls into the WP:Notability crime section (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article) Cox wasan (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — the sources in the article alone establish notability. this fellow is not known only for committing a crime. he was a gang leader and was written about by one of the foremost criminologists of the 20th centure. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That guideline is really referring to WP:ONEEVENT. It's not intended to block all articles about criminals. Horowitz was a notorious gang leader who was known for his many crimes over an extended period of time. Pburka (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Lenox Avenue Gang. His biography section has nothing that's outside his gang life. The two articles would be better off together. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - See this and read the articles about this individual. Topic is notable per notability guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Lenox Avenue Gang as per Ratibgreat's comment. Off2riorob (talk) 11:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment— after reading a bunch of old nyt articles, i'm not convinced that he was actually a leader of the lenox avenue gang. none of the stories published between 1912 and his execution in 1914 mention this connection, and there's not much about him in material on the lenox avenue gang from contemporary nyt stories. only herbert asbury seems to think he was in it. this is one reason i think a merge would be inappropriate. also, i've rewritten the entire article to emphasize what seems to be the real source of his notariety. maybe you all could take a look at it to see why i think a merge wouldn't be the best solution? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afaria

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

Deleted on 7 June 2011 as an unambiguous advertising or promotion. Was nominated for CSD today for the same reasons. However, a rewrite since June has made it not quite unambiguous. RA (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, written like an advertisement, writer is being investigated for sockpuppetry and seems to have a COI.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, indeed. Although the criticism section gives an air of independence to the writing my (subjective) view is that the article reads like advocacy for the article's topic. Material is lacking which references third parties discussing the significance of this product in its field and making assessment. Thincat (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC) (signing my comment about a week late!)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. article improved - strong policy driven consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty Jackson

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

= Falls into the WP:Notability crime section (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article) Cox wasan (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That guideline is really referring to WP:ONEEVENT. It's not intended to block all articles about criminals. Jackson was a notorious gang leader who was known for his many crimes over an extended period of time. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep — again, i don't see how you're reading the notability guideline. there is not a single crime that made this person notable. he was involved in many ongoing crimes, as attested to by numerous reliable sources, cited in the actual article. herbert asbury, the encyclopedia of crime, and the montreal gazette aren't enough for you? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to this and read the articles. Well documented historical events satisfy WP:CRIME, perpetrators section, #2 - "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous sources establish the subject's notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Davidson

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

= Falls into the WP:Notability crime section (A person who is notable only for being the victim of or committing a crime or crimes should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article) Cox wasan (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — as i've said in the other two (at this point) articles like this that you've nominated, i think you're seriously misreading the notability guideline. this person is obviously notable just from the sources cited in the article. a search is not even necessary. three nyt articles plus herbert asbury makes the guy notable. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like the others. Pburka (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No basis for nomination. See article refs. Request speedy closure of this AfD, to keep, of course. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep northameria1000 are right. No basis for nomination.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. v/r - T P 03:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NIMML

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

Notability concerns per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Suggest a merge with Virginia Bioinformatics Institute. RA (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I don't think a merge is appropriate. Virginia Bioinformatics Institute has sections for the major divisions within the institute, but no indication that a single lab such this warrants inclusion in that article. We certainly don't have articles for individual research labs or groups within a research institute, and I don't see how a redirect for this title would be useful.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nominator suggests though I doubt editorially that much material would actually be warranted at VBI. I do not see notability adequately established but neither do I see any need for the article's history to be removed. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content into the VBI article. Individual laboratories are very unlikely to be notable for the purposes of an individual article, unless they have produced Lasker and Nobel prize winners. JFW | T@lk 08:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with salt joe decker ^{talk to me} 18:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Guidotti

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

This article has been speedily deleted and recreated several times; I am bringing it to AfD for broader discussion. The subject of this article does not appear to meet any part of the notability criteria at WP:BIO, as the sources are not independent of the subject and the those linking to the subject's product line appear promotional, as well. VQuakr (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely, if he were a celebrity, he'd be mentioned in a news article somewhere. Pburka (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits in Google News. Not notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found at Google News. No Reliable Sources at Google. No Reliable Sources cited at the article, just things like YouTube, and self-referential material from a company which distributes one of his products. If the article has been recreated several times as VQuakr says, consider Salting it as well. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A celeb known for his photography, the article claims. I hadn't heard of him myself, but I must confess that my eyes do tend to glaze over when I encounter the C word. I put that aside and dutifully went to his website. There was a link to his photos. This is it. What do we see? No mention of any photobook by Guidotti or exhibition by Guidotti, let alone any critical commentary on the photographic oeuvre of Guidotti. We do see that Trey Guidotti seems to love both Trey Guidotti and people expressing their love for Trey Guidotti. Ahhh. Delete, for the fourth time. Four times are more than enough, so salt. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article was previously deleted three times, the last of which came after I tagged CSD A7 and G11. Subject hasn't received significant coverage. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 04:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "He is a Celebrity known for his product line and photography" What evidence is there that he is a celebrity with limited/no coverage in Google? (Flickr and YouTube are not reliable sources) 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO absent coverage in reliable sources; claims to WP:ENTERTAINER etc. with the music video and the book are...weak is a nice way of putting it. I see that this has been deleted several times; at least now that it's going to be deleted in AfD we'll be able to G4 it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kawthekar High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertisement of school Day000Walker (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to established consensus that almost all high schools are notable as important, enduring institutions in their communities. This brief article has no resemblence to an "advertisement". Improve it through normal editing. Article survived a previous AfD, and I don't see what has changed since then. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no good reason to delete a major high school. Indian schools have a notoriously poor Internet presence and the better way forward is to look for local sources and expand the page from them. Merging into a new umbrella Pahandharpur Education Society would also be an acceptable way forward. TerriersFan (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding near- or actual consensus that high schools are presumed notable and anyone asserting they are not has to give a plausible explanation. I can't speak for Indian schools but in the United States a plausible explanation would be "special-purpose high school lacking competitive sports teams or any other feature of notability common to most high schools in America." If I saw an AfD for such a school in America that had a plausible reason to claim non-notability then the burden of proof shifts back to the "wiki-normal" where those claiming notability need to show it. I assume from the comments at the first AfD that this high school is about as notable as other high schools in that part of India. So I say "keep" until someone can say that this school is somehow different and not as notable as other high schools in India. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sole reason behind the nomination is "advertisement". The article is clearly NOT an advertisement. Deterence ^Talk 05:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing notable about this school and I can't find anything on google about the school. Most of the info that comes back refers to either the wikipedia entry or the entry for Pandharapur itself. At the most this deserves a redirect to the city's page. As far as giving anything an internet presence goes, wikipedia isn't really the place for that. Fails WP:Notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment - no-one is suggesting that we are about giving this school an Internet presence. The point being made is that because of Indian schools' poor web presence Google searches are well nigh useless in finding sources. Time needs to be given for local sources to be researched and added. It is is not possible to say, at this time, that the school is not notable - only after local sources have been researched can we say that. Experience indicates that high schools throughout the world, each of which are a major presence in their communities and directly affect thousands of lives, are notable. If this school was located in the US, because of the good Internet coverage there, there would be no suggestion of deletion. Attempting to delete based on web searches is an example of systemic bias, and this should be avoided. When, as here, an article is on a likely notable subject we don't delete; we tag and improve over time. TerriersFan (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Denys

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

Long-time unreferenced WP:BLP of an artist who fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. A Google news search only finds his name in lists of artists in Utah. The article states that the artist doesn't permit public exhibition of his work, which is unfortunate as that might help bolster a notability claim. The only substantial edits to the article from two WP:SPAs. Pburka (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNR. Not "permitting" public exhibition of his work sounds a bit like spin to me and the nominator is correct that having an exhibition record would help to establish notability as this would lead to actual sources. freshacconci talktalk 17:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even what's said here is verifiable, I don't see why he stands out among a list of other artists. WP:AdvertisementCantaloupe2 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator didn't provide a reason for deletion (WP:SK #1). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Hanoomanjee

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

Better create a fan page on a social networking site. Day000Walker (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Being a cabinet minister in a national government is notable. The nominator has provided no valid reason for deletion. Pburka (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. The nominator has brought this and other articles to AfD within an hour of creation. A Google search shows ample coverage readily available. I'll go through it and try to source the article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link already in the article provides enough proof to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN as a member of parliament and a government minister. RS coverage (such as here and here) confirm notability even if they concentrate on one controversy. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am weary of nominations that do not provide any rationale for deletion or supply any deletion criterion. I wish such nominations could be speedy closed. If the nominator is unwilling or unable to provide an argument I do not see why others should inconvenienced. Good night. Thincat (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author request (WP:CSD#G7). Hut 8.5 17:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bairagimadam Temple

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

Before publishing a page, Kindly confirm first, if It is significant. I think India has a temple on every nook and corner, & most of them read "पर्ाचीन"/"Ancient" we can not dedicate billions of pages on them. Day000Walker (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Print Council of America

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

~~I was unable to find any secondary source coverage of this organisation, and as such it fails WP:CORP.~~ See comment below on why I believe it now satisfies notability guidelines. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a number of independent references, such as The artist's guide to his market, and Handbook of Audubon prints, and Art market research: a guide to methods and sources, and Printmaking in America: collaborative prints and presses, 1960-1990, and German expressionist prints: the Marcia and Granvil Specks collection. The organization may not be widely known among the general public, but it is known and notable among print experts, and the topic is encyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Significance within a particular field might garner a cite within related articles, but significant third-party coverage is needed to establish Wikipedia:Notability. JFHJr (㊟) 08:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources cited above by user Cullen328 and these sources, many of which are quite reliable: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable.- Well, its looking a bit notable after User:Cullen's improvements - I am seeing some ... reporting of the group in independent reports, so I am moving to ~~at least... neutral leaning~~ - keep now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rob. I've continued working on the article, trimmed mediocre references, reformatted bare urls, added high-quality independent references and two external links, and expanded it. I think it meets our standards now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well done, it's greatly improved now. Off2riorob (talk) 09:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done to Jim and Northamerica1000 for rescuing this one. I listed the article without having found the found sources which Jim and Northamerica1000 provided (must not have looked hard enough!), and it is now clearly notable with reliable, significant, and secondary source coverage. I'm happy to withdraw it and speedy keep but per WP:SK I'll have to wait for John to change his opinion too. Certainly both merit a barnstar for their rescuing efforts :) Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 11:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G12 by RHaworth (procedural close} —SpacemanSpiff 19:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talesvara Siva temple - I

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

Whether the article is a test or not remains unclear. At any rate it fails WP:GNG with no references discernible, and by all appearances WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:FORUM. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bharati Matha. See my comments in this AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Elen of the Roads as G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: no significant new content. Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walking in the Air (Hayley Westenra album)

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

Previously deleted by AFD here. Appears to be a non-notable demo album. None of the references provided mention the album at all. Fails WP:NALBUM. Tassedethe (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem significantly different from the last version, particularly as regards evidence of notability. Speedily deleted under category G4 as re-creation of article deleted as a result of AFD.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Hadžić

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

Contested PROD. Concner was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Bosnian Premier. However, as this league is not fully pro, so the fact that he has played there does not grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but is he a professional player now at Zrinjski or is he not? If he is, WP:FOOTYN says he's automatically sufficiently notable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FOOTYN is an essay that carries little, if any, weight. Best to see if the guy passes WP:NFOOTY or not (and yes, it's easy to get those two mixed up :). Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, sorry. I found it linked from the WikiProject's main page, so you might wish to fix that whole thing. In any case, I googled and found these two sources [22] [23] (in Croatian) which seem to say he signed a four-year contract with the club. The exact nature of the contract isn't explained, but it seems implicit from the context that they're talking about a professional player contract. This article [24] says Adnan Hadžić bi trebao biti prvi izbor među vratnicama i sljedeće sezone, meaning he was the club's first goalkeeper for a whole season. All this seems to indicate he meets the (admittedly low) threshold on football players that I've seen applied elsewhere on en:. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't use FOOTYN for player notability; in fact, we hardly even use it for any notability. This player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, non-notable. Giant Snowman 15:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venerate Affinity

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

WP:NN neologism. No G-hits for the full term outside Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Bing hits, either, other than the WP article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Someone's new word for a non-contractual civil union. The ceremony of Venerate Affinity is a social union between people that seals a bond of kinship. It is a formal event in which interpersonal relationships are acknowledged and celebrated. It is not recognized as a legal or economic contract. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I can't find any evidence that this concept exists outside this Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:OR. I'd like to see the inclusionists argue for this one. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. some improvment - clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Higgins

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous AfD resulted in a no consensus. Despite the time given since the previous AfD, the article still has no reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that provide analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional character himself. All that the article has are sources that talk about the real-life actor, such as sources mentioning that he won an Emmy for his performance and sources providing a biography of the actor, which are more appropriate for the actor's article, or sources about the series in general, where the character is only mentioned as part of the plot, still nothing to presume that the fictional character is notable beyond the plot of the series. Because of this, I still see no evidence that the character meets the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject since there is no significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The article itself provides mostly a summary-only description of a fictional work about the character, and this is combined with a small biography of the actor, which is not the subject of the article. The article does not provide a single reliable secondary and uses instead a fansite and tertiary sources to barely reference the character from a plot-only perspective. The bibliography section of the article also doesn't provide secondary sources for the character, and none of the sources in all the article provides reception or significance for the fictional character from a real world perspective, only from a plot-only perspective. Removing the content that is more appropriate for John Hillerman's article, like John Hillerman and Simon Brimmer, and removing the unsourced material, like the Higgins and Ian Fleming section, the character can be perfectly covered in the main article Magnum, P.I.. As it is, this article is an unnecessary split that does not meet the general notability criterion or any other the specific notability criteria, and, therefore, should be deleted as it is still a redundant content fork of the main article. Several search engine tests done now and during the previous AfD, do not show anything to presume that the fictional character is appropriate for a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After researching a bit, and checking out the actual citations, I think the nom is correct here. It isn't that this fictional character wasn't interesting, or a significant part of the series, it is simply that the character did not get significant coverage outside of the show. The citations themselves are not focused on the character, only on the the series, to which the character is mentioned. Since no coverage exists that is both meaningful, substantial and primarily about the character only, then it would appear that the article is an unreasonable fork from the main article. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Magnum, P.I. - where the section about Jonathan Higgins could be expanded slightly. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, a quick look online news finds yet more article from reputable third party sources about the character and how the real life actor played him. I added yet another source to the article from the Chicago Sun Times. This is a very notable character who has had tons of material written about him and his real world connections. Just look here http://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Higgins%22+magnum and you can add a dozen good sources to this article. Mathewignash (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources were demonstrated in prior AfD; the fact that they have not been added to the article is not a cause for deletion. Rather, it demonstrates that the nominator has either not understood or complied with out deletion policy's expectations: sources existing but not yet added to the article is not a cause for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citations that are mainly about John Hillerman, the actor, or about the show itself, are not "significant coverage", per WP:SIG. Being mentioned in an article or the character being discussed, but not the primary focus of the article is NOT "significant coverage". That is the issue. The character has been talked about, granted, but a few paragraphs in an article that is focused on something else clearly fails WP:SIG. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lede of WP:SIG begins, "Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice, and facilitates discussion by helping identify the author of a particular comment." The words "significant coverage" do not appear in a search. FYI, Unscintillating (talk) 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This got me wondering what WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG says. Here's a quote just so we know.

'"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

plus

"Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC) I changed some indentation to make it easier to read. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "Keep" voters might consider shopping for some "Vote Magnum-Higgins 2012!" tee-shirts. (For those outside the US, these tee-shirts promote voting for Magnum for President, and Higgins for Vice-President, in the November 2012 US presidential election.) Opposition positions need to explain how a supposedly non-notable character, Higgins, can be such a strong part of the American psyche that 20 years after the show has ended, the character draws political attention. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Reply Then WP:SIGCOV, which I'm sure you already knew, and doesn't diminish the point. And this isn't a WP:VOTE. It is supposed to be a discussion. Anyone can make a Tshirt that says anything and offer it for sale with CafePress or SpreadShirt, and it costs $0 to do so. I could make one that says "Dennis Brown is Notable", but that is not evidence that I should have an article here. The main point is that in order for the article to exist on Wikipedia, those requesting delete do not have to prove anything, it is upon the people wanting to keep the article to demonstrate it meets the criteria for inclusion. That is how AFD works and always has. At this point, I still haven't seen anyone demonstrate that the character has had significant coverage by any reliable 3rd party, only incidental coverage when discussing the show and/or actor himself. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage exists.[25][26][27][28][29] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SIGCOV has been invoked here as a reason for deletion on the basis that the subject is not the main topic of the sources, but that guideline actually says, "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources presented clearly meet that requirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that, per WP:GNG, significant coverage needs not be the main topic of the source material but it needs to be more than a trivial mention. The proposed sources are not significant coverage:

Book Crime television by Douglas Snauffer: A tertiary source about crime TV shows, which only discusses Higgins as part of the plot of the series, never mentioning reception or significance for the character outside of the show. If this source shows notability is for the Magnum, P.I. series, not the individual character, barely mentioned as part of the plot of the show.
Newspaper Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Apr 28, 1983, article by Judy Flander: Not even a review or critical commentary for the character, only one mention that, as part of a then future episode, a brother of Higgins was going to appear on the show. A trivial mention like this (a single sentence) does not show notability nor does it show anything beyond the plot of the series.
Newspaper The Press-Courier, May 24, 1981, article by Jerry Buck: An article about John Hillerman, the actor, not Higgins, the fictional character. On top of that, Hillerman is the one commenting about the character, which makes it a primary source, unsuitable for notability.
Newspaper The Leader-Post, May 23, 1981, article by the Associated Press: Another article about Hillerman where Higgins is only mentioned once. A trivial mention which does not show notability.
Newspaper Record-Journal, Jul 22, 1985, article by Vernon Scott: Once again a small article about Hillerman where he mentions his role as Higgins.

Check them out for yourselves. These sources are a very good example of the lack of significant coverage that the fictional character has. What these sources show is that John Hillerman is a notable actor, known for his portrayal of a fictional character, not that the fictional character is notable.

What's more, as stated in the WP:GNG, significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion, and without reliable secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about Higgins, this is still WP:PLOT, part of WP:NOT, thus making the subject of the article unacceptable for Wikipedia. If anything, these sources show that Higgins as a fictional character does not have reception and significance beyond the plot of the series. Jfgslo (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I put some of my money where my mouth is. I added some info from the post gazette, since the first ref I found was already in it. It was more than a single sentence. It also helped to contextualize Higgins in the show, which was nice. It's nothing crazy, but more than trivial (it was one para). It kinda seems like you would prefer that the character not be notable, as opposed to being impartial and interested in whether the character is notable or not. I had to look through about 20 fictional articles nominated for deletion to find one that was notable so I knew doing some research would be fruitful, but when I saw Higgins I knew I had found one. I'm 37 years old, so I may know something you don't, but Higgins was freaking huge for a few years in the 80s. Offline sources can probably provide 100 refs. Thankfully more than two are available online.- Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:N notability with significant coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated by Peregrine Fisher. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – See [30] and refs in article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is another case of improve, don't delete: For a television character who last appeared on the air 23 years ago, expectations have to be set appropriately. This isn't John Hillerman writing his own articles promoting the DVD sales of Magnum PI, it is a reporter selecting the actor Hillerman and his character Jonathan Higgins for an interview. It easily satisfies our tests for reliability and independence. The article as written passes GNG. Magnum PI was highly rated show and Higgins a principal character in it for all 8 seasons - that is the claim to significance - and similar claims are made throughout television-related articles in Wikipedia. Note, the only actual primary source for Higgins would be the actual dialog spoken by the characters in the series. patsw (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments of the nomination at the first AfD were refuted, the closing administrator for that AfD has not been active, so we don't know why the article was closed as a "no consensus" rather than as a "keep", but we know that the close was contaminated by a sock puppet. A closer review of the current nomination does not verify that the nomination has advanced a reason for deletion. If the article were "a summary-only description of a fictional work", we'd need to consider deletion under WP:NOT policy, but from the nomination's viewpoint, the article is "mostly" a summary-only description, i.e., the nomination agrees that the article is not a summary-only description. The remedy for the other issues mentioned, specifically notability and a redundant content fork, have as their remedy a merge of the reliable material, not a deletion. As per my statement at the first AfD, "Meets WP:GNG. Google search ["Magnum PI" inurl:higgins "Jonathan Higgins" inurl:jonathan] returns 131 web pages with this character listed in the URL. It is reliable that these URLs exist." Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than notable. There were many camera interviews conducted in the 1980s of Hillerman focusing on Higgins. Unfortunately, much of that video does not show up on Google. A Google search is not the end all be all. See WP:BURO--Larp30 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus that this band do not cross the notability bar. TerriersFan (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Shapes

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

Not Encyclopedic Mbch331 (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's encyclopedic (we do cover band biogs), but as yet of inadequate notability. The Tom Robinson airplay is a good indication of this, but we really need to see released product or at least some notable live performances before they're enough for an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No claim of notability in the article. JDDJS (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did a little research. They do seem to be a working band. No albums, but a couple of songs available online. A blog mention or two. Notable? Not yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Closest to significant coverage I could find was in a local newspaper. At this time, subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 01:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. article was improved a little - with additional external support - assertions and consensus appears to support that the subject meets the WP:GNG (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced SystemCare

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

One of innumerable very minor system utilities with no encyclopedic significance. Fails WP:MILL as the clearest policy-based statement of their non-relevance here. These programs exist. Their basic existence is indeed supported by mention in magazine reviews. However that's all we get, and all we're ever likely to get. Re-stating this sort of basic "parts catalogue" content doesn't add to the body of an encyclopedia.

See WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer for another similar article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Deleters have convinced me on notability grounds. Article has been improved very recently with the addition of references, the most significant of which to me is the cnet 2010 top 10 download list, which I would consider RS. 68 million total downloads, 7th on the overall 2010 list, top of its product category (five antivirus apps ahead of it and a youtube downloader). The Another problem I have with the article is that it's still too much of a brochure--some non-neutral language and non-RS references, such as a company press release. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find it odd you changed to delete. Your keep vote was correct. There is just one delete vote at the moment. Well, if you're going to vote delete, please specify a reason. Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG. WP:MILL is not a policy, and I do not see any other good reason that this article should be deleted. I could be convinced that creation of and a merge with the publisher's page could be worthwhile per WP:PRODUCT, but we do not need an AfD for that. VQuakr (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because notability is forever, sources need to establish, not merely that a product exists, but that it has abiding historical, technical, or cultural significance of the sort that will be remembered over generations and centuries. Software tied to the inner workings of a specific operating system will be hard pressed to meet such a test. Routine reviews establishing that this product is for sale and can be made to work do not establish that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you refer me to a policy which refers to requirement "that will be remembered over generations and centuries"? It is not in WP:NTEMP, this is for sure, and if it is not in any policy, it is not a valid argument in deletion discussion. Ipsign (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This product IS notable permanently. Please see the sources. This product IS modern. In what way is it ancient? Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly there is notability in the article. I'm not sure about the delete voters. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis and WP:MILL. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing about mill here. WP:MILL is about residential, commercial, sports, banks and situations on streets. Are products part of mill? Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill#What not to create. Please see my reply to Smerdis as well. Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: ~~Looks like the delete voters here are clueless and dramatic. They are still voting to delete the page despite my responses to their vote(s).~~ Please do have a look in the article. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You appear to assume that we haven't. The article I read was about a bundled set of disk and system cleanup utilities for Windows XP, Vista, or 7. Microsoft has already set deadlines after which each of these operating systems will no longer be for sale. These deadlines are likely within my lifetime, probably yours as well. This utility suite is one of many similar products. This product just doesn't have encyclopedic significance; Wikipedia is not a software catalogue. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* Windows 7 is the latest version of Windows, and yet you say it will no longer be for sale. Where did you read that Microsoft had said that? How do you know that this product will no longer be for sale? For example, take a look at the PC game Quake, it does not seem to work on newer versions of Windows. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Both these products are like the anti-virus software such as AVG. Would you say that AVG has temporary notability? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This logic doesn't fly per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Ipsign (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AVG (software)'s subject is a range of products, and they're broad enough in total to make some claim of significance. Even then, WP:PRODUCT often favours an article on the company, rather than their product. There is no AVG article of comparable narrow scope to Advanced SystemCare - such an article would be much narrower than our actual AVG, and similarly a target for AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, for what it's worth, Windows 7 has already been given a cutoff date starting in 2015.[31] Dozens of similar products existed for Windows 95 and 98 as well. Some of the businesses that made them are still around, but for the most part those products have been forgotten. I don't see anything that suggests this product won't share a similar fate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this kind of logic; while any subject on Wikipedia now is likely to be forgotten, arguments "I don't see anything that suggest this product won't..." are dangerously close to trying to invent crystal ball; WP:N is much simpler, and doesn't require conjecturing; it is based on 3rd-party coverage which exists right now, and is either satisfied or not. In this particular case (IMHO) it is on satisfied side. Ipsign (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very concept of notability in Wikipedia, from the moment of its introduction, has always been about long term historical notability. As editors, we "attempt to make some sort of judgment" about "the long term historical notability" of a subject. Now, software that's been in use for two hundred years is probably notable. Hell, software that's been in use for fifty years is probably notable. But more recent software needs to show some kind of technical, historical, or at least cultural significance. References need to show, not only that it exists, but that it represents some kind of achievement likely to be remembered. Quake probably has cultural significance, and may also have technical significance.

But this article doesn't make much of a case for significance. And while a lot of current applications will continue to work, more or less, the next time Microsoft messes with the innards of Windows, software like this will be the first to break. It's a product with a certainly finite shelf life. It isn't historically important, not in the long term. It's not a subject for an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to interpret "long term historical notability" as "generations and centuries", do you have any reference to justify such interpretation (I'd say "years" will be much more appropriate)? Not to mention that what you've referred, is neither a policy nor a guideline, and current wording of Wikipedia guideline doesn't include any references to historical notability. It says explicitly: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.". So, to argue to delete the article, one should either say it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, or name one of WP:NOT items. Which one it will be? Ipsign (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to contributors on both sides of this debate, I think that the guidelines for WP:PRODUCT are not as well-developed as for other categories, and I think there are some as-yet-unresolved, ongoing projects to provide clearer guidance that we could use here, if only they were ready. I initially took the "well, clearly there's coverage--case closed" side, but I've thought about it some more. For me, the comparison is to something like today's leading screwdriver. Yes, various consumer sites will publish reports on which one sells the best at the moment and which ones on offer today are the most durable, or most easily gripped, or cheapest, or what have you. But who cares, from an encyclopedic point of view? Did the new product revolutionize the business? Did it spawn a whole new class of copycat competitors? Was it a branding triumph that entered the public consciousness? Did it become a byword for some positive (or negative) quality? As a Thought_experiment, if the company that made this product were to suddenly stop production forever, would anyone expect to find it in well-run encyclopedia the next day? The Ford Model T? Yes. The original IBM PC? Yes. The Aeron chair? Yes. Today's "leading Vista compatible optimizer suite"? No chance in hell. The point is not that it was notable and now is not. The point is that it never was notable. That consumer review coverage was all so much WP:ROUTINE. And I'm sure that whoever is producing today's most prestigious biodynamically-grown carrot, or the "smart" water with biggest annual turnover, or Google hits, or whatever, will hate me, but that's what I think. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so. This product might warrant a mention in utility software or registry cleaner, articles that are even now in pretty poor shape. They remain in poor shape despite the time and energy wasted in the creation of dozens of spammy articles about individual products in these categories. But a judgment that "this is notable software" means that '500 years from now, at least specialist historians studying the impact of Microsoft operating systems will want to remember this particular product by name'. Especially where the possibility of commercial conflict of interest exists, this is what it means to be a notable product. I remain unconvinced. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 13:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis -- it might be helpful to the rest of us if, when you make a statement such as "sources need to establish, not merely that a product exists, but that it has abiding historical, technical, or cultural significance of the sort that will be remembered over generations and centuries", where you are stating what policy indicates, as distinct from your personal point of view. As a sysop, this become especially important IMHO, because readers might be confused and think that you are citing policy when that is not the case. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Effort on this article would be much better spent on registry cleaner and explaining the purpose of this task, in an encyclopedic manner. We're supposed to be here for explanations, not product lists. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the notability arguments above. I would suggest that the content is refactored so it can be included in a List, perhaps something in here (or a new page). I have no objection to the content being included in the encyclopedia but I don't think it is correct as a stand-alone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill (talk • contribs) 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I think most of the delete votes are based on Ihcoyc's reasonings, which aren't very clear for reasonings to delete. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with severe cleanup. IMHO, unlike WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced Vista Optimizer, it passes threshold of WP:N. While Guardian ref is very questionable for the purposes of WP:N (come on, it is answer to question from reader), and alleged ref to WashingtonPost is actually a ref to PCWorld, but reviews by PC World, CNet and PC Advisor IMHO can satisfy WP:N, though very severe cleanup to satisfy WP:NOTADVERTISING will certainly be necessary. Ipsign (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I'm not going to say this is the best article ever written - but I have done quite a bit of investigation on the topic as the article creator is one of my mentees. Quite simply, I think there is clearly enough to meet our notability guidelines. I think Ihcoyc has it backwards - notability is not something that can be lost but we don't have to prove that something will be used and popular in coming years. Indeed if it's notable now, in 10 years it will still be notable as something that was notable 10 years ago (if that makes sense). A program that is the most popular of it's kind (as mentioned above), reviewed multiple times in reliable sources is notable. I should also point out that WP:MILL is firstly an essay (as opposed to WP:NOT and WP:GNG) and secondly just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it CANNOT be notable - which this product clearly is. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly notable and encyclopedic article about a major software suite. If ASC really is "One of innumerable very minor system utilities" why is ASC the only named optimizer that the PC mag review of AVO makes a comparison to? If the nom can name even three vista compatible optimizer suites with greater coverage I'll eat my hat. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very far from "a major software suite". It doesn't do anything of primary usefulness. You might buy a PC to run Office or Corel Draw, but would you buy a PC just to run this program? It's just one of those annoying little extras that Windows collects to keep it running. There's a toilet brush in my bathroom, but I did not build a bathroom just as a place to keep toilet brushes. Registry cleaners are like WP Admins - they're useful, indeed necessary, to keep things running smoothly, but it's a mistake to see the function of WP primarily to be a place to exercise adminship. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per keep voters. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources in the article confirm it's notability. Betanews reviews it[32], CNET had one of their paid editing staff review it [33] Yahoo news has an article about it [34] titled IObit’s Advanced SystemCare Surpasses 130 Million Downloads, Staking Claim as Most Downloaded PC Care Tool Available Today Dream Focus 12:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the last six keeps in a row, and the above discussion. Meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Vista Optimizer

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

One of innumerable very minor system utilities with no encyclopedic significance. Fails WP:MILL as the clearest policy-based statement of their non-relevance here. These programs exist. Their basic existence is indeed supported by mention in magazine reviews. However that's all we get, and all we're ever likely to get. Re-stating this sort of basic "parts catalogue" content doesn't add to the body of an encyclopedia.

See WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare for another similar article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:GNG. WP:MILL is not a policy, and I do not see any other good reason that this article should be deleted. I could be convinced that creation of and a merge with the publisher's page could be worthwhile per WP:PRODUCT, but we do not need an AfD for that. VQuakr (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because notability is forever, sources need to establish, not merely that a product exists, but that it has abiding historical, technical, or cultural significance of the sort that will be remembered over generations and centuries. Software tied to the inner workings of a specific operating system will be hard pressed to meet such a test. Routine reviews establishing that this product is for sale and can be made to work do not establish that kind of significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This product IS notable permanently. Please see the sources. This product IS modern. In what way is it ancient? Thanks. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis, I think you're reading NTEMP wrong. The point is that if an article is notable per wp:GNG, then it is always notable. The point is not that something must be of lasting import for some mysterious unspecified amount of time before we can consider it notable. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NTEMP specifically entertains the idea that a later review of notability my be required through further deletion discussions, going as far as "As a result articles may be proposed for deletion ... months or even years after being earlier considered.", it isn't saying your version of "one it's notable per GNG it is always notable", merely that continual coverage isn't a requirement --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See my comment in WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare regarding the notability. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as for SystemCare. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same to my reply to your vote in WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 22:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: ~~Looks like the delete voters here are clueless and dramatic. They are still voting to delete the page despite my responses to their vote(s).~~ Please do have a look in the article. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 00:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see my newer comments in WP:Articles for deletion/Advanced SystemCare. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's analyze sources which establish WP:N. As of now, there are 5 references in the article. 1st is WP:SPS, clearly doesn't count for WP:N purposes. Second is PCMag, recognized WP:RS. The rest (software.informer, registercleanerstested, and ciol), are merely affiliate sites, and IMHO clearly don't qualify as WP:RS. So, we have only one WP:RS to justify notability, and it clearly falls short of multiple sources requirement of WP:N. Verdict: delete. Ipsign (talk) 13:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One reliable source is sufficient for an article to show its notability. Could you explain how the rest aren't reliable sources though? And by the way, not all sources are perfect sources. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst this isn't the major question at issue here, for your future information WP:N states "Multiple sources are generally expected." This isn't a blanket ban to inclusion of topics with only a single source, but it would generally be seen as a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it means more that sources that can prove the article's notability, using secondary sources. That means the source doesn't have to be 100% reliable, though it needs at least some reliability, but to prove the subject's reliability. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep source 2 is clearly a RS. 3 and 4 would seem to be also. 1 isn't and 5 looks like a press release. Looks over the bar of WP:N, but just barely. A merge into a joint article on the different registry cleaners/optimizers would probably be ideal but AFAIK there is no such article. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it all hinges on the question if #3/#4 are WP:RS, but IMHO they are not; they look much more like typical affiliate sites which will write just about everything to get share of the sale which comes through their site; if so, they don't qualify as WP:RS (information of affiliates is always WP:PROMO). Ipsign (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say that [35] is pretty balanced for something being used as a promo piece. The site does look like it may well be centered on pushing one product (not this one), but the review looks reasonable, maybe even negative. Hobit (talk) 08:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the review is negative, but the site which shows it, is built to push something, it shouldn't be considered as WP:RS for WP:N purposes (they write about the product not because they think that the product is worth mentioning, but because of some other reasons). From other point of view: how long it would take to build such a pseudo-review site to get a dozen of products included into Wikipedia? It is not WP:V and not WP:RS. 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If the sources are advertising, it is fine. But the Wikipedia article must not advertise. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how avertising sources can be considered WP:RS, especially when it concerns notability. Ipsign (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:RS not to use advertising sources? And because the sources are explaining the importance about this product, they do indicate notability. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say in WP:RS not to use advertising sources?

That would be Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources, "promotional in nature" Andy Dingley (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the notability arguments above. I would suggest that the content is refactored so it can be included in a List, perhaps something in here (or a new page). I have no objection to the content being included in the encyclopedia but I don't think it is correct as a stand-alone article. --Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' The article was created by one of my mentees, and appears to be well enough sourced to meet our notability guidelines. I should also point out that WP:MILL is firstly an essay (as opposed to WP:NOT and WP:GNG) and secondly just because something is commonplace doesn't mean it CANNOT be notable - which this product appears to be. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable and important software suite. Id agree with Hobit that we have substantial coverage in three independent and reliable sources (PC Mag, software informer and registrycleanertested). Additional sources have now been added - such is the notability of the suite that the PC Mag review was syndicated in full to Washington Post! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a fifth source, looks like an IP editor chanced upon the article and mistakenly "consolodated" away a review by PC Advisor (magazine) (easy mistake to make as most of the review was syndicated from PC World, but PC Advisor do seem to have offered their own independent verdict.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Washington Post, you could look at it the other way, it's so unimportant the Washington Post didn't review it themselves but bought in content from elsewhere. Realistically I don't think you can draw either conclusion from the Washington Post's inclusion. Regarding PC Advisor - it's the same reviewer, the same review and the same conclusion. The fact that a one sentence summary is offered to fit the format that PC Advisor uses doesn't change it, I can't see how it could be considered to be independant verdict, it's clearly based on the review, with no evidence that whoever wrote it did anything more than read the review. Even if I go along with the view it's adding something, the GNG view of non-trivial coverage isn't met, a one sentence summarisation is nothing more than trivial. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admitedly WP use their own reviewers for absolutely top tier software releases like the Vista OS itself. But from a quick search of various mid ranking programmes (e.g. Crimson editor) they dont seem to review those at all. Also , WP:GNG makes no mention of rejecting syndicated coverage. I remain convinced that both the WP and PC Advisor review confers notability, so IMO this quality article meets GNG several times over. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't say that syndicated coverage is rejected by GNG, merely that they are the same coverage, not multiple unique pieces of coverage. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per keep voters. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 07:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Porchcorpter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC, remember that this isn't a vote - it's a discussion. "Keep per keep voters" will likely be effectively disregarded. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Worm, thanks. But I meant that I agree with the keep voters and I've got nothing more to add. :-) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:MILL is just an essay, not a guideline or a policy. PC World reviewed it, and this review was seen as notable enough for the Washington Post to reprint it [36]. Other reliable sources have already been found and mentioned by others. Dream Focus 12:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - the consensus is that, at present, he doesn't meet the notability standard but, in the future, if he gains substantial coverage in reliable sources he may cross that bar. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Beers

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

No indication that this person is in any way notable. Sources I find do not seem to be neutral or reliable. PROD declined when this article was about a completely different person. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete This is a retired person who seems (per this article) to only be notable for single-issue campaigning since their retirement. That isn't a bar to inclusion, but it's a case that needs good evidence of a substantial effort on that campaign. We have one ref so far that seems to support this, and the phrase "I guess by now Beers needs no introduction," does indeed suggest that he's a big player in this campaign. However how reliable is that source, The Wildlife News? If it's just a shiny website, that alone isn't enough. What does the Sierra Club, Nat Geo, or others, reckon to him?

Personally I dislike WP:BLP1E as it's usually mis-used (as it might be here) to squash bios for poor grounds, so I don't see that as an issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As of now, this person does not seem notable. However, maybe if the page was expanded, notability will be more clear. JDDJS (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete As the creator of the article, I have every intention of expanding upon it to make it more acceptable. I am just getting started on it. Perhaps I should have messed around a bit with the sandbox before posting the article. I will not deny that I am biased, as someone who personally knows (or rather, has met on an occasion and conducted an interview with him) Mr. Beers, but this also gives me an insight as to whether he is truly notable or not. Having said that, I do not intend this bio to be my personal propaganda page. I will try to be as objective as possible and I hope others will let me know when they feel something needs to be improved. And I am not so sure that 'sources' themselves have to be entirely neutral, as long as the particular thing written about the person on the wiki article itself is neutral (like I said, let me know if it is felt otherwise), as in stating a fact, and that the reference, neutral or otherwise, is at the very least reputable and also stating either a fact, or if stating an opinion it may be necessary for the article to note the fact that it is an opinion, as was done when putting 'anti-wolf' in quotes, for example. SakaScotii (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of wheelchair users

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

The fact that someone uses a wheelchair or not is not notable. The list is entirely unreferenced and hence has implications for WP:BLP. Polyamorph (talk) 13:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This list would, if usefully complete, be unworkably huge. If of workable size, then it would omit far too many to have value.

"Notable people in wheelchairs" isn't a good basis for a list. "People in wheelchairs where their use of wheelchairs is in some way notable" would be much better. We don't require individual list entries to be notable (a big justification for list articles, and I don't know of this differing for BLPs either). However we should require the individual's wheelchair use, or at least their impairment, to be significant. I would expect disability rights advocates to meet this, but many otherwise notable people to not do so.

I'm not concerned about sourcing and WP:BLP - whilst important, that's an editing issue, not cause for deletion.

I am however concerned about Dirk Bogarde and similar. Many, many people spend their last year or so in a wheelchair, after strokes and the like. This doesn't make them particularly notable as wheelchair users. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a category As an article it will get too long and filled with non-notable people. Whoever, I think it will be useful as a category. JDDJS (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates makes it clear that Lists and Categories are not mutually exclusive, and can co-exist. WP:LISTPEOPLE contains the requirement (not always followed) that people in a list must meet WP notability requirements ... so the fact that this list contains some non-notable people is not, alone, a reason to delete it. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being in a wheelchair is generally a superficial symptom of an underlying cause: perhaps it would be better if the person were in a list based on the underlying cause. For example, Steven Hawking is in Category:People with motor neurone disease. WP already has several lists on particular physical characteristics, such as: List of people with multiple sclerosis, List of people with autism spectrum disorders, List of breast cancer patients by survival status, List of people with bipolar disorder. (Note: I am in no way suggesting that being in a wheelchair is a disease or impediment: I'm simply naming some other WP lists that are based on physical status). I suggest that the list be deleted, and the people in it should be placed in Lists or Categories that represent any underlying status. --Noleander (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as being too indiscriminate, lacking any rationale for why 'being in a wheelchair' is notable itself, and for a lack of proper criteria on inclusion (what about people who used a a wheelchair for 6 months? etc.). And yes, full of BLP concerns. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with List of bicycle users, List of contact lens wearers and List of people who wear hats. Oh, we don't have those, so just this one to delete then.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From the time I first saw it this article annoyed me because of its imprecise name. Any attempt to make the name more accurate will be very difficult to resolve, as hinted at above. This is NOT the best way to highlight that a lot of people use wheelchairs. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just another list of random stuff. As someone with a personal interest in disability rights (I am in fact a wheelchair user) "I have a dream" that someday the fact that someone uses a wheelchair would be completely unremarkable. Roger (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a tough one. Being in a wheelchair is a definable characteristic, and some people are known primarily as being in a wheelchair. How many wheelchair-users have biographies on Wikipedia? If the number was small and significant enough, then I could see this being functional at least as a category. But if the number is too large to be wieldy, then we shouldn't have an article or a category, per some of the responses above. Them From Space 20:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you provide examples for people who are known primarily for as being in a wheelchair? Because I'm not convinced that statement is true, there are so many people that use wheelchairs, if it was notable then the old lady down the street that has to use one because of their stroke deserves an article. I know there are some people who may not have achieved what they achieved without being disabled (paralympians for example) but no one who's notability is defined solely by their wheelchair use.Polyamorph (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the statement: "Being in a wheelchair is a definable characteristic" - definable does not equal "worthy of making a list on WP about it". If that was the case we should immediately start making lists of people who wear spectactles or have red hair or big boobs or... Roger (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hawking is not primarily known for being in a wheelchair. but his use of one is discussed very extensively in all works about him, and is one of his distinctive characteristics. Ditto for Franklin Roosevelt. There is no need for it to be the primary feature of notability, just an important one relating to their notability as discussed in sources. To pick one of thousands of examples, Canadian artists, for =example, are known primarily for being artists, not for being in Canada. If sources discuss it in a significant way, it's sufficient. Two is enough to start a list.(and a category, but a list can give identification). Now, here's some proof that it's a distinctive characteristic: Think of a famous person in a wheelchair. Do you think of any particular person? Probably you do. They're the ones who belong on the list. As for referencing, there are, for example, books about FDR & this topic exactly: first one I found is (Davis W Houck; Amos Kiewe, FDR's body politics : the rhetoric of disability, Texas A & M University Press, ©2003. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (A10) by 5 albert square. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OccupyWallStreet

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

Why create a page about a Hashtag? Mbch331 (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a Hashtag. It's an idea that got thousands of people to Wall Street, new york. I tried to start the article. I'm not the best writer ever. But if I don't write about it, someone will write it for sure in the future. It's an idea that moving the lives of many people, and it should be in weaknews too. If someone is good to write articles, do it.--Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a trivial group without evidence of significance. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No evidence of notability. JDDJS (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Convert to redirect to Occupy Wall Street, which has sources including CNN. (I would have done this immediately, having found the new article while stub-sorting, but wasn't sure it was permissible while this is at AfD). PamD 07:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Hut 8.5 12:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin G Vijayan,anchal

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

Almost no information Mbch331 (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkin Serna

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

Fails WP:GNG -- Google searches returned a dismally small number of results. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 11:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. The article claims that he has played for Deportes Concepción in the Chilean Primera División B. According to WP:FPL, if he has actually played a match, that would make him notable as the league is fully professional. If it could be verified that Serna played for Deportes Concepción, then I would vote keep. Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence he meets WP:NFOOTBALL, or WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 18:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. Without confirmation that the player in question has actually played in the Primera Division B, he fails WP:NSPORT. There is no indiciation he passes WP:GNG either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club

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

Non-notable cricket club which fails WP:CRIN and WP:CLUB. Also lacking reliable secondary sources. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There would be a case that the club is notable for producing a number of famous players if this was established by reliable, independent sources. As it's not, the nominator's rationale is sound. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, I take Suriel1981's point about the notable players, however even if that was sourced, notability is not inherited so still should be deleted (unless those same sources addressed the club in significant detail). Mt king ^(edits) 04:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of leading cricket clubs in Kenya, and part of the newly created East Africa Twenty20 Premier League [37]. Notable also for being a founder club of Kenya Cricket Association, and is the oldest cricket club in the country [38]
Comment Having notable players playing for the club doesn't automatically make the club notable. The East Africa Twenty20 Premier League also doesn't hold official Twenty20 status, so that league is deemed non-notable. Lastly, age doesn't imply notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verawat Kanoknukroh

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

A Thailand Sci-Fi writer. A Professor in Natural Science at University of Bangkok from 1991-2007. This was speedily deleted as a hoax, but allowed to be brought back. No reliable references in the article or to be found. He goes by seven different names, including from a previous incarnation of the article, the Prince of Scifi and the Prince of Fantasy, so searching is difficult. Among the fake claims:

"the Haunted House,mini Bram Stoker Award Winning 2009" According to the Bram Stoke site, he won no such award.
"Youngever Boy, Costa Book Award 2001" The Costa Book Awards are only given to authors in the UK or Ireland.
"Remain of Flowers, Amazon Award 2010" and "Jazzanova Jukebox Vol.1, Amazon Award 2010" The only award I'm aware of the Amazon give out is the Breakthrough Novel Award given to authors writing their first book and he didn't win it.
"the Orange Story, Nautilus Junior Award Winning 2009" No such thing as the Nautilus Junior Award. But on the Amazon site, it won the "Booker Price Award from the UNESCO in the best children story of good creativity in Democracy on 2004" and is on its 62nd edition. Yea, there is no Booker Price award from UNESCO either.
"Purple Loop, the Watty Award 2011". The 2011 Watty Awards haven't been handed out yet. He didn't win the 2010 either.
"the Dark Telepathy, the Golden Medal for best fiction on 2008 from the Netherlands" Yea, no such award
Don't know how to find "National Award"
Reference and external link to "Orbit Magazine, July 2006" There was no July 2006 issue. Don't think he won the Wine Orbit Award either.

He does have a facebook page and Google profile page Google translate is horrible, but facebook still has him as a Prof at Univ. of Bangkok. Google had him at Chulalongkorn University before he retired. Google profile (at the bottom in English) has him while being a Prof at the Univ of Bangkok, he got his masters in '92 and was a postdoc at University of Sydney in Telepathy, 2008 - 2009.

The coup de grace: The book How to make money from ebook. Click on the page, it is well worth it. Bgwhite (talk) Bgwhite (talk) 08:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax - pretty much speediable, but worth persisting with the AfD to get a community decision. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - My research cannot confirm any of the information in the article. Appears to be a hoax. --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The person, at least, is real. Has a biography at website of Praphansarn, a major publisher, and listed as author of numerous entries in online bookshops and libraries (e.g. Chulalongkorn University Library catalogue [39]) --Paul_012 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May not be an outright hoax, but too many WP:V problems here. Nsk92 (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person, vanity article. Keb25 (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have stubbified the article, which should solve hoax and verifiability issues. Notability remains to be established. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew when refs were found DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis corpse

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

No indication of WP:Notability. Fails WP:BAND. Polyamorph (talk) 08:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WithdrawAs nominator, I withdraw this AfD, another user has demonstrated sufficient notability and is willing to source the article appropriately. I'll leave the closure of the AfD to a neutral user. Polyamorph (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Fails WP:BAND per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this does in fact pass WP:BAND. See my response below. Brian Reading (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - I helped make this article with a working version that another user made. I believe the band is certainly notable enough to keep this article, and I am wondering what I need to add to pass the notability requirements. They have toured the world twice now and completed at least 3 headlining U.S. tours. I can provide links about those tours. In addition, at least two of the band members are in independently notable bands - Municipal Waste and Battlemaster. Although a page for Battlemaster has not been made yet, I believe it would pass the notability requirements. -- Zppdppd (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG and supply some sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources. The article must also satisfy the criteria in WP:BAND, I see no evidence that it does but feel free to prove me wrong and provide sources.Polyamorph (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band does not fail WP:BAND, and is notable in its own right for the following reasons:

Cannabis Corpse Has been the subject of many articles published by sources including Blabbermouth.net, Metal Hammer magazine, and Decibel magazine which are all reliable independent sources (See here, here, and here for examples if you're interested).
The band has appeared in the notable film In the Loop.
One of the members is Philip Hall, who is also a member of the band Municipal Waste. That band has been signed to a major label (Earache Records), and is considered to be a prominent band from its area (Richmond, Virginia).
The band has toured with other major bands including Hate Eternal, Vital Remains, and Origin.

I am aware that some of the criteria I listed are not primary reasons for inclusion, but also provide some secondary merit. The primary key here is that this band does in fact pass WP:BAND. --Brian Reading (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself doesn't give any indication of notability or that the band satisifes WP:BAND, but if you want to edit the article to add some of the references that you've found to prove how it does satisfy that criteria then great. Polyamorph (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding these references soon. In the meantime, it would be inappropriate to still be advocating a deletion. The article's content on Wikipedia is not the measure for whether a band passes WP:BAND. Honestly, the only way I think you can say this doesn't pass WP:BAND at this point is if you're trying to claim that those are not reliable sources, but you will have a difficult time with that. I am definitely surprised that you are taking this stance. --Brian Reading (talk) 13:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are only rather trivial mentions of the band. There's nothing that suggests to me that they are really anything significant. But as I said before I'm happy to be proven wrong. Out of the 12 criteria on WP:BAND, how many (and which ones) would you say the band satisfies? And if you can provide sources that specifically prove that they meet those criteria then I will withdraw the nomination. But as of now I don't see it, sorry. Polyamorph (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly disagree. These sources are not simply trivial mentions of the band. Did you not read the Decibal article I presented? What about this one from Blabbermouth.net? Here's another from the June 2011 issue of Thrasher magazine. Under which criterion does this subject meet WP:BAND? While other criteria could be argued, the first one is definitely met: "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." This is sufficient for inclusion. --Brian Reading (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll withdraw the nomination (once I work out how to do that), I read the decibal article but being an interview it's almost a primary source? But being in the film I guess makes them notable (I did miss that point, sorry), although they weren't in the trailer, plenty of people have minor roles in films but it doesn't necessarily make them notable. It would be nice if they have evidence of notability via record sales, Mainstream media reports, awards, etc, i.e. all the usual things "big" bands have. But I'm convinced that you can provide some sources and are willing to improve the article so I'll give the article the benefit of the doubt. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider Thrasher magazine to be part of the "mainstream media", as they are part of the BNQT Media Group which is a subsidiary of Gannett Company, but I think this is a subjective term anyway. I do understand your concern about the fact that some of the sources are interviews, but I believe it is the community consensus to treat this as an independent source as long as it is being conducted by a reliable source. As I understand it, the spirit of keeping some interviews out is to conform with not using sources similar to press releases. These interviews are not similar to press releases, and are conducted by industry journalists associated with reliable sources, so I don't think we'll have that specific problem here. As for withdrawing the nomination, I think your statement there is sufficient. Usually, the admin closing this discussion will take that into heavy consideration when deciding the article's deletion. I will definitely follow through with improving this article as much as I can, and I commend your objectivity in this. People like you exemplify a genuine desire to improve the Wikipedia project, and not some sort of stubborn agenda. Thanks. --Brian Reading (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Māori language television channels

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

Delete. There is unlikely to be very many additions to the list. The contents are best to be placed at Māori language. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1: "fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". Warden (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section at Māori language. Then page can be deleted. Polyamorph (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list with only two possible items is hardly a list. Both items are mentioned in the Māori Television article so no need to merge. Although Maori television could be incorporated better into the Te Reo (TV channel) article. AIRcorn (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Merge to Māori language. This stub is a short pointless list that will never expand. Even a merge is unnecessary given that both channels in this "list" (only two channels) are already discussed in the Māori language article. Deterence ^Talk 06:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above. If at some point in the future it becomes sufficiently substantial to justify an article on its own then that can be created. At present that is not justified. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Šiško Horvat Majcan

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

A Croatian actor. IMDB lists him doing a total of 18 episodes of TV. I'm not able to find much else. The Croatian Wikipedia page lists him graduating "High School" in 2003, finishing college and another school in 2010. He also does puppetry and did theatre while in college. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The newbie Franko1212 (talk · contribs) recently created articles for a lot of stuff related to a soap opera Ruža vjetrova that just started airing this autumn on RTL Televizija. Some of those actors are notable in their own right, but the whole thing seems overly enthusiastic and without regard to WP:N. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER Timbouctou (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Watson

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

non-notable local councillor and non-chosen candidate for parliament Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:OUTCOMES#Politicians already makes clear, councillors in large, internationally famous metropolitan cities whose populations reach into the millions column are considered notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN — and, in fact, Toronto is listed right in that guideline as an example of a city whose councillors qualify. Further, the article is already more than reliably sourced enough to get past WP:GNG anyway — and further media coverage can quite easily be added. Accordingly, keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Outcome is just an essay, not a rule, policy, guideline or whatsoever... Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarize yourself with WP:ONLYESSAY. Precedents established by past AFD practice are "rules, policies, guidelines or whatsoever" until such time as you can make a convincing case for why the standing consensus should be overturned, or why this particular person represents some uniquely non-notable exception to a standing consensus. Bearcat (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down please. But err, are you familiar with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Honeyford? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Honeyford's only failing, such as it was, was the paucity of actual reliable sources. This article has many already. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This councillor and councillors for city of Toronto are notable. Many verifiable news sources. EncyclopediaUpdaticus

(talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been around since 2005. What has changed recently to suddenly make it eligible for deletion? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is fishing to see whether people care about these articles. Looks like they do. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just think that local councillors are plain not notable by just being local councillor. It should not make a difference if you are a local councillor of Toronto, Kilrush or Groningen (city). Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not agree with Wikipedia's way of determining a person's notability. I personally could not care less if some impotant people have written about him/her - what matters more is how many people recognize the subject. A councillor in a big city is recognized by many more people than a councillor of a township with a population of 300.

However, since no one at wikipedia cares how I view this matter, I resign myself to the established wiki-traditions. How about you, NOTBW? Ottawahitech (talk) 07:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not Don Quixote, but I do not give up easily. We built an encyclopedia, not a collection of data. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like you do not agree with current guidelines/traditions. But is this the right place to change the rules of the game? Just asking - I have no idea how this is done? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In so far that I think that the rules of the game must be level. Apply the same rule in every case in the same way, not with special custom-made exceptions based on arbitrary numbers. Who decided that Toronto town councillors were notable? The whole community or just a bunch of Toronto-editors/a project group? It is just as senseless as to declare notable every Palestinian attack on Israelis, every ship over 100 feet, every secondary school, every place with more than 2 inhabitants and so on. One day, that collection of senseless data will start backfiring on Wikipedia because it often lacks quality and/or importance. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, precedent holds that the top leaders of major cities are notable. Honeyford shouldn't have been deleted. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. I'll add that the Honeyford article can be re-created once proper sources are added. CJCurrie (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep – Per reliable sources already in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kristyn Wong-Tam

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

non-notable local councillor Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:OUTCOMES#Politicians already makes clear, councillors in large, internationally famous metropolitan cities whose populations reach into the millions column are considered notable enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN — and, in fact, Toronto is listed right in that guideline as an example of a city whose councillors qualify. Further, the article is already more than reliably sourced enough to get past WP:GNG anyway — and further media coverage can quite easily be added. Accordingly, keep. Bearcat (talk) 08:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As original author you have to base your arguments on an essay? Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One needs to concoct a special rationale above and beyond a preexisting Wikipedia guideline, to defend an article that's already entirely consistent with that guideline? How truly, truly odd. Bearcat (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Honeyford? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Honeyford's only failing, such as it was, was the paucity of actual reliable sources. This article has many already. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability (people) is a guideline, not an essay. It says, in part, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."". Wong-Tam has significant coverage in reliable sources etc. Ground Zero | t 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This councillor and councillors for city of Toronto are notable. Many verifiable news sources. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep, as per Bearcat. Nomination is inconsistent with applicable practice. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat. CJCurrie (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notability is demonstrated in the usual way; I don't see a particular reason to make an exception in this case. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat and WP:Notability (people). Ground Zero | t 22:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes notability guidelines per reliable sources already present in the article. Per WP:BIO, notability for people, specifically the section WP:BASIC, “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.” The topic passes WP:BIO, section WP:BASIC due to the availability of multiple independent sources which demonstrate notability and in the manner of which those sources are not comprised of trivial coverage. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon his or her opinion, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are kidding that you use this silly disqualification? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Disqualification"? WP:Deletion Policy makes it very clear that deletion is the last resort. We still permit it without searching, but it's an unproductive thing to do. It's so much more effective to nominate those for which you can determine there really are no sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guruji Shrii Arnav

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

WP:BLP, no real reliable sources. One interview is all I could find. He apparently does some astro predictions that get published in a few newspapers (not regularly). Otherwise, all the stuff I've been able to find are service websites. PROD was declined. Delete —SpacemanSpiff 06:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- BTW, the correct name is Arnav Medhi, the honorifics should be removed from the title if kept. —SpacemanSpiff 06:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete, does not appear notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigger Hills

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

Article semes to be about a rugby player who's only indication of noteability is scoring two rugby caps for Australia. Career spanned only a single season, and he's retired and thus unlikely to gain any further noteability. A google search returns nothing of interest relating to him other than what is displayed in the single external link. Jtrainor (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue he's notable for being named Nigger. hare j 05:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per harej. One two three... 06:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the notability guideline for rugby union says that all Australian male test players are presumed notable. 109.154.66.6 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AIUI, sports notability is extremely low, regarding duration of a career. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Represented Australia in two international matches, the highest level of his sport. Meets WP:NRU. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but move to Ernie Hills as all of the newspaper reports of the day refer to him by that name. Quite an interesting guy it seems, 5 mins searching has discovered that we have a Kiwi, living in Melbourne (not a big Rugby Union place) getting selected to play for Australia, then the next year signing up to fight in Korea! A guy of the same name later played Rugby League in Sydney and maybe in England too! All easily referenced if you search in the right place with the right name. The-Pope (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing international rugby for Australia is enough. Would change the title per The-Pope. Keep the nickname in the infobox though. AIRcorn (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:RU/N, but move to Ernie Hills. --Bob247 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:RU/N, he played at the highest level for a Tier 1 team. But as with others comments move him to Ernie Hills. FruitMonkey (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NRU. Move the data to article titled, Ernie Hills, as he was referred to. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School hygiene

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

This article appears to be either WP:original research or WP:synthesis, since it has only 1 source/citation throughout its entire body (on the first sentence) and the external links touch the actual subject of "hygiene" at a school only tangentially. The one source that it lists as a reference, a book written in Serbian, could not be identified using the ISBN number (through WorldCat and Amazon) nor through the title (at WorldCat) and there is essentially no way to verify the information cited without being able to identify text, nor was any original text/translation provided. The article seems to mix aspects of Public health with School health education and Hygiene. The external links, upon which the article appears to rely as sources, discuss "hygiene" in the context of a larger issue of public health, including other separate items such as water and sanitation (for example, the article linked to: "Water, sanitation and hygiene in schools" here, but this article commits WP:Synthesis by making (for example) "water supply" part of "school hygiene", or by discussing the ___location of building sites avoiding things like mist and strong winds. I think any verifiable, good content, if any, should be merged with School health education or Public health or Hygiene, and this article should be deleted unless proper sourcing of "School hygiene" as an article subject along with verifiable, notable content is accomplished. Moogwrench (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources on the topic other than a Unicef manual. Even with this, it seems that WP:SYNTH was used to build the article. Ish dar ian 05:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please see the Books link above which immediately shows that there have been many books written about the topic with this exact title. Warden (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you will note, most, if not all of them, were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s. While this of course does not preclude their use or the creation of an article with that title, it does suggest that the concept of "school hygiene" as a discipline (which is what this article asserts), is outdated and archaic. This is why I suggested merging any content into other articles, such as Hygiene, among other articles, perhaps at Hygiene#History_of_hygienic_practices. A merge and a redirect might be appropriate at this point. Moogwrench (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Warden. I looked at the books link, and while the article in it's present state still needs a lot of work, with the number of books available the article can be salvaged. The books, however, show how important hygine in school has over 100 years ago meaning the theme of the article would change to reflect this information. That being said I struck my delete comment and I am going to extend a keep to this article, with the caveat that if significant improvements are not made it should go up for a second nomination. Nice work on starting the process, Aleksa! Ish dar ian 20:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is our policy to improve weak starts not to delete them. It is quite easy to find more sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica: "SCHOOL HYGIENE AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION form very important branches of public hygiene in the United States. ... School hygiene may be divided into four main branches: (1) Sanitation of school-houses and school grounds ..." Warden (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. The article is based on medical class book Hygiene with Health Education, regardless that the book is written in Serbian, it counts as a reliable source. For example, on this site, see the reference, it is: Nikolić, M., Kocijančić, R., Perezanović, V. (2003) Higijena sa zdravstvenim vaspitanjem. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva, and this site. I have this book, and one medical-related book is very good choice as source (read WP:SOURCES, a professional book about hygiene). Certainly, I will clean up and promote this article. Alex^{discussion ★} 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Look at Google Books. Alex^{discussion ★} 12:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain what I am talking about in regards to the source. Above, upon looking at Google Books, I wrote that if anything, "school hygiene" seems to be an archaic term related to Physical education and Health education used about 100 years ago, at least looking at the Google books in English (hence the idea of merging and redirecting). It is possible that term "school hygiene" in Serbian might be a current term to describe a current medical discipline in eastern Europe, but it doesn't seem to mean that same thing in English at the present time. The fact is that sometimes things don't translate literally. Moogwrench (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about UNICEF? They say: A Manual on School Sanitation and Hygiene (1998). Alex^{discussion ★} 18:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of my original points, UNICEF has sanitation and hygiene as two separate topics, whereas the article lumps sanitation under hygiene. However, other sources, such as Encyclopedia Britannica may list sanitation under hygiene. It also kind of depends what "sanitation" means, too. Is it disinfection or is it removal and disposal of waste and/or a clean water supply? Moogwrench (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Maybe, the name could be Hygiene at school...? Alex^{discussion ★} 18:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my thinking kind of mirrors that of Ishdarian. This article, if improved and kept, should focus on the historical "school hygiene" discipline as it existed, and perhaps trace its development into modern public health/sanitation/health education/physical education. If "school hygiene" still exists as a well-defined discipline in other countries, then it can be discussed in that context as well. it is just that it appears that "schoool hygiene" is no longer a clear medical discipline in the U.S., but has been superseded by the above topics. Moogwrench (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has its problems, but an editor wishes to improve it. Hygiene is a somewhat old-fashioned term so I would propose changing its title to School health. (You’ll find many 21st century sources for this in books [40] although you could also use the many older sources using the term hygiene, especially when describing its history.) From a 2006 Oxford University Press book – “Schools provide an environment that fosters the transmission of common infections.” [41]. Some communicative disease problems, like polio, are mostly gone but so many others remain, I hardly know where to begin – meningitis, hepatitis, head lice, ringworm, scabies, pinworms, ack. This is an important aspect of Public health, and it’s about time someone made a start on it. I don't see see any other treatment on WP apart from School health services, which is a subset of this topic. Novickas (talk) 00:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I keep trying to figure out if there is a way to make this work. I feel that if we look at modern "school hygiene," we are going to get little more than a redundant content fork of either Hygiene or School health education. Let me quote from the UNICEF source mentioned above:

"School hygiene education is a specific form of the wider school health education. It deals only with water and sanitation-related health problems in and around the school. School health education concerns all activities that promote health and reduce health risks of school children. Hygiene education primarily aims at changing behaviour toward good or safe practices in relation to personal, water, food, domestic and public hygiene." (emphasis mine)

-UNICEF article A Manual on School Sanitation and Hygiene, p. 3-4

--So we already know that this article, at least per this source, will talk only about hygiene behavior/practices in schools, not "all activities that promote health and reduce health risks of school children," as the first paragraph of the article seems to suggest, that school hygiene looks at all threats to the "intellectual and physical health of pupils." So if we aren't talking about general student health education, which would be a fork of School health education, then we would just be looking at hygiene practices at schools. I am going to be hard presssed to say how hygiene practices at schools differ from those in general society. Handwashing at a school is the same as handwashing anywhere else, essentially. Clean water is just as important in a home as it is in a school. So then we would have a fork of Hygiene.

--But, if we look at "school hygiene" from the disciplinary perspective, especially the historical route (since all those books are around 100 years ago), I am not too sure how many secondary sources we will be able to find on the development, course, and decline (at least in US) of "school hygiene" as a discipline that you study and get a degree in. I am sure it would make an interesting historical monograph. Point is, absent secondary sources on the topic, some original research and primary sources (which is what those old books, due to time separation, are; read WP:PRIMARY) are going to be needed (which would pretty run afoul of Wikipedia standards). You have to have those secondary sources to help you evaluate what people like Fletcher B Dresslar, professor of school hygiene and architecture at George Peabody School for Teachers in Nashville and author of the 1913 School Hygiene, were saying when they wrote what they wrote.

--I am not trying to be antagonistic towards this article, but these issues go far beyond the extensive copy editing/grammar rewrite that needs to be done (work on which, I see, has stalled). In summary, I think this has the potential to be a notable topic, perhaps not looking at the modern concept of "hygiene" at a school (which, again, I feel would be a redundant fork) but looking at the historical discipline of "school hygiene" as a medical/educational/architectural subject. I have my doubts, however, about the wisdom of using primary sources written by period authors to generate that article. So unless you can find some good secondary sources on which to base such an article, I feel that I must remain delete, even as the general discussion seems to be leaning towards a keep or at least, no consensus. Maybe someone can address the points that I have just brought up. And I apologize in advance for the long post. Moogwrench (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Resolved
  – Error corrected in article. Alex^{discussion ★} 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Topic's notability is established per reliable sources listed above this remark, and those in the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been targeted for rescue but issues still remain and a major rewrite is probably necessary would either these options – WP:article incubator or WP:userfication – be appropriate? Moogwrench (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Solution is about to be simple — remove poorly written sections (and reinsert them when they are repaired appropriately). Alex^{discussion ★} 13:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RWNJ

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

Searching for RWNJ shows the acronym is used in the titles of some articles, but not terribly frequently. The only sources used in the article are UrbanDictionary and internetslang.com, neither of which are reliable sources. If anything, the article seems to violate WP:NEO. Ish dar ian 05:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fits WP:NEO to a T. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 06:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete every acronym does not deserve an article. Needs to be an encyclopedic topic. W Nowicki (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete neologism. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable acronym. Fails WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horse Holdings

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

Came here in response to copyedit tag, but article appears to be bogus. A Google search returns pretty much nothing but this article. For a 14yo $2 billion company, not likely. Admittedly I did not follow the link to the claimed company website for fear of a malicious site, but a Whois search on darkhh.com shows it was anonymously registered through GoDaddy just a week before the article was created (remember this is supposedly a 14yo company specialising in things like ecommerce and online gaming). No refs are provided for any of the claims in the article, and it's a complete orphan. I'd say it's a fake. jjron (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete — well, i battened down the hatches and sailed off to darkhh.com, and it's just parked at godaddy with nothing on it, not even any malware to shiver me timbers. the other one, youwonit.com, seems to not even be parked, although the registration is older. nothing on google news later than 1896, so i'm guessing it's either fake or some kind of cross between cybersquatting and time travel. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any third-party sources to verify this information. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 15:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Nite Alone...Tour

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

Not notable, bad sources. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable and it does have sources. KopJ (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - They need reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both as per nom, no independent coverage. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Universal Remote Control RM-V8T

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

Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly the most trivial product article yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory for remote controls. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)

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

Fails the general notability guideline. All the sources which cover this character seem to fail our guidelines on reliable sources. S Larctia (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google returns c 422,000 hits so it would appear to meet notability guidlines.FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any particular sources which you believe substantiate notability ? --S Larctia (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
Is there anything in that number that provides verifiable evidence of notability? The number of hits on Google is nice, but does not in and of itself indicate notability. And then there is how the search is run, a result number can wind up including hits that have just one of the words or the three scatter in various places in the article. Looking at the search links up top:

"Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" -wikipedia : This nets 16,100 including wikis, image dumps, and fansites on Google [42]
"Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : This nets, surprisingly, 7,380 on Google [43]
Aqualad Jackson Hyde : This nets 9,040 on Google [44]
Aqualad : This nets 417,000 on Google, but that goes well beyond this specific topic [45]
"Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : Nets 1 on Google News [46]
"Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : Nets 2 on Google Books [47]
"Aqualad (Jackson Hyde)" : Nets 0 on Google Scholar [48]

- J Greb (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Cartoon Network connection alone is enough, but coverage in such arenas as [Newsarama http://www.newsarama.com/comics/meet-the-new-aqualad-100611.html] show real-world relevance. 76.102.53.70 (talk) 06:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Places like Newsarama covering him, makes him notable. Announcements of the character are everywhere. [49] Dream Focus 22:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 part GNG question:
  1. How do the Newsarama and Digitalspy articles show "significant" coverage of the topic rather than just that the topic exists?
  2. How is this notability then shown in the article that is currently all but 100% plot?

- J Greb (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he wasn't notable, then why would so many reliable sources be mentioning him? The coverage is significant enough. And the current state of the article is not a valid reason to delete it. Dream Focus 00:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things

It is hard to say that 2 - all that has been pointed to at this point - is "so many". That actually looks like "so few".
Reliable sources that mention the character exists does not show significant coverage under GNG. Jfgslo is right that simple existence does not equate to notability.
The state of the article is an indication of failing GNG and plot. Maintenance of that if the article is kept as a result of this AfD can become grounds for deletion.

- J Greb (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Aqualad: Without reception and significance, the article is a summary-only descriptions of a fictional work, nothing to presume that the fictional character deserves a stand-alone article. The fictional character has no reliable secondary sources making analytic or evaluative claims about him. Also, there is no objective evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline as all that shows up with a search engine test are several Google hits to unreliable sources or sources that do not treat the character in detail, but there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Existence is not the same as notability and I see no evidence that the fictional character meets the notability criteria as a stand-alone subject. However, I would not have problems with merging content from this article to the main one, Aqualad, although the article Garth (comics) has the same problems and should also be merged there as well. Jfgslo (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge - likely the best result at this point - would need a decent copy edit to stream line the amount of plot retained. If the extended merge is done, the copy editing also need to be mindful in placing wight on the characters. - J Greb (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I agree that there are very few decent sources, outside of promotional material and comic-oriented blogs. But this is a genuine comic book character that has lots of minor references. On the other hand, merging into Aqualad would not be objectionable. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge: appears to have some bare notability. Warrants more time to improve. It would also help develop the other Aqualad article if they were merged. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I myself cannot give an informed opinion, but I accept MQS's opinion as showing where the consensus lies. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roaming Beasts of Terror

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

Unremarkable independent film. No significant coverage, no articles for any of the principal cast or crew. Google search on the title only brings up 43 unique returns. Fails WP:NFF. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unremarkable independent film. No significant coverage, what about the following films listed on wikipedia: (Toad Warrior, Max Hell Frog Warrior, Spanish Fly, Hitman City) and the list goes on and on. Clifford's film seem to have some good coverage. A Canadian Newpaper, Two Canadian Radio Stations, IMDB, An official website and six other newspapers that are not listed online that I found by going to the library newspaper search engine. Also, I've watched his films online and they are still online. His films are playing in over 60 film festivals. I found out his films played at a total of 22 so far. 23:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.135 (talk)

From the research I've done the films have played in 22 out of 60 film festivals so far, they have had an online premiere I had to pay $10 bucks to watch them, the sites say they will premiere for another two weeks only. They will be having a limited theater run in November on the 3rd and they will be released to DVD in Jan. of 2012. 00:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.135 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. With respects to IP 69.168.144.135, I have myslf been unable to find this film as screening at any film festival. When this one does get release, with the expected critcal commentary and review, the article can be undeleted and expanded accordingly. HOWEVER, as as you assert "six other newspapers that are not listed online that I found by going to the library newspaper search engine", we do have other Canadian editors who could confirm the coverage you found in not-online newspapers if you could share those paper's names with the publication date and page number of the articles of which you speak. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another newspaper article on Clifford Allan Sullivan. Here's the link:

http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=2213805591&Fmt=3&clientId=80182&RQT=309&VName=PQD

20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.134 (talk)

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 03:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it and get it over with. There is no sense keeping this movie on wikipedia if your not going to keep it's sequel "Satan's Blood Army Unleashed" on wikipedia as well. It's not logical. 05:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.134 (talk)

Delete - It does have a IMDB entry [50], but does not meet the WP notability requirements specified in Wikipedia:Notability (films). --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient evidence to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). LibStar (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sony#Products. v/r - T P 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony SRS-17

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

Delete per WP:PRODUCT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Sony article, products section. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After merging data, create redirect to Sony article, products section. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge but not to the overall sony section--this is a little absurd for a company this size with as many products--but to an articles on Sony speakers. Listing products without giving substantial information violates NOT DIRECTORY. (I know this is usually used as an argument for deletion, but its really just as important the other way around--making a mere list when an informative subarticle is needed is at least as inappropriate as a long article when just a paragraph is needed. And not including information about significant products at all, as the nom would apparently prefer, would make Wikipedia NOT ENCYCLOPEDIA, a phrase I think I may have just invented. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PRODUCT. Come on, nothing special about this! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 02:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG's solid arguments. Steven Walling • talk 22:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. without prejudice to the creation of a redirect if this is an established alternative spelling Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Idi appam

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 02:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 07:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Or possibly redirect to Idiyappam? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 07:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect any relevant content to Idiyappam. Steven Walling • talk 08:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. JIP | Talk 09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is a merge so out of the question? - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the first sentence of the article contains anything other than a recipe. I'm not sure there is anything worth to merge. JIP | Talk 11:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant redirect. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 04:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is OK if this is indeed an established alternative spelling. JIP | Talk 08:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they are the same thing, or if Idi appam is the rice flour used to make Idiyappam. I asked the original creator on their talk page to see if they can clarify. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant content not already contained in Idiyappam. Doesn't appear to be any difference between the food items in the two articles, as near as I can tell from the limited description in this stub. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netgear SC101

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

Delete. Non-notable product that is sourced almost entirely from the manufacturers websites. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may have been "sourced almost entirely from the manufacturers websites" but after following wp:before it should not have been. Sources now added to satisfy WP:GNG. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleanup, but it clearly meets the GNG. Steven Walling • talk 22:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per availability of reliable sources and those added to the article. It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon content within the article, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think the high rank in a survey by a reliable market research firm is very much a demonstration of notability--I accept their expertise., especially since trade sources thing that ranking worth covering; I'd be reluctant to close keep on that alone, since not everyone might agree, but there are other reliable sources also. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Neighbor Pharmacy

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

Contested PROD. Sources were added but are press releases and/or product reviews. Concern was:Small, non notable trade group association with no substantial claim to importance. Plenty of listings but Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOTYELLOW). No reliable sources (WP:RS) or references that assert notability for organisations per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, sources look decent to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I endorsed the PROD, and I see the same problems Kudpung outlined above. Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 02:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the off-chance there could be any confusion, this is my alternate account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. It is not biased. The organization exists and is quite large if not famous. dml (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note; dml is DavidLevinson, the creator of the article (not to cast aspersions, merely so people know). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Large and famous, or free of bias are not Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, WP:ORG needs to be satisfied with Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant coverage in non-independent sources that doesn't establish notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am the editor that recently included the third-party references in the article, and I did so after I did a search to see for myself if I thought it passed the notability test. A couple of the links started to make me think so, but it was really the J.D. Powers & Associate top ranking for consumer satisfaction in their industry that makes me really think it is notable. As a side note, being a network of independant pharmacies, I think Good Neighbor may suffer in areas such as advertising spending that its corporate competitors do not suffer from; this may contribute to the subject not being mentioned in as many reliable sources. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 13:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think rankings lists are much good for establishing notability unless they would confer notability on everything else on the list (i.e. Fortune 500 companies). It's best summed up here (I trust you can find what I'm talking about). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, barely notable, and article is not acting as an advert nor coatrack. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per ArcAngel. Doesn't meet Wikipedia:ORG notability threshold of independent, reliable, third-party sources with any significance. JFHJr (㊟) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good Neighbor Pharmacy is the largest retailer's cooperative for pharmacies in the US. They do a fair amount of national advertising (I think they even have their own NASCAR stock car). Regardless, while the article has existed since 2005, the reliable sources that have been recently added establish notability under both WP:GNG AND WP:ORG. Gobonobo ^T ^C 01:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per reliable sources now in the article that establish notability of the topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment]- The sources provided are taken from a primary source: The Good Neighbor Pharmacy's own press release. Extensive coverage in independent articles in established news media is not available - WP:ORG is not met. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are three Good Neighbor Pharmacies within four blocks of my house. That fact is not a reason to keep this article, but other editors have provided references and shown the notability of the organization. Perhaps I will add some photographs of GNP businesses for this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. there is sufficient evidence that the term is used the same way in different countries, and is a real subject. I urge some drastic cuts, and perhaps Melanie, who suggested such cuts, will carry them out DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Investigator's brochure

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

Not sure if notable. Sources don't really use the term, and the article is a huge rambling, tl;dr blob of coatrackery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim by about 95%. The term is commonly used in the clinical research community.[51] [52] But this bloated how-to article is way, way Too Much Information. Wikipedia is not for WP:HOWTO. It is so extremely detailed I actually suspected it was copied from someplace, but I could not find anything online to confirm my suspicion (just Wikipedia mirrors). --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without a clear explanation of what the topic is, we have no way to judge whether it's notable or whether the references (which do look good) are actually relevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per reliable sources that verify notability of the topic [53] and [54]. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 01:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a term which is used; however there is no evidence that the term means the same thing when used by different entities. Born to be a coatrack of disparate meanings. I note that the apparent four sources given by MelanieN and Northamerica1000 are actually two, used by both; I could get only one to load and it gave no indication the term was anything but an in-house term there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both load for me, as do the sources referenced in the article. They are from a variety of institutions, including the FDA (US), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (UK), and the European Medicines Agency (EU); all appear to deal with the same topic as the article under discussion and give a non-trivial treatment. --Lambiam 01:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But does the phrase mean the exact same thing at all those agencies? No. Hence, delete as coatrack by design. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "the exact same thing". Do all reliable sources discussing (say) "incest" or "Greek cuisine" mean "the exact same thing"? Surely not, but that does not mean our articles on Incest and Greek cuisine are coatracks, by design or otherwise. All sources here use the term "Investigator's brochure" to mean a document, to be provided for the investigator in a clinical trial, that gives the data (clinical and nonclinical) on the investigated product that are relevant to the trial. It is your turn to provide some evidence that the term is also used in reliable sources with a substantially different meaning, and that the meaning given here is not primary. Even then, in view of the fact that the subject treated here appears to be notable, this would only mean that the article should be deleted, but only that the title needs to be disambiguated to something like "Investigator's brochure (clinical trial)", not that the article should be deleted. --Lambiam 07:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, incest always means the same thing. Greek cuisine is a broad category of foods. Your analogies are somewhat faulty. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that incest always means the exact same thing to all people in all cultures, then please read the first paragraph of our Incest article. It is clearly not even true that all authors require the act to be illegal, as included in our definition, to be considered incest. I did not offer these examples as analogies (which, like all analogies, are not the exact same thing as that to which they are analogous, so that you can always argue they are "somewhat faulty"), but as counterexamples to the idea that an article necessarily becomes a coatrack if not all sources mean "the exact same thing" with the term used to name the subject. These were just two random examples; actually there are many thousands (Agents of Roman Congregations, Executive summary, Fricative consonant, Government, Interval (mathematics), Melolonthinae, Well-founded relation, to name just a random few). Put more simply, in my opinion "I see no evidence that the term means the exact same thing when used by different entities" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Lambiam 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Astonish

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

I am unable to locate coverage of this person that approaches the requirements at WP:MUSICBIO; I only see press releases and trivial mentions. VQuakr (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion was unintentionally removed from the log here. A relist is probably appropriate to ensure that the discussion receives adequate visibility from the community. VQuakr (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MUSICBIO. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO LibStar (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 14:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahan Mitra

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

The article was deleted after being prodded, but then re-created per WP:REFUND. The IP requesting the re-creation wrote[55]: Mahan Mj (Mahan Mitra) is one of the leading topologists in India. He is one of the very few indian mathematicians who are actively working in Geometric Topology. He is a PhD from UC Berkeley. Now, he is the Dean of Mathematics at Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, Belur Math. He is my teacher. If you ask any good mathematician of India (or may be, the whole world, if that person is a topologist) about him, you will know the truth! I don't know why you deleted his wiki page! You MUST restore it as soon as possible. Please do it. As far as I can tell, there is actually not enough here to pass WP:PROF for now. H-index is somewhere in single digits (both in MathSciNet and WebOfScience), there are no significant awards, journal editorships, etc. He is certainly a good and respected mathematician but does not yet pass WP:PROF, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak delete. GS cites start 40, 39, 32, 12... h-index = 7. Starts off well but overall marginal for a mathematician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
delete — a quick look through mathscinet suggests that even h-index of 7 may be slightly high due to self-citation. this is quite normal in academia, but adds weight to the view that, while this may change in the future, mitra is not now notable under wp:prof. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "You MUST restore it as soon as possible"? Why? What happens if you don't? JIP | Talk 09:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROF. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dos Hogares . v/r - T P 14:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dos Hogares episodes

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

Typically, a list of this sort would contain a list of episodes of the series. In fact, it can be found at Dos Hogares (season 1). And if there's a season 2, a list of episodes for that season will be easily found at Dos Hogares (season 2). I don't think both the season article and this list need to exist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the first season article until and unless there is a second season of content. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the suggested redirected target has been speedied as a copyright violation. What that does to the prospects for this article I don't know, but with the possible exception of Stuartyeates' comment the previous rationales may need to be revised somewhat. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really no point in this article now, even a redirect. It severly lacks content, and anything worth saving (which I don't think there is) can be merged to Dos Hogares. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Yadav

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:ENT. With one TV show and one film it may be too soon. Muhandes (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT. --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. 11coolguy12 (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mkativerata (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westbury Cricket Club

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

Though this in theory passes the WP:CRIC inclusion guidelines, it fails the more widely accepted guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:CLUB and should be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 00:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mt king ^(edits) 00:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lazy nomination. A much more productive manner of dealing with this article would be to merge to the parent article—Westbury Cricket Club—until sources can be found, but given the nominator's history in attempting to cull cricket team articles (why cricket teams, of all things?) that would not appear to be on his/her agenda. The club is at least as notable as LIME Sports Club and Boys' Town Cricket Club and a range of other cricket team articles developed recently that the nominator has earlier argued were unlikely to be notable. If someone was willing to put the time in, there is no doubt sources would be found. Cricket is the national sport of Australia and clubs like Westbury who play at the highest possible level of club cricket in the country are notable. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Lazy nomination as firstly a merge is not an option as nothing is sourced, secondly nothing is inherently notable. Mt king ^(edits) 09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but get someone who knows something about Grade cricket in Australia to do a major reworking of the article, expanding it and introducing references. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For historical Australian topics, it's often a good idea to search Trove, the National Library of Australia's online database. In this case, a search for "Westbury Cricket Club" gives me pages of newspaper articles from The Examiner and The Mercury, the two major Tasmanian newspapers. The first five results are easily enough to demonstrate the significant coverage that's required to pass GNG (see [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] and there's plenty more than that). Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are local papers and do not represent significant coverage of the clubs activities. Mt king ^(edits) 21:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next you'll be saying that The New York Times can't be used to prove significant coverage for any subject from New York. They are not "local" – they are the two major Tasmanian papers. By circulation, The Mercury is the 11th biggest newspaper in Australia and The Examiner is the 14th. Jenks24 (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but local papers tend to report on the more trivial aspects of local life, like the fact that "Mr Ri V. Marris presided at the annual meeting of - the Westbury Cricket Club on Monday", for example or that "A CREDIT balance of £8 6s 7d was disclosed at the annual meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club". Are you really saying that the The New York Times would cover the AGM of a local minor league baseball club ? Mt king ^(edits) 22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that both those papers are not trivial and local, but serious, respectable and read by tens of thousands each day. The two quotes that you have cherry-picked are simply how articles were written at the time. Newspaper articles in The Age from that time period about, say, the Melbourne Cricket Club are much the same. To your specific question, I know little about baseball terms, but I don't think "a local minor league baseball club" is the equivalent of an Australian grade cricket team, considering grade cricket is effectively the second tier of Australian cricket, behind the six first-class sides. That said, I think that if one searched through the NYT archives, it would be easy to find coverage of notable sports teams' AGMs in the early 1900s. Jenks24 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not cherry pick, I picked links 1 & 3, I could have picked link 2 "This club has during the past season played nine matches, of which six were won and three lost" or link 4 "A meeting of the committee of the Westbury Cricket Club took place in the reading-room on Saturday evening." or link 5 "A SPECIAL meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club was held at Mr. R. Ingamell's, and was well attended by members of the women's committee and players." to say that these are significant coverage is stretching it. Mt king ^(edits) 02:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean you cherry-picked the articles, but the quotes to show the articles in a negative light. Anyway, as I said earlier, that style of journalism is a hallmark of the early 1900s and how that makes the coverage insignificant, I'll never understand. Take link 2, a major newspaper has devoted an entire article to summarising the team's season – that's significant coverage in anyone's book. Also, we seem to be quibbling over these five. They were just random examples, there are 200 more like them in the original link I gave. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Delete. I believe that this article has the potential to become a bigger article. It is important to the world of sport and thus must be a reasonable article in the Wikipedia society. However, if this article is not improved soon, it will be immediately deleted. --12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhain1999 (talk • contribs)

Comment – Article deletion or inclusion is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not the state of references within articles. Please refer to WP:BEFORE requirements for more information. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. See external links section of article for some of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See also, more digitized newspaper articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can say which one gives the significant coverage then your !vote will be disregarded by the closing admin. Mt king ^(edits) 07:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312163/awards

[1] Yamamoto, J.K. (25 August 2011). "Disclaimers Precede 'Tiffany's' Screenings in L.A., N.Y." Rafu Shimpo. Retrieved 19 September 2011.

[2] Chang, Gordon H. Asian American art, 1850-1970. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[3] Murray, Noel. "New on DVD: 'Bridesmaids' 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' 'The Kennedys' and 'Set Up'". LATimes.com. Retrieved 19 September 2011.

[4] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0312163/awards

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]