Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 August	9 August >

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. Closing per WP:GNG. SarahStierch (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whispering Cedars Baptist Camp

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

Non-notable camp; Google searches yield no results other than pages affiliated with the camp or what appear to be advertisements for the camp, page seems to basically be an advertisement for the camp. MsFionnuala (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no reliable sources indicating notability and I agree, it reads like an advertisement. Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from no RS, makes no claim of notability. If it was notable at all, I would expect verifiable blurbs in local press at least. Celtechm (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability, promotional article created by a COI account RadioFan (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this org has some longevity (factor under WP:NONPROFIT), it doesn't have national/international scope or apparently any unique drivers of media / scholarly attention. 200 campers / year is not a large size either. --Lquilter (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia should not be promoting another fascist Christian organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.134.180.64 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:POV - that statement could be taken as defamatory, please strike it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that there shouldn't be just one person editing this page, If you see something wrong with it, fix it. As for too much advertising, I agree there are some possible promotional phrases, but what's stopping you from fixing them? Wikipedia is a team effort. --WCBCConnected (talk) 00:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We can't "fix" non-notable. We cannot conjure up reliable 3rd-party sources that do not exist. MsFionnuala (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not asking you do that, I'm asking that if you see something that you CAN fix, like promotional phrasing, fix it! --WCBCConnected (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - This purpose of this discussion isn't to determine if there are things to fix. It's to determine if this subject meets wikipedia notability guidelines. If you feel that it can meet them, please share your thoughts here and be as specific as possible.--RadioFan (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything online that shows this meets WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate sources that indicate this meets WP:GNG. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 23:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. The article is entirely promotional in nature (aguably a candaidate for speedy deletion). -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Panyd (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salus Alpha Group

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

The nature of the entire article represents rather a cheap advertisement and is not of informative and scientific character. Essentially, it does lack the necessary verifiability across most topics and definitely does not fulfill the requirements regarding a neutral point of view. Either it should be completely rewritten (edited), based on independent and recognised neutral sources or just be deleted (to give the author a chance to start from scratch). La.margna (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs of Billings, Montana

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

PROD removed. Consists only of links. If not deleted, should only be a redirect to a section of the main article. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I stated with the PROD, the article contains a list of communities that are included in a larger list of surrounding communities on the main page. All the main page needs is links. Might as well cut out the middleman. TheNewKarl (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this has existed for so long in this form. A better option might be to redirect it to Billings Metropolitan Area; Billings, Montana#Surrounding areas might also be best converted into a summary of the metropolitan area with a {{main}} to that article. postdlf (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to a merger. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete This is not a good candidate for deletion. One of the communities on this list, Lockwood, at 57% growth is the fastest growing community in Montana making it a significant suburb of Billings Montana.

Sara goth (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you think merging or deleting this list would affect articles on the communities listed? It would only affect this list, not the articles listed in it, and Lockwood and the other communities in the list can be mentioned in both Billings, Montana and Billings Metropolitan Area. Do you have a reason why this list should also exist? postdlf (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fork of Billings Metropolitan Area. Carrite (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Phi Beta

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

Non-notable organization, lack of sufficient reliable third-party sources to establish notability RHSN (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there might be a number of student and/or LGBT publications used as references but they are independent of the subject and are reliable enough to establish the notability of the society. Others like WRTV are definitely reliable mainstream news sources. NtheP (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is very difficult for a 2 chapter fraternity to be sufficiently notable for a standalone article, and I do not believe that these sources are sufficient.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd removed this from WP:PROD after a quick web search found at least half a dozen good sources, which I added to the page. That doesn't tell me whether they're notable because they're LGBT - but there is enough coverage in mainstream media to indicate they're notable. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on provision of reliable sourcing. While this is a relatively new organization, it has had sufficient "independent" "third-party" media sources to qualify as notable. (There is no gay cabal connecting all gay people together AFAIK.) --Lquilter (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sigma Phi Beta is a new organization that is currently expanding, it has had numerous media sources showing they are notable. together AFAIK.) Jjdavis84 (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - "New" and "currently expanding" does not prove notability. The independent and reliable sources do. There are enough that (IMO) this article would tip its head above water into the notability category. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Eugénio

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as he hasn't played in a FPL Seasider91 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per A7 by The JPS (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marlow Wolves american football

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

Non-notable organisation, (with no attempt to prove notability as well). Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see it's up for a WP:SPEEDY also, and I'm okay with that. Appears to be self-promotion and no independent sources as well. Youth sports teams are seldom notable, and I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2012. SarahStierch (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Rice

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

Lack of notability in light of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politician; unverifiable claims, with few to no independent references (three references are the same, from Tom Rice's website). The fact that the page is extensively edited by what appears to be a single-purpose account also detracts from article neutrality in intent or execution. Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This biography of an unelected candidate fails WP:POLITICIAN and should be a redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2012, where all candidates in the race can be described neutrally. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN; there's nothing notable here (or on a brief search (although as noted in the first AfD the name is a difficult search) until/if he wins the election. Ubelowme _U ^Me 01:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2012 per WP:POLITICIAN. Doesn't meet various notability criteria for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure of what template to use for the Tom Rice article, also the only independent references are from Tom Rice's Campaign website, Facebook and local new sources and those are the main sources of information I have to work with. I wasn't the only one editing the article there was like 10-12 or even more people editing the article .To say my account appears to be a single-purpose account also detracts from article neutrality in intent or execution is untrue as I have been busy with other stuff and also dealing with medical problems, so I had no time to edit other Wikipedia articles I'm trying to be neutral as possible, I'm not sure how Wikipedia defines being neutral. If the article is deleted the it will not be re-written I'll just more on to editing other articles. Sk8terguy27 (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not notable as of now. Hekerui (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb Sprague

book is now in 17 libraries. NYCPubber — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.109.18 (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previously speedied; almost speedied again, but it's survived for a few months so I thought I'd get a stronger consensus before deleting again. Doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:PROF; only vague claim to notability is that a few people liked his book. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to avoid. Hardly a handful of cites on Google scholar for his book. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS, book held by only 3 institutions, no real claim of notability, etc. This person is a pending PhD graduate, the article is WP:SPA-created, and mostly WP:OR, suggesting article may be nothing more than for promotional purposes. Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - PhD candidate, first book published in 2012; not yet notable under WP:PROF. --Lquilter (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no reliable sources, and is not notable yet under WP:PROF. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ph.D. candidates are almost never notable for their academic work; even if that work is highly significant, it's too difficult to tell whether the glory for it should go to the student or to the advisor. I don't see evidence of this case being an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I think that the glory of academic work in a Ph.D. program, at least in non-lab focused subjects, goes to the student not the advisor unless it's clear that the advisor is an expert in the specific subject that the student is working on. But even with a book (congrats Jeb!) at this point there aren't enough citations to pass the WP:PROF citation-based criteria and the position is a definite non-pass. (suggest early SNOW close; no need to pile it on further.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pantheism. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dualist pantheism

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

The notion of "dualist pantheism" is very, very minor ~~and very, very recent~~. There is an aura of possible OR or COI happening here because an editor (User:Naturalistic) is promoting a book Elements of Pantheism, which is used as a source for this article. Google Books shows virtually no mention of "dualist pantheism" in any reliable source. It appears to be a recently invented term (by the author of the Elements book). If this encyclopedia needs any material on this topic, it could be merged into the Pantheism article (and indeed, it is already mentioned there). NOTE: this AfD arose out of a dispute resolution case on the Pantheism article. Noleander (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or improve. I resent the assertion that I am "trying to promote" my book Elements of Pantheism. I cite my book as a reference on Pantheism because it is one of only three books in print about Pantheism and is the only one with a history section. My website on Pantheism (http://www.pantheism.net/paul) is the biggest on the web and ranks extremely high (usually top) on any search for any particular pantheist thinker I cover (search name+pantheism). I did not create the Dualist Pantheism article, which at present consists only of a quote from the main pantheism article, so actually it is already "merged." If it stays the way it is it has no purpose. Dualism is a widely used term in philosophy and there are undoubtedly versions of Pantheism (God=Universe) that are dualistic, ie believe that soul is a separate substance from matter. That is actually not a trivial matter but a central one (eg it affects mind/body issues and beliefs about afterlife). If someone emerges who can give it worthwhile content, then it might be kept. However I have no interest in improving this article.--Naturalistic (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable article, which makes important contributions to the areas of theologyand philosophy. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the five sentences in the article is making an "important contribution"? --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to pantheism until (if) a time when adequate sourcing and information is available. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Using the alternate spelling "dualistic pantheism" I did find a few hits in Google Books (e.g. The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics p 168) .. "dualistic pantheism" being opposed to monistic pantheism. But still, these are very trivial variants of pantheism and do not warrant dedicated articles. --Noleander (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think they probably could warrant separate articles eventually, but at present the best course would be to merge them DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aryeh Yitzhaki

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails all criteria for WP:ACADEMIC nor does he pass the "Average Professor" test. unique Google Scholar hits are few and far inbetween most being just quotes from and not actual legitimate publishing by or on subject of the article. Additionally I could find no clearly reliable sources of biographical information on said subject. Nefariousski (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched various bibliographic databases and don't appear to find anything much about or by Aryeh Yitzhaki. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is rare that people still in the position of Lecturer are considered notable here. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Multiple mentions in books, scholarly works, and news sources; however, none of these mentions pass the criteria set forth in WP:GNG, specifically none of them would be considered "significant coverage".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:GNG. The single source we have on him is too passing in its coverage to be good for GNG, and is also a bit problematic from the point of view of WP:BLP since what coverage it has of the subject seems to be primarily aimed at attacking him. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Andrew Sega. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion Records

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability provided. Albacore (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tried a web and a news search, but found nothing that even mentioned the record label bar primary sources to itself, or other bands casually mentioning it in passing. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does a page at Discogs, another at allrecordlabels.com and an interview about Diffusion Records help anything? --Λeternus ^(talk) 11:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Sega. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Andrew Sega. Diffusion Records is not notable enough to warrant its own article but an argument can be made for its inclusion in its owner's article. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Making Mirrors. SarahStierch (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Save Me (Gotye song)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find anything to meet WP:NSONGS. Did not chart, win a significant award or has enough significant coverage to give it its own article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now to Making Mirrors, the song's parent album. There are some recent blurbs on the song's music video [1][2][3], and older trivial mentions within reviews for the album [4][5]. These alone are not yet enough to warrant an individual article, in my view. Gongshow ^Talk 19:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, as it doesn't appear to to pass the bar, no chart, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:TOOSOON and as per above. Single release not yet mentioned nor has the song charted. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khitai (Conan)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a fictional country in the Conan the Barbarian universe. The article is entirely in-universe, describing only plot points, and contains no real world analysis or commentary. Searching for sources turns up plenty of hits, but looking into them, they are all pretty much entirely plot, and thus can not be used to support any sort of real world notability. Per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:FICT, articles on fictional elements need to show some sort of real world importance and can not just exist as plot summaries, and I'm not finding anything that would really help. The PROD was removed with the rationale that "The article has no references because there is little to no reference available on this topic", and that is a pretty clear indicator that it does not pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article. In my opinion it should not be deleted since Khitai is one of the major settings of Conan the barbarian series. Also it is the major setting of the rise of the godslayer expansion of age of conan. I agree this article has no references but this is because little to no reference is available on this is matter. Just because the sources are entirely plot it does not mean the article is false. Instead of proposing the article for deletion a notice should be put up on the page that the article does not have any references and if anyone can find them they should add it to the article. And Khitai does show some real world notability. I think you haven't even read the article carefully Rorshacma. I invite anyone interested to share their opinion on this matter. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 08:42, 09 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one accused the article of being false, just unnotable. And an article that has no available sources is the very definition of unnotable per the Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG). And I have read the article several times carefully, and I am still failing to see anything that discusses any real world notability at all.Rorshacma (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for a topic to have its own article, its notability in "the world at large" must be proven, and we measure that notability with the General Notability Guideline, which states that the topic must have received "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". For articles on elements of fiction, the policy (WP:NOTPLOT) is that they must not be "summary-only descriptions of works. Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary". In other words, the focus of article should not be the fiction itself ie primary information (as it is in the Khitai article), but on its real world aspects through secondary information such as its development and creation, its reception among the public and critics and its hypothetical influence, as discussed in a sufficient number of independent sources. The current article, as noted by its creator, does not contain any coverage of this kind nor any independent source, and a search in Google Books and Google Scholar didn't bring any signficant result besides primary sources, showing the topic is not likely to ever be notable and thus to deserve its own article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand read the first para it tells that Khitai is inspired by china and the great wall of khitai is inspired by great wall of china. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that trivia is not enough (besides being unsourced) to satisfy our notability requirements.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing even cimmeria, aquilonia and acheron do not have significant reliable sources. Would you delete them too just because of this? No. I advise you to have a little more humility and respect for others Rorshacma. If you want more real word notability I'll add more if you want. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 11:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If other articles don't satisfy our notability requirement there is no reason they should be "spared", and if they do there is no reason to delete them. However right now we're not talking about other articles but about Khitai (Conan) and this one doesn't meet the criteria and is not likely to do so, which is why it went to AfD. Fair enough if you want to try to find real world notability, that is exactly what this discussion is for, but from my own search before I posted my comment, I don't think you will. I don't think Rorshacma has ever been disrespectful to you, you should not take this nomination personally, it's just normal wikipedia process and it isn't meant to be a judgement passed on you as contributor or anything like that, it just means that the article doesn't correspond to what we want for articles about fiction, but it may be more appropriate in other wiki-like encyclopedia like conan wikia. I don't see what "humility" would have to do with this, though...Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the lack of any references whatsoever. --Niemti (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the general notability guideline, has no reliable sources and written from an in-universe perspective. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles on Wikipedia that have no references and as I've told you Khitai is the setting of rise of the godslayer expansion for age of conan and one of the major settings of Conan The Barbarian franchise. And Niemti no body invited you to give your opinion. You're a bully. Just get the hell out of here sockpuppet if you don't want to get blocked again. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reference has been added to the article and now it should not be deleted. Please take off your deletion notice right now. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 08:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you added is not enough, for an article to be notable you need "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" which discuss "reception and significance". One single source used for two sentences is really far from establishing notability (and I think it might even not be a reliable source). Please don't command anyone to remove the deletion notice, that won't happen. You have to let this discussion unfold, only consensus can determine if this article can be kept or not, and for now it doesn't look it's going to be kept, so try to look for more sources and build an article that can meet our notability guidelines. Taking a look at the Manual of Style for articles on fiction will probably help you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also argue that a blog entry on the website for a Conan fanzine would very likely not be a reliable source. At the very least, its reliability is so borderline that it alone is not enough to establish notability. Not only that, but the information that it is being used to support, upon reading the article, is almost entirely comprised of fan theory. As a side note, it may be useful to brush up on reading WP:Articles for Deletion to get a better understanding of how the process works, and the civility that is expected in these discussions. No one needs to be "invited" to give their opinions in AFD discussions, and there is a normal process of when deletion notices will or will not be removed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No it is and it's actually a reference for the whole article. I don't think the article should be deleted now. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not enough to pass the general notability guideline which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikia has some wikis where in-universe adulation is encouraged, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where topics have to satisfy WP:N. There is no indication that this topic has received significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the Cimmeria article. It has only one reference. But it's not deleted it is still there and even the source is not independendent. The novels that had Khitai as a major setting were written maybe back in 1960s. How am I going to find sources about them? Oh one more thing while adding real world notability I have used the word 'maybe' in the article. I didn't state Khitai would have actually become China I used the word 'maybe'. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I'll like you to read the whole article on the reference for Khitai. I know it's long but probably after reading it completely and carefully it would probably change your opinion. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because other articles which don't meet the guidelines have not yet been deleted that you should infer they will never be or that they somehow have been accepted. They just haven't been discussed yet, but with your insistance on the matter I think that will come soon. As for your remark, The Lord of the Rings was published in the 1950s yet a significant amount of critical analysis has been written on it...if you consider it's impossible to find enough research and coverage on Khitai, then it means the subject doesn't deserve to have its own article, which is precisely the point of this AfD. Not every topic can make a good article on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually mean is that these stories weren't popular enough like Lord of the rings and they were written way back even before Lord of the rings. According to Wiki the stories about Khitai were written in 1933. It would be impossible to find an independent source. Take the example of 'The Shire'. It does not even have any real world notability. But it's still there. And your'e deleting this one just because it isn't that popular and has very few sources. Also Khitai is in generic term not a nation it's an empire. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is no one responding? If you don't respond till next week then I'll have to take off the notice from the aticle. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 08:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not responding because you keep on arguing while ignoring what we said or the various guidelines and policies that have been explained to you. From your last comment, you don't even seem to have read WP:Notability. As for this discussion, a week after its start (that is, tomorrow), an administrator will come to close it and assess whether there is consensus to keep or delete the article. You are not to remove the notice from the article. Please read WP:CLOSEAFD to understand how AfDs are closed, and WP:AfD to see how an AfD works.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd also like to propose to expand the result to the related articles of Acheron Empire, Aquilonia (Conan), Cimmeria (Conan), Stygia (Conan). All of them are similarily either completely unreferenced or practically unreferenced (using 1 or 2 unreliable sources), written in-universe, etc. Oh, and copy-pasted from Wikia:[6] This article was also copy-pasted from Wikia (where it was written in 2008):[7] --Niemti (talk)

Comment - Considering the AFD nomination did not include all of those article, and how late you are proposing to add them to this AFD, I think it is unreasonable to include them in the scope of this discussion. You are, of course, free to nominate them for deletion independent of this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see the significant coverage about this fictional ___location that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and edit but do not delete - There are many articles about fictional locations of various fantasy series and many of them have no real world resemblance a for eg., The Shire from Lord of the Rings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaCyanide666 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shire (Middle-earth), while hardly perfect, has reliable third-party sources, notably Humphrey Carpenter for one of the inspirations. You should better listen to all We have very little in this section just yet. You can help Conan Wiki by adding something. notes in every single section of the Wikia original (which at least has no Randomly Capitalized section titles) and "keep and edit" there. --Niemti (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason for conservation. MegaCyanide666's comment fails to answer concerns about notability and reliable sources, fails to provide a single policy-based argument, and thus per WP:AFDFORMAT should not be given as much weight as other opinions here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of independent and "out-of-universe" notability. The other articles, as Whpq said, shouldn't be deleted in this discussion, but could certainly be sent to AFD separately as well. Sergecross73 msg me 15:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Custom Class Loader

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a howto. No need to create a page for every function in a computer language. noq (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - I assume you mean WP:NOTHOWTO. :) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - yes, changed now thanks. noq (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim. The large number of nontrivial hits in Google books [8] for this subject convinces me that it is notable and can be covered encyclopedically. However the code dump in the present article needs to be removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders, where this subject is already covered more encyclopedically. I don't think there is anything worth saving from the present article and merging into the redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders per David Eppstein. The concept is already covered in another article, and really nothing worth saving to warrant it as its own article besides some trivial how to. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this topic is excluded under WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I oppose redirect, as the name is generic and nothing indicates that it only applies to Java: at least the Scholar search link gives hits on C++ and PHP topics on the first page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders. I've never seen the terminology "custom class loader" used outside of Java, but if it is, someone can create a disambiguation page. —Ruud 14:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders. Custom Class Loader term is used same as Java Class Loader but the difference is to loading the Class by developers need only, so it would be better to create section in Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders as Create Custom Class Loader or use existing User Defined Class Loader and merge this article.--125.19.34.81 (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders. Custom Class Loader means same as stated in Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders but rather than deleting redirect with merging the material to Java Classloader#User-defined class loaders would be good option.--Bhanu.pratap1418 (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

redir to Java Classloader. This article is too HOWTO, and too low on encyclopedic explanation as to why one might wish to write a custom class loader. I don't even see much worth merging - certainly not the code examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A lot of debate here, but it doesn't appear to me that a guideline-based consensus has developed. No prejudice towards the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foswiki

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

No secondary reliable independent sources discuss this software. In fact all the sources in the article boil down to primary sources and the papers focusing on particular use of generic wiki software using Foswiki as an example. The article was deleted previously multiple times (though it accidentally survived last AfD). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the non-primary sources even seem to mention Foswiki. Also, there seems to have been some canvassing going on in the previous AfDs. —Ruud 17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What a mess... after reading up on the background of this article this looks like an ugly fork of an open source project that spilled over onto Wikipedia, with developers of both TWiki and Foswiki being (too) involved with their and each other's articles. While it's easy too find press coverage on the forking itself, Foswiki seems to have received little attention afterwards. —Ruud 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Sources (2) and (1) Nuddlegg pointed out below seem to establish some measure of independent notability. Source (3) only mentions in the context of "a fork of TWiki", but I guess not having two separate articles is not really an option either. —Ruud 20:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure that the fact the authors of paper used Foswiki as an example for implementation of a particular special purpose system really says anything about Foswiki itself? If so, are you sure that developers of Foswiki-based project are independent of Foswiki? The only source of another type of coverage among these — #2 — is 3 lines long on Foswiki... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we're dealing with a bit of a complex situation here. It is quite clear that the pre-fork TWiki was notable. Clearly, this notability doesn't automatically carry over to the Foswiki fork, but to some extent this would apply the post-fork TWiki as well. Why favour them just because they happened to have control of the trademark (in practice this of course of is an important factor in determining who will end up being the dominant fork)? I think in this situation it is interesting to note that 1) the forking itself received some press coverage and 2) sources start to refer to "TWiki and Foswiki" after the fork. Again, this wouldn't automatically be sufficient to start having two articles on TWiki and Foswiki, instead of one with some detailed coverage of the fork, but as the two forks diverge that will probably just end up in an awkward solution.

"Non-trivial coverage" is a bit of a subjective term and if these sources are sufficient, they are barely so, ergo the "weak keep". I think it's safe to assume that those source are indeed independent sources, unless you have some evidence to the contrary. —Ruud 22:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the situation you depict is trivially dealt by dropping all TWiki-related information to the article TWiki, including both forks. And it doesn't seem likely to diverge anywhere unless there will emerge any significant coverage of Foswiki, which is naturally in a weaker situation here, as it lost it's predecessor's brand. If such coverage emerges, the articles can be split.

Next, the authors of extensions to Foswiki are not independent of topic, as, well, they develop something for Foswiki. I'm not sure whether I understand what you mean by saying "unless you have some evidence to the contrary": the evidence is the articles themselves. This is exactly the same as establishing notability of browser X by citing the home pages of its extensions: notable is browser X or not, its extensions' authors can't help with it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But then we should be having an merge discussion and not an AfD. Merging the articles clearly is an option, I'm just not sure if that would (editorially, for various reasons) be the wisest thing to do.

Extension developers are sometimes independent of the main project, sometimes not, it depends on the exact situation. E.g. if an academic develops an extension for MediaWiki as part of his research, he would usually be considered independent. I think we're dealing with a similar situation here. —Ruud 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should have been having a merge discussion if there was something to merge: merging would mean writing out differences between original and fork, but this article is a clone of TWiki with minimal changes; thus covering Foswiki in TWiki means searching for sources and writing everything from scratch. It's not the merge.

Furthermore, as Foswiki lacks evidence of notability, I don't really see any reason to merge anything. I see no way the fact that several people described building some wiki-based system using TWiki contributes to TWiki's notability, as none of this works explicitly states (or at least implies) that choice of wiki software was of any importance to their projects. These works are only proof of Foswiki usage, which is in turn a proof of existence, but not notability.

Look at it from another angle: do they provide significant coverage? Do they imply subject's notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, did you really mean this? If an academic writes an extension for MediaWiki, his paper on this extension, containing the sole mention of MediaWiki ("I chose to use MediaWiki as a starting point."), will prove notability of MediaWiki? Could you please explain in more detail? Eg., if project X is forked, does the fork's authors' paper contributes to the parent's notability? If not, what is the difference? If yes, what is the difference between authors' paper and forks' home page? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging totally different discussion, which I don't think we should be having here at the same time. A merge is not going to be trivial due to WP:NPOV issues. (How would we even name the article? TWiki and Foswiki?)

Searching Google Scholar [9], I see—between a lot of false positives—several articles on wikis and enterprise wikis discussing Foswiki. I think this passes—just barely—the threshold for notability.

Regarding the MediaWiki example, yes that would supply some evidence of notabilty. In this case the academic chose Fosdem as a starting point, so I don't see the relevance of your question about the transfer of notability from the parent to the fork. —Ruud 00:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you claim that the difference is in academical status? Academic extension developers add to parent's notability, but non-academic don't? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the difference between extension and patch to the code base is that extension can be enabled on the already built product. Does this difference warrant special treatment? If the authors of these papers submitted code to the Foswiki repository, would you regard their papers as independent of topic? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I said it depended on the situation. This is one example of where someone could be considered independent of the project. An important aspect here is the he could freely choose on which of several existing projects to base is work. If, for example the extension developer, had the expectation of financial gain of increase in social status from additional popularity of the parent project, then he clearly wouldn't be independent. —Ruud 01:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if these papers' authors' code made its way back to the Foswiki's code base, would you still consider them independent? This question is rather vital to discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't answer that with a yes or no in general. If primary motivation of the authors was publishing a paper and in the process ended up contributing code to an open source project, without an expectation of later gain from that contribution (other than their research results), I'd say then can be considered to be independent from that project. I believe this to be the case here. —Ruud 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Needless to say I completely disagree with this point. Next, does the fact that neither of [available] sources claims any significance in choice of this particular wiki over any other? That is: we have no evidence that the choice of software contributed to their research and the "used in scientific research" rationale is valid at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are these sources secondary at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think completely understand you first question. Whether a source if primary or secondary also depends on the context. Without some further qualification I don't think this question is even well-defined (primary or secondary with respect to what?) or relevant (the source is clearly suitable for establishing notability, i.e. that some besides the developers actually know about the existence of this project.) —Ruud 15:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary or secondary to the subject, of course.

Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.

— WP:SECONDARY, emphasis added

As these sources only cover their experience and say nothing on topic otherwise, they are primary. Consequently, they don't count for the purpose of WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The best I could do in this situation would be to say that the Foswiki codebase is a primary source and that the article is "making analytic or evaluative claims about [the codebase]". Thus a secondary source. —Ruud 16:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't make comments about the codebase, they commented on their work. And Foswiki happened to be the part of their work; as well as it happened to be a part of Nuddlegg's work. There is no real difference between Nuddlegg's and their commenting on Foswiki, as all of them are primary sources with the only difference in the strength of connection.

And WP:SECONDARY specifically stresses, that the secondary sources "rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them". In contrast to this definition, the sources Nuddlegg proposes don't make analytic claims on other sources, they make trivial claims on the subject itself. Quite a huge deviation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that branding and development are two different things. Just a FYI as to context: TWiki.net the company has apparently burned through its venture capital and the TWiki founder is out of a job. Foswiki still has the bulk of the development ([comparison]). There has been very little coverage in journalistic sources of *either* tool in the last two years, though most large FOS-based wikis requiring plugin or enterprise functionality are running one or the other of these tools, though the trend has been towards Foswiki among visible internet-exposed wikis. I am mentioning this not as something for inclusion in the article (it would be original research) but to help those unfamiliar with the situation better understand the history and current state of this codebase. The codebases have diverged quite substantially (in the last three years, though Foswiki seeks to maintain compatibility with TWiki. A merge, in my opinion, would not be wise given the increasing distance between the projects. —Donaldjbarry (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does anything of this relate to Foswiki's notability? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the thing that puzzles me in this discussion is: why is there Foswiki article at all? Why did you not amend the TWiki article with history and details of Foswiki? You could simply note the dismissal of the TWiki.net in the article and move it to Foswiki then. Though arguable, such move at least have some sense: TWiki received some notice in the period of common history, and now your project is the only surviving branch. Once this move occurs, the Foswiki article becomes immune to AfDs. Nonetheless, the TWiki article gets copypasted to Foswiki name every now and then, and naturely gets deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All arguments of the 2nd nomination for deletion are still valid 4 months later. The decision was not "accidental" nor based on "canvassing". The decision to keep the article was based on factual arguments provided by reasonable people. Now, external references mentioning Foswiki have been deleted from the main article again and moved to the talk page for no obvious reason. We had a very good and productive discussion on April between interested wikipedians coming to the conclusion that both projects are notable each. I'd really like to see these nominations for deletion to end now and make peace. Thanks. Nuddlegg (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Nuddlegg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I did not see the (large) list of references on talk page yet, thank you for mentioning them. I fear that they have been removed because they contain little substantial coverage of Foswiki, however. As I suspect you are familiar with these references, could you point out 3 or 4 that contain the most substantial coverage of Foswiki. —Ruud 19:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (1) DIPSBC - Data Integration Platform for Systems Biology Collaborations by Dreher, Felix.; Kreitler, Thomas.; Hardt, Christopher et al. (2012) is very interesting. This is a research paper presenting a wiki collaboration environment based on Foswiki, Solr and some custom helper applications. (2) In e-Research Collaboration - Theory, Techniques and Challenges by Prof. Anandarajan, Murugan & Prof. Ananarajan, Asokan. Eds. (2010). Springer. DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-12257-6. p. 215. Foswiki is listed as one of two recommendations for wiki implementations to be used for research projects. Then have a look at (3) Hybrid Wikis: Empowering Users to Collaboratively Structure Information by Matthes F.; Neubert C.; Steinhoff A. (2011). In: 6th International Conference on Software and Data Technologies (ICSOFT), Seville, 2011. pp. 250-259. Foswiki is mentioned as one of two structured wikis. This paper was awarded as best paper at the International Conference on Software and Data Management 2011 (ICSOFT 2011), Sevilla, Spain. Nuddlegg (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What arguments? The sources that don't actually cover Foswiki beyond two-three lines? And most of these are not even independent of topic! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please have a look at all of the references parked on the Foswiki talk page and make your own choice which of these serve as a good source for notability. I just picked a few I personally like best and copied them over here. Maybe that choice wasn't the best one. Still I think that this list provides sufficient evidence. I am not sure what you mean by "independent of topic". I'll keep searching for more material in the meantime. It is sort of hard to spot good candidate references using google between all of these public Foswiki sites popping up ;) Nuddlegg (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the thing - having a list of references on the talk page that aren't used in the article means absolutely nothing. That list has been there for MONTHS and nobody has used them to add anything to the article. Quite honestly, if this is closed as Keep, I'm tempted to archive that list after a few months. I'm hoping to spend some time this weekend at least reviewing some of them to see if there's anything that I feel helps with notability. That's something that the Foswiki advocates should have been doing ever since the last AFD but couldn't be bothered. You want to totally prevent any future AFD's? Use that list to prove the notability. Want to keep having AFD's because the topic is marginal? Keep the list in the talk page and do nothing with it. Ravensfire (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was what I did before completing nomination. My findings are still present in the opening statement. And I did research on this topic prior to this AfD. The fact is that there is no single source that would be in line with WP:GNG, while multiple are needed. And no amount of research will cope with this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there's not much I personally can do to prove notability other than running around collecting other's material covering Foswiki to some sufficient degree. That's what the people involved in the previous AfD have been doing, and I was quite happy with the result. True, there's no better data than more data. Then I've been reading up a bit about the AfD process and the opinions others have expressed when it comes to deciding on the notability of software, i.e. open source software. I see that some of you are involved in open source software too so you probably know the situation all too well. For Foswiki though the situation is even worse: we have some ugly history behind us that technical writers and journalists tend to stumble upon writing about Foswiki. This always brings in a negative tone to the story, and that's the reason, as far as I see, the (press) coverage has been so low the recent 4 years other than reporting on the fork itself. Today, people are simply tired of this old story. They don't want to read a negative story, they want to read a success story about some shiny web2.0 product. In particular the Foswiki community itself is tired of these old stories. This community is active and working hard to improve the product. As a result, it has been picked up by a large user base in the open as well as by corporate organizations behind the firewall. A lot of them either migrated from an old TWiki or are newcomers. TWiki no doubt earns a place in the wikipedia as it is an essential part of the story of wikis in general. Many other wikis have borrowed ideas from TWiki (take Xwiki for one, btw the Xwiki article is more or less on the same level of details as the Foswiki one currently). And TWiki is a substantial part of Foswiki's own history, even more when it is perceived as the only remaining active branch of the fork 4 years ago. With regards to the landscape of other competitors in the wiki market, open and close source, there are not much that are on the same level of sophistication able to deal with so many different requirements when using these kind of platforms for varying purposes. I am just telling you this so that you get the full picture of the situation. This is also due to a decade of developing TWiki, and now is being continued on the Foswiki branch by the same people that contributed heavily to TWiki the years before the fork. Lots of excellent very talented people have joined the Foswiki project meanwhile that weren't involved in the fork those days. Now, I almost can hear you again saying, none of this is relevant to the AfD discussion. Yea maybe. Yet still I find this AfD contradicting a certain Common Sense. I also know that you guys driving the AfD process do an important job on wikipedia to assure a certain level of quality, and if you still think Foswiki is not worth mentioning then so be it. My steam to keep on fighting this thru as a non-regular contributor to wikipedia runs out of steam much earlier and I don't have the same background about the rules as you have. So my situation is particularly week from that pov too. I appreciate your advises on how to prevent the next AfD rolling over Foswiki, how to improve the article and why particularly this nomination happened again. I see the point why the list of references have been removed from the main article and moved over to the talk page: when these references aren't used in the content, why are they there? Good point. These are very helpful hints on the article as seen from a totally different angle. Yet I am not sure I would have concluded that the article was so poor that it must be removed. I would have started with a thread on the article on the Talk page first before. And when there are no reactions, well then let there be an AfD. This did not happen. Maybe next time on another article. Thanks. Nuddlegg (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You are absolutely right: I agree with your sentiment over FLOSS projects' problems with missing coverage, but indeed I see no relevance of these problems to this deletion discussion. The thing you can do is to actually cover the Foswiki at TWiki article, where it is now only barely mentioned. This would warrant a redirect from Foswiki to TWiki#Foswiki. And then, once the section on Foswiki matures and incorporates enough references at least barely satisfying WP:GNG, it could be split out. Still, for now (unfortunately) you are forced to use WP:PLEASEDONT argument, which itself indicates that no separate article on Foswiki may happen now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        We tried to cover Foswiki on the TWiki article to some sufficient degree, but then got in conflicts with other wikipedians working on the article that did not agree for certain (historical) reasons. One of these edit wars. Nuddlegg (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but this argument is too weak: you (sorry for this collective "you", I know that that wasn't you personally who created this article, but you speak on behalf of Foswiki supporters, so...) faced the choice of either convincing everybody busy on TWiki article that Foswiki is worth coverage there or to copy-paste TWiki article's content to Foswiki in violation of WP:GNG. In my opinion you chose the easier solution over the right one. This doesn't contribute to the separate notability of Foswiki, like it or not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        And now see, why there is so few coverage of Foswiki, even on wikipedia? We always have to jump thru a burning TWiki loop. That's boring. ;) Nuddlegg (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no evidence that Panyd made an "accidental" decision. In fact revisiting this issue so soon unintentionally implies bad faith. I think we're all agreed that's not the case. I've reviewed the references (including the ones on the Talk page) and I beg to reach a different conclusion from our kind colleague who has made this renomination. Donaldjbarry (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC) — Donaldjbarry (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Honestly, the references in the talk page really need to be reviewed and the information, if relevant, added to the article. That list was originally in the main article page but wasn't used for anything. It was simply a dump during the last AFD. That's great and all, but references need to be used and those aren't. The casual mention of "this uses Foswiki" or "Foswiki is an example" really doesn't do much for notability. Ravensfire (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my point when I said "accidentally". A bunch of editors with no edits outside Foswiki article drop a long list of "sources" and the AfD is closed as "keep" with no regard to the fact that these sources barely mention the Foswiki (if at all). Even worse, the sources by people who develop extension for Foswiki (all but one of these, actually) are not independent, and they don't count at all for the purpose of establishing notability. If we do AfDs this way, we may as well drop the whole process together with WP:N and just write whatever we want. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Ravensfire (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Foswiki is now the main strand of Twiki development. For commercial intranet wikis, especially those hosting wiki applications (another article that the blinkered WP community deleted), this is now the second most important platform behind MediaWiki. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference for that? Or just WP:VALINFO? May be you could express yourself using policy-based rationale? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources offered to prove notability for a subject which has been long disputed are monumentally weak. The only truly reliable source provided, from CBS, is actually about TWiki instead. If it is so important, then better sources are needed to show general notability. Steven Walling • talk 04:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keymon Ache

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

non notable show, no neutral refs, advert/pov copy, seems to be copyright violation from official show promo descriptions based on google search of "crazy, mix of fun, frolic and nughtiness", although it could be a case of reverse copy from wikipedia. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. It doesn't pass WP:GNG, and is non-notable. Making matters worse, there is a WP:COPYVIO violation in there. Sorry. TBran dl ey 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing WP:GNG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It will be a hard time to find any source for this, and thus it fails WP:GNG. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Between discogs (which is user generated and not reliable) and the records website - appears to fail GNG at this time. SarahStierch (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schnitzel Records

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I search for info on "Schnitzel Records", I find "Professor Schnitzel records" (records by the 1960s Pennsylvania German comic Herman F. Schnitzel). The Schnitzel Records Ltd topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Schnitzel Record. Does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP, was about to nominate it myself. ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Deletion - I added a second source. There is no need for deletion. If you think the page does not meet the criteria, please give some advice how to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anna Sbr (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your link to a WP:MIRROR site (which would have been an obvious fact if one actually reads one's refs). DMacks (talk) 15:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I added a discography from a reliable source. I'd like more sources, but a company releasing material by a number of notable bands says notability to me. Black Kite (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ukexpat: no independent sources with substantial reporting about the company. There's no doubt has released albums for various groups, but unless there are stories about the company, all we have is essentially a summary-style list notable products whose notability does not appear to derive from the company's general notability as a whole. DMacks (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak for A7. NAC by GregJackP Boomer! 11:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to make your app?

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for essays, nor for how-to guides. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTHOWTO. Zaldax (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wylve (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - there really should be a CSD for this kind of rubbish. Fish ^Barking? 15:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and as per WP:NOTHOWTO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. Valenciano (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per above. Not a chance this one is surviving.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just happy I got to vote and write 'LOL' before this one closed :)Rjp422 (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. GregJackP Boomer! 23:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how-to-manual, as was pointed out above, and is clarified very clearly on Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LSU Tigers#Women's golf. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Holmes

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any evidence that she meets the notability requirements for college athletics in WP:NCOLLATH. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete She fails all notability tests. --76.189.114.163 (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LSU Tigers. Seems to fail WP:BLP1E. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bleubeatle seems to make sense. Rlendog (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cowl (novel)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Have been unable to find any sources to show notability. Possible copy and paste action, but have not found any sources.~~ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The plot section was lengthy and I agree that it looks like it'd been copied from somewhere. A search kept bringing up links to Amazon, but I was unable to find the exact review or copy of the book that used the synopsis. Because of this I decided to go the easy route and just nuked the plot section into a one paragraph brief summary of the basic plot. As far as sources go, I did a little heavy digging and found eleven sources for this book. One or two of them would be considered brief/trivial, but it's gotten coverage from the Washington Post, Denver Post, and U-T San Diego, among others. It's still a stub for the most part, but it seems to pass WP:NBOOK now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tokyogirl79's improvements to the article and the sources she provided are more than sufficient to have the book meet the notability requirements.

Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's noteworthiness is supported by the references provided, and can be expanded further if necessary from said sources. Tokyogirl79 has significantly improved article since nomination. Zaldax (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, Tokyogirl. (SFF World is an RS?) Withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3blatant hoax. (The band's website doesn't mention him, either). JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lundy

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

Appears to be a hoax since Google searches for his name with the band name come up empty. It would also be fairly surprising for a well-established band to pick a 16 year old to play bass live. Even if that part of the story checks out, the biography still fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO though a redirect to the band would make sense. Pichpich (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant hoax. I'll tag it as such. A search for this kid's name brought up absolutely nothing to back up these claims other than the Wikipedia article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Also, considering the name of the original editor (Ronnorbundy) I'm going to assume that the editor is either Lundy himself or similar. User has been warned.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Copyvios, GNG, so many things.. SarahStierch (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Said Alnahri

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of notability, possible copyright violation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Without prejudice towards a merge discussion or renomination after 3+ months. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Waqar's Water Fuelled Car

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article purports to be about a water-fuelled car. Unsurprisingly, there is already a perfectly good entry about the car and it's inventor in our Water-fuelled car article. Just like the dozens and dozens of previous efforts to make such a thing, this one cannot possibly work (it violates the laws of thermodynamics). The article contains a couple of sentences about the car itself, then spends the remainder of the article discussing the current media discussions in Pakistan, where the car was "invented". Per WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, I suggest that this article stands no chance of passing WP:10YT - and since the substantive content about the car itself is completely (and more appropriately) covered in Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad, this article is redundant and should be removed. Note that a companion article on the inventor Agha Waqar Ahmad is also up for AfD and will almost certainly be deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per WP:10YT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Agree with Nom this is just a hoax by a Pakistani Quack. Amusingly the Pakistani Scientific community is still unable to expose the misdeeds of this quack. On a side note I am anxiously waiting for a water-Powered Al-Khalid tank.[10] Pity the sorry state of affairs --DBig Xray 12:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly OK to have articles about hoaxes - but this is a fairly non-notable hoax. Notice from Water-fuelled cars that as recently as last december, another Pakistani inventor claimed to have invented the exact same thing and made the exact same kind of media splash - and yet was forgotten so quickly that this new announcement made another media splash in the exact same country! Far from passing the 10 year test, the last example of this phenomena hasn't even passed the six month test! Muhammad Qamar Khan (here)(and here) is yet another Pakistani inventor with the exact same set of bogus claims. The list of "inventors" of such things (generally using the same principles of eletrolysis of water) runs into dozens and stretches back as far as the invention of the automobile itself! There really is nothing special about this one other than that it has hit the news recently - and that's going to fail WP:10YT. SteveBaker (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has garnered significant attention in many reliable sources. It would also make sense to redirect Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad and expand that entry, but a redirect is not a delete (and doesn't need an AfD). --OpenFuture (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The news articles further proves how "wise" Pakistani media is and how reliable their news articles are.^[sarcasm]--DBig Xray 13:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not wisdom. :-) And the references include New York Times. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT article is actually mocking the sorry state of affairs in Pakistan. Its not approving "this joke", there is a large difference --DBig Xray 13:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from that NYT article: "News media commentators said the coverage of Mr. Ahmad’s claims was the Pakistani version of Britain’s “silly season,” when journalists and politicians embrace the unlikely during the annual lull in politics."...hence according to reliable sources, WP:10YT==fail. SteveBaker (talk) 13:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no difference. It makes no difference if NYT approves or ridicules the topic, notability is notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for events Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria: " Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events, but not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." This event doesn't have a lasting effect, it has no sign of large scope, persistence, or diversity. Much of the sourcing seems to fall under WP:SENSATION as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge - While this has certainly gathered attention from numerous reliable sources (NYT, Times of India, the local news radio station in my area), there have been many such claims before, and there will be many such claims in the future -- most of, if not all, of these claims will likely be just as fraudulent and ignorant of science as this one. (As hard as I'm trying to be objective and neutral here, as a scientist I just can't help myself...) However, the "event" has received an admittedly unusual amount of coverage in the mainstream Pakistani media, which might overcome any hurdles to WP:GNG. There is already a precedent for a separate article (See: Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell; if it can be shown that this topic is as notable as the aforementioned one or if coverage continues, I would be in favor of a weak keep. Another good course of action is to merge the most important bits of this article into the main article for Water-fuelled car, since, as other editors have already stated, this may be yet another failure of the Ten Year Test. Zaldax (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The statement that there was a "splash" regarding the inventor from last December is factually incorrect. He was interviewed by a couple of people and no one noticed. Most likely the guy never approached the government to get OK from them. The new guy has caused quite a stir. People are chanting his name on the streets. The government is fully supporting him. The media is singing his praises. There is plenty of debate going on in the media regarding his claims. This is a notable event on it's own. Anybody considering deletion should go to the article and read my comments in Talk page which have been constantly ignored. I have already said that this will be referred to in the media in next 10 years as a hoax so it's appropriate to keep it. I don't care about the article on Agha Waqar Ahmad and it's completely irrelevant to bring it up here. This article is detailing a notable event and a hoax from a certain country. This article would be in the same category as a political scandal such as memogate. Should we delete that too? What about the piltdown man hoax? I just want to make it clear that you are NOT promoting the inventor by keeping the article. I think it's a hoax but it's important to be covered as there must be millions Googling him right now and will be Googling him for next few decades. Besides all this, the article was substantially re-written with WP:NPOV, and there are both type of citations given (skeptic and believer).Anaverageguy (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whether or not this invention works is not a valid criteria for determining whether it is notable. The only issue here is whether or not this topic has received significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. No offense to Steve who does great work on Wikipedia, this nomination sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reliable sources can be added. We just have to look a little harder. But obviously the majority of sources will be from Pakistani News sites as that is where it's happening. Anaverageguy (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PRESERVE. Then discuss on talk pages about a possible merge to Water-fuelled car. Outright deletion of the entire page doesn't benefit the encyclopedia whatsoever. Rather than requesting for a Wikipedia administrator to delete the article entirely, perhaps consider a merge. Also, the nomination reads very subjectively, without any analysis of the actual coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a notable hoax if politicians and major news sources were fooled. Dream Focus 17:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content is going to be kept in some form, of course, either here or at the compilation article. Typically in such cases its easy to keep the original article and revisit it a few months later after the hype has died down.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Think about WP:N in context. The times article isn't profiling an invention it's using this man as an example of mockery. He and his invention are incidental to the actual context of the story. It may technically meet the general notability standards but applying the test of having a separate article for every derivative of a concept (particularly one based on pseudoscience is foolish. If everyone who has tried to make an engine run on water or replicate a cold fusion reactor or build a perpetual motion machine had separate articles outside of water-fuelled car, Cold Fusion and Perpetual motion then we'd have a very un-encyclopedic mess of information. Nefariousski (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Meyers has an article, mainly because he is constantly brought up by conspiracy theorists. This guy has also managed to fool a pretty big part of the population. It is NOT an article on the guy himself, or the invention, but the ACTUAL EVENTS leading to massive hype. I think in 10 years from now, the article might provide an example of how masses can be fooled in simple ways. I agree with Northamerica1000 on grounds of WP:Preserve. Compare this article to the article on Peter Popoff. Despite having little notoriety, there is an article on him, and most likely anyone who is smart enough to Google him will see him as a Charlatan. The article is more for educational purposes. The details needed cannot be added on a one paragraph entry in the main water-fueled car article. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I meant Peter Popof has very little notability now (and some notoriety I guess). Anaverageguy (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only as a notable fraud/hoax, not as a scientific topic. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been passionately discussed by various reliable sources such as newspapers, and has also been written about by notable scientists such as Pervez Hoodbhoy: The water car fraud. As per TopGun, this should be kept not through the scientific lens but as a controversial/widely-discussed topic. Mar4d (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have written most of the article as it stands (except couple of edits yesterday from others). I have tried my best to keep the tone very neutral and skeptical. Anyone willing to improve it and make it even clearer from a skeptical point of view should not hesitate.Anaverageguy (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CCPOL & WP:EP. It is a notable hoax because many government officials, politicians, and notable scientists involved in. and story is covered in numerous reliable sources so this article also meet the general notability standards as well... article is looking far better than the previous ones... Crown Prince ^Talk 17:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references in the article aren't about the specific Agha Waqar water fuelled car but in generality: it's also doubtful whether this is anything more than news coverage on a slow news day. Wikipedia is not a WP:NEWSPAPER. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to list of hoaxes page you will find plenty of non-notable hoaxes. I have only heard of one or two of them. By comparison, this hoax is being discussed by far more reliable sources and has relevance within Pakistan. I am convinced that some people will Google him thinking he is a genius, but might change their mind after reading this article. I have repeated many times that the article is about the events, not the inventor or the invention. Stanley Meyers article has the same amount of coverage of the inventor because he closely linked to the conspiracy theorists' claims. As for Wikipedia not being a WP:NEWSPAPER, I think WP:Preserve supersedes it. Then there is also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER which makes keeping this article completely reasonable. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The editing policy does not supersede what an encyclopedia has articles on. Newspaper related content like this belongs on wikinews, transwikify it if you wish. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not news. This is an ongoing event/ hoax. I 'd like to reiterate what I said above:

"If you go to list of hoaxes page you will find plenty of non-notable hoaxes...Then there is also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTPAPER which makes keeping this article completely reasonable." Anaverageguy (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they aren't notable then take them to AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They may not appear notable to you and me because we have never heard of them. But someone thought they were notable enough to make an article about them and most of them will stay as per WP:NOTPAPER. By comparison, this story has been covered by [| NYTimes] and [| Time magazine's website] among many other Pakistan-based news sources. Sure, they are not praising the inventor, but neither is the wiki article. Anaverageguy (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read NOTPAPER: " However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below. Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion: articles must abide by the appropriate content policies, particularly those covered in the five pillars." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question satisfies notability and five pillar requirements. Your objection to it sounds a lot like WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC argument. Anaverageguy (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move either to Water-fuelled car (WFC from now on) or Notable hoaxes#Water-fuelled car. WFC in itself is not an encyclopedic topic if seen as the car itself, simply because it does not exist. WFC as a hoax may be notable because it has been claimed so often. Move to another often-tried-and-failed project, Alcohol-fuelled driver#Water-fuelled car, maybe?
And redirect Agha Waqar Ahmad to the WFC article/section then. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources in the article easily meet WP:N. Notable hoaxes are notable. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Holman

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable. No GNews hits, no GHits other than social media or promotional sites. No reliable or verifiable sources. Fails WP:NACTOR. GregJackP Boomer! 11:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.helenholman.co.uk/About/page1.html -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Story (Yelawolf album)

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon, album is not notable yet. Was nominated for speedy but declined because the old one was rather different (and better referenced, to be honest) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A potential alternative may be to redirect to Yelawolf, but as the album does not seem to yet have a set release date yet, I would advise against it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Yelawolf per WP:NALBUMS. Information about this future album should remain at the artist's article until the title, track listing and release date have all been confirmed. Cliff Smith 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jed is a boss xD

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

nonsense ^{Epicurus B. talk} 10:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 07:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elidon Selaci

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes, Lady, it's WP:SNOWing heavily. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bawesome

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO, and looks like something that should be in Urban Dictionary rather than Wikipedia. Clearly not an appropriate page, but doesn't appear to fall under any of the speedy deletion criteria. Let's get this deleted per WP:SNOW. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as CSD nominator (which was inappropriate). FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 09:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see where it's in use but usage does not mean notability per WP:NEO. There are no sources that I could find that would be considered reliable sources that cover the origin and usage of bawesome. This just isn't notable enough for Wikipedia at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a dictionary. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This probably doesn't even belong in Wikitionary. (Also, on a related note, anyone else think we ought to make these sorts of pages into a Speedy Delete category? I certainly do; would save us a lot of unnecessary discussion. After all, there are only a few cases where this sort of page is notable, like w00t.) This definitely meets criteria for a WP:SNOW deletion. Zaldax (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there have been several discussions about whether to make a speedy deletion criteria for neologisms. The problem is that it's very hard to think of a wording that is objective and that wouldn't result in any false positives. Have a read of the guidelines at WT:CSD and search through the archives if you're interested. And if you do think of a good potential criterion, propose it on WT:CSD and it might just make it into policy. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism in the form of a dictionary definition, take your pick. Urban Dictionary is thattaway...---> Carrite (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ridiculous WP:DICDEF entry of a protologism probably made up on the spot by the article creator. Is it snowing yet? LadyofShalott 18:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, page without substantive content. Fram (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSL Curiosity rover mission on Mars - Day 1 - 6 August 2012

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

Unnecessarially detailed fork. Should be handled in primary rover page (as other rovers have been) (merge is inappropriate as almost no content, and not a redirect target) Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as not having any substantive content, only a framework for an article that would probably be deleted anyway (WP:NOTDIARY and the like apply). Fram (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Blakey

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However hard I try I can find nothing notable about this gentleman. He was some sort of music business person, but those are ten a penny. He is verifiable, I have no doubt of that because I can see citations, but verifiability is not notability. You can find press articles about me, too, if you try, but they do not make me notable either. This is a contested PROD. Initial PROD was supported thus: "strongly endorsed. shameless autobiographical self promotion (since mostly trimmed), and all refs are either in passing while talking about a real celebrity, or PR fluff" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, self written, unsourced self promotion. noclador (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources of notability. Puffery. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with nom; I could not find any independent sources to establish notability. Blatant self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party coverage to demonstrate notability or justify a biographical article on Wikipedia. --DAJF (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable and blatant self promotion. ukexpat (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete strongly endorsed. shameless autobiographical self promotion (since mostly trimmed, and replaced by creator, and deleted again!), and all refs are either in passing while talking about a real celebrity, or PR fluff. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment the editor in question states that "I am not Mr. Blakey nor do I work for the man." -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, he can say what he wants - but it is obvious that all the stuff added by the editor in question shows a very very intimate knowledge of Blakeys life: [11]. He even knows such things as that he is "co-owner of DermaBare, LLC. (hair removal boutiques)." and that he "has been endorsed by numerous drum companies and often used in the advertisements for Mapex Drums, Vater Drum sticks, Attack Drum Heads." etc. etc. WP:Duck. noclador (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - he knows 'cause he's a genius. no? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible, but that doesn't change the fact that the article is purely promotional and based almost exclusively on PR material originating directly from the subject of the article. I also have a hard time believing that the editor is completely independent of the subject of the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also User:Dphillips1950... editing Michael Blakey, editing Ron White (Blakey is Whites agent and business partner) and editing Margo Rey (Ron Whites wife)... seems that there is also a sock problem here. noclador (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Definitely a sock: [12] noclador (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - User:Bassfantastic seems to be related. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe we should ignore whether certain editors are or are not intimately connected with the article, and concentrate only on its technical merits. If sufficient WP:RS references referring directly to the subject, not oblique references in passing can be added to it then it should remain. That would prove notability. If not then it should go, but without prejudice to its re-creation when notability can be established. A major contributor to the article has expressed resentment over being told (by me) of the apparent conflict of interest. It is important that we do not drive down the route of ad hominen comments. We must stick to the article itself, and deal only with its ability to meet the standards here. The editor raises a point that appears to many people to have some validity - that it has survived several years without being challenged - and that point may be worth an experienced and uninvolved person discussing with the editor as a separate issue form the discussion here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That the article survived three years just means that no one noticed that it was inappropriately sourced until now. Most likely because it attracted few vistors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, but these things often need quiet explanation to those who are concerned about them. Experienced editors know that articles can lie dormant for a long time before attracting attention, and that longevity is no indication of quality of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I gave that response as well at a question he recently posted at the help desk. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is actually some vile impersonation! Look at his edit by User:Dphillips1950 here [13]: "At the age of 12, he received his first gold record for the song “Yellow River” with the band Christie (he was incorrectly credited as Michael Blakely)" and now look at the video of Christie with Michael Blakley: [14] that's quite some moustache for a 12 year old. noclador (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Suspicious, but not conclusive, the video could have been filmed significantly after (unless there is something else to date it)~~ After reviewing the Christie's website, it does not seem feasable. The only things I can think of is either malicious hoax in the wiki editing, or confusion about two people in the music industry with similar names. That even goes further to show that we don't have WP:V in this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - For me it is conclusive: on the Christie (band) article it says: "Mike Blakley (born Michael Blakley, 12 January 1947, Bromley, Kent, England)." and said Michael left Christie in 1973... I would think that this is an attempt by Mr. Blakey to gain notability by stealing someone else's laurels. noclador (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - User Uncle G has recently added those details from a source he has access to. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The details were already there, and actually correct per the source. I wanted to confirm them for this very reason. Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Michael Blakley who drummed for Christie was born on 1947-01-12 in Bromley. I've just found a source for the places and dates of birth and cited it in Christie (band). The Michael Blakey who is supposedly the subject of this article, and yet also was a 12-year-old drummer for Christie in 1970, is claimed to be born in 1958 in London. Clearly both the IMDB biography and the edits here by Dphillips1950 (talk · contribs) are false on their faces. This hoaxery was pointed out and reverted in this article in March 2010, note.
  Observe that the content added by Mastermusicgenius (talk · contribs) matches this autobiography, which nowhere mentions Christie. So don't attribute the hoaxery of Dphillips1950 to Mastermusicgenius, who simply didn't check what xe was reverting to.
  I've found independent confirmation that Blakey was a board member at 2K Sounds. I haven't found anything about European Musician of the Year in what would be 1972 or 1973.
  Uncle G (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that this is just a problem with Dphillips1950:
    - Wikipedia: "has been awarded 63 gold and platinum records"
    - his personal site: "has earned 63 gold and platinum records"
    - his company site: "has been awarded 63 gold and platinum records"
    - The RIAA's Gold & Platinum Program searchable database: Blakey = No results
    - The German Gold-/Platin-Datenbank no Blakey
    - The British Certified Awards Search No matches found
  - noclador (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - someone is a good promoter! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've just demonstrated why we distrust autobiographies as sources. That doesn't mean that Mastermusicgenius is a hoaxer too, though. Xe could well be someone who just erroneously trusted faulty and unreliable sources, despite all of the guidelines on Wikipedia saying not to. It's the autobiographical sources that are the hoaxes. There's scant evidence to be found that anyone even compiles a list of "Top Ten Innovators of the Decade", I note. Uncle G (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I even can't find who might the organization giving out "European Musician of the Year" since at least 1972 (as Blakely "won" twice at 14 and 15) and I also can't find him winning "Melody Maker Producer of the year", and for this claim Honored by President George Bush for "Outstanding Leadership in the Entertainment Industry"... a google search for that results in 1 hit and guess where that one is: [15]. noclador (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete Major WP:GNG Fail. Self written, unsourced self promotion, and a waste of user space. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non admin closure) "Pepper" @ 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frisia (disambiguation)

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

This was an attempt to separate the disambiguation of two closely intertwined articles - Friesland and Frisia. The editor who set it up (User:Triomio) received a 24 hour block under WP:3RR when (s)he persistemntly removed a number of entries from the artcile Friesland (disambiguation) in an attempt to set up the page now nominated for deletion. Given that the majority of articles (in terms of article count, but not in terms of hit count) use "Friesland" and "Frisia" as synonyms, we only need one disambiguation page. Martinvl (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Graeme's comment, I think that we need a single disambiguation article with three sections - "Frisia/Friesland disambiguation", "Frisia disambiguation" and "Friesland disambiguation". Having three clearly marked section will remove the "surprise" of users who are looking for one word and are directed to a disambiguous page with the other word. I have no strong views as to whether this should be a single artcile on its own or whether other disambiguation pages (such as Frisia (diasmbiguation)) should be redirects to the combined page. Martinvl (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request Following on discussions with interested parties, I am withdrawing this request. Martinvl (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep I cannot see a valid reason to delete this. And it could be useful for all the different uses of the word. It should also have the Freesia article listed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ideally, deletion debates hinge on reasoning, supported by high-quality evidence, around policy and guideline compliance. I don't see any such evidence or reasoning in the nomination here. Could I suggest that the nominator provides a reasoned explanation, and any supporting evidence, of which policies and/or guidlelines are alleged to have been contravened in the case of this disambiguation page. This will help those reviewing the nomination to reach an informed decision. Canepa (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This pages looks like a valid dab page that lists several mutually unrelated topics. It's not only about the various divisions of the Frisia region but it also mentions the names of people and organisations. De728631 (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buddha claimants

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources after two years with tag requesting some WP:GNG. Seem to also fail to meet WP:LISTN petrarchan47^T c 04:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it is succeeded in WP:IRS in searching out the reflist and yes Buddha claimants are notable facts.--GoShow (...............) 18:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems inherently notable without doubt, and the problem is one of sourcing, not notability. WP:V means we need to try to source them, and it must be possible, not that it is complete. That no one has yet done this isn't a valid reason to delete, particularly since all have articles, and any failure of sourcing that runs afoul of BLP can be cured by the editing process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I checked a few of the claimants, and the claim is sourced in some of the respective articles in the list; the problem isn't one of sources not existing, but rather the issue is that the article needs to be cleaned up and sourcing provided in this article as well as the respective articles. That can be solved through editing, deletion isn't required or warranted. - Sudo Ghost 16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Rogmans

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unsourced BLP about a non-notable MMA fighter. He has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization and there's nothing that shows he meets any other notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT, no fights against notable fighters or at notable events, no coverage outside of MMA sources. CaSJer (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no independent sources and subject has no fights that show he meets WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Gadus

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable MMA fighter who's had only 4 bouts, none with even a second tier MMA organization. Winning the Toledo Golden Gloves is not enough to show notability. Jakejr (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely seems to fail WP:MMANOT, no fights for major promotions, and no coverage that I can find from non-MMA sources. CaSJer (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails to meet any notability criteria. He clearly fails WP:MMANOT and WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ib (game)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Cliff Smith 17:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pompous asses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5:9280:110:B53E:FEC5:66BE:BB34 (talk) 06:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. I can't find enough sources, too. -- Luke (Talk) 03:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the PRODer, I was actually in the process of nominating this for deletion myself, but was beat to it, so I'll just summarize what I had typed out here. The game is a non-notable video game produced in the RPG Maker program. There is no indication of any sort of notability for this game, however, as there are no reliable sources that talk about it. The sources present in the article already are not reliable third party sources, and I am unable to find any others. The only claim to importance the article makes is that the game is in the "Top 50 Downloaded Games" list on a specific website, and that really doesn't cut it. The PROD was removed with the argument that the page creator "has seen this game popular in many japanese sites", and that one of the various "-chan" imageboards has some images of it, but without reliable sources, the game just does not pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rorshacma has pretty much stated all the reasons why this article should be deleted, so I'll just add my vote. There are thousands (could be millions) of games like this, and if there are any sources that state this is actually different and more popular than a tiny game anyone could code with RPG Maker, I don't see it. Zombifier (talk) 11:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete I would argue that the game is popular enough to merit an article. Searching Ib on Deviantart yields almost ninteen thousand results, and searching Ib the game on youtube yields eleven thousand results. I agree that being on the top 50 downloads of a Japanese website alone does not merit an article, but it adds to the proof that the game is popular. Rakoa (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Popularity is not what determines whether or not articles are deleted. What does, is notability, which is established by coverage in reliable, third party sources. Fan created art type stuff from Deviant Art or Youtube do not count as reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, Rorshacma, and my own commentary above. No sources that help it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability per Wikipedia guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - some admin should close this per WP:SNOW. Not enough notability. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - come on, I think the game deserves to be on Wikipedia. at least it is a popular page User: Alex Nguyen

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator without any non-keep !votes. (Reclosed so that oldafdfull template appears on talk page.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite Knight

AfDs for this article:

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sources found, unsourced since forever. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is listed as being a MBE (knighthood, or whatever it is called for women), which would be an auto-keep if confirmed. I'm not sure how to look this up. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - Ah, HERE IT IS, cited in the previous deletion debate. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An MBE is nothing like equivalent to a knighthood. The female equivalent of a knight is a dame. An MBE is the lowest British honour, and is awarded to hundreds of people every year. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching for "Marguerite Knight", I found this article, which discusses her story in-depth as told in this book, which, if the index is to be believed, contains 20+ pages worth of coverage on her. There's also a fair amount of coverage in this book. Additionally, a search for "Peggy Knight" also yielded some promising results: [16][17][18][19]. The latter two are snippet views only, but following the text over to the next page or two, the coverage appears significant. Based on these books, the subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 19:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets basic criteria plus is a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG as an MBE recipient, also covered significantly in independently-published sources, noted above and showing in the Further Reading section. Carrite (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 Global Presents Breakthrough

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

On notability grounds. The event is already covered in 2009 M-1 Challenge season which in turn links to M-1 Global. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to show this was a notable event and all coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 8. Snotbot t • c » 02:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked pretty hard, and couldn't find any coverage outside of MMA sites. It doesn't look like this event had any mainstream coverage, so I'd have to say it's non-notable. CaSJer (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The fact is that multiple reliable sources detailing his life exist. To overrule those requires a convincing reason why we should not have the article despite those sources, which is not apparent in this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kalervo Kurkiala

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG as article only shows that mr. Kurkiala had a few jobs. Nothing that makes him notable. The Banner _talk 02:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable military officer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:The Banner. --rtc (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Finnish Wikipedia is a lot longer, and is sourced to a biography in Suomen jääkärien elämäkerrasto. Vejvančický pointed this out back in July 2012. A quick search turns up a biographical entry on page 172 of Anders Edestam's Karlstads stifts herdaminne från medeltiden till våra dagar: Norra Dals Kontrakt. Södra Dals Kontrakt. Västra Dals Kontrakt, and that isn't even used on the Finnish Wikipedia. There's an entry in the Scandanavian biographical archive, according to its index at any rate, and various other pieces of information, in both English and Finnish, dotted around the place. The Finnish Wikipedia article is a fairly good indication that a properly sourced full length biography of this person can be written, and we don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy enough: make sure that the article shows the notability of mr. Kurkiala and I will happily withdraw my nomination. But I will not withdraw a nomination for an article that only "shows potential". The Banner _talk 15:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you haven't properly absorbed deletion policy. We don't delete stubs with potential for expansion. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Articles, stub or complete articles, that fail to prove notability are always removed... The Banner _talk 22:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are mixing up two concepts here: stubs that fail to prove notability should be removed or challenged by WP:SPEEDY or WP:PROD. Full-fledged articles that fail to prove notability are prime candidates for WP:AfD. You could have tried {{prod}} and the article would possibly have been removed. Now it does not fall into either one of those categories. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Go left or go right, when non-notable the stub/article will be removed. And I still see an article about a man with a job, not a bit what makes him notable. The Banner _talk 14:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is consensus not to use Google snippets, or I'd include this mention. This seems legitimate as well, and there is this snippet (though published by Munin Verlag, tied to HIAG) and he is mentioned in this study. So I'm going to go with keep in line with Uncle G's comments about not deleting stubs with potential. What this needs is a Finnish-speaking editor with better access to publications in the subject's first homeland. Drmies (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure: I left a note for the first moderately active Finnish-speaking Wikipedian I could find, here. I have no idea how this user might think about the topic, but it would be helpful to have some linguistic assistance, maybe. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if there's literature about him, what does it say, other than that he existed? What is he supposed to be notable for? We can't keep an article merely on an abstract expectation that there might be something interesting about him. We need at least an idea about what that interesting thing is going to be. The google snippets Drmies points to above seem to merely mention his name; none of them seems to go into any biographical depth, let alone deal with him as a subject of interest in its own right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a valid point, Future Perfect, but as far as I'm concerned, such people (basically, foreign Nazi officers) are inherently notable. (I had a much easier time writing up Paul van Tienen and his ilk.) WP:PERPETRATOR doesn't help me out very much here, and I don't know if there is any consensus on military officers; I assume the GNG should be our guide here, but this group is relatively small and (have) usually receive(d) coverage in their first homeland. I'm not much of an inclusionist, I think, but I would include these as long as the basic facts are established. I doubt that I'll hear from my Finnish editor in time; if this gets to be deleted (and I hope it won't) I'd like to get it userfied. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would foreign Nazi officers be inherently notable? There were thousands of them. If there were some noteworthy war crimes issue or a high-profile criminal prosecution or a notable political role after the war or anything like that, there'd be a case, but surely not for simply serving in the army? Germany and Finland were allies, so his presence in the German forces wasn't even anything particularly surprising. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not fame nor importance, so asking what this person is famous for is asking the wrong question. The right question is whether this person is documented in depth by reliable independent sources. The answer to that is: Obviously, yes. One of the sources is the biography used to make Kalervo Kurkiala, which you can see, right there, is a 10KiB article about this person, and a proof by existence that expansion is possible. That source is Suomen jääkärien elämäkerrasto, mentioned above, which has biographies of (Finnish) members of the 27th Jäger Battalion. Edestam's Karlstads stifts herdaminne has a biography of every priest in the diocese of Karlstad, which Kurkiala was after WW2.
  Now if one were looking for factoids rather than substantial biographies that address deletion policy square on — and I know that Drmies here won't be able to resist a hook — then one could ask: Did you know … that Kurkiala's surname was originally Groundstroem? He Fennicized it in 1927, after serving as a pastor for the Finnish Seamen's Mission in Australia. (Koivukangas 1986, p. 330) And did you know … that in 1919 he opined that military service was good for "country boys" and that "numerous bookworms and spoilt sloppy idlers" would "get an airing" through field service? (Ahlbäck 2010, p. 161)
  There are quite a lot of pictures on the WWW of this man. Here's one. Here's another.
  Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Koivukangas, Olavi (1986). Sea, gold, and sugarcane: attraction versus distance, Finns in Australia, 1851–1947. Migration studies. Vol. 8. Institute of Migration. ISBN 9789519266312.
  - Ahlbäck, Anders (2010). Soldiering and the Making of Finnish Manhood: Conscription and Masculinity in Interwar Finland, 1918–1939 (PDF) (Doctoral thesis). Äbo Akademi University. ISBN 9789521225093.{{cite thesis}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Nope. We don't do a biography on some random guy just because we can piece together the basic facts of his biography from some sources that mention him in passing. We don't do a biography on "every priest in the diocese of Karlstad", just because there is some book that has listed them all. We do require that a person has done something special or has played some particularly noteworthy role in some event. Nothing of what you cite indicates that this person has. So, this is a clear delete now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Future Perfect, I see you have just blocked the creator of the article based on "nazi advocacy". The decision is likely to be challenged. I believe you are far too involved in the case to take part in any vote here. I ask you to strike out your vote above. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? This demand is absurd on so many different levels at once I really wouldn't know where to begin responding. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a demand, but a polite request. If you fail to understand the motivation, it will degrade the high regard I have for you as an administrator. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid I will have to live with that then. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Given Neogeo's history, this was seen coming a mile away. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - <humor>Ow, Mr. Petri Krohn. Could you please strike out your votes and comments here? As your are a Finnish person, I believe you are far too involved in the case to take part in any vote here. I ask you to strike out your vote above.</humor>The Banner _talk 02:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - How do you know I'm not a Nazi, or a priest? ;) Anyway, the creator was blocked for all the right reasons; nothing wrong with that or with Future Perfect weighing in here (though they're wrong, of course!). Petri, let this not affect your regard for them. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have just noted that I am not totally uninvolved with the topic. I have written about this guy here: fi:Sven Abraham Schartum :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Back when we considered Amazon a reliable source? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This Nazi source describes Kalervo Kurkiala as "the Father of the Finnish SS battalion". The Finnish article gives some support to this definition. He seems to have been one of the leading Nazis and Nazi propagandists in Finland. There are some problems though. Most of the sources used in the Finnish article are not directly related to his role in the Waffen SS and do not by themselves establish notability. All the 1000+ members of the WW I 27th Jäger Battalion (Finland) have their short biographies printed in the two biography collections (1938 & 1975) of the Jäger movement. The new source presented here focuses on his role as the vicar of a parish in Sweden. These, and the material from Australia bring depth into the potential biography, but most likely are limited in the coverage of the activities he is most notable for. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. – I believe this biography clearly establishes notability:
- Rämä, Iivari (1994). Jääkäripapin pitkä marssi – Kalervo Kurkialan henkilöhistoria (in Finnish). Herättäjä-yhdistys. ISBN 9789518780567.
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Petri Krohn. The 98-page biography does it for me, combined with the mentions by other sources of different aspects of his life in Finland, Australia and Sweden. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that book a reliable source? Was it even cited correctly? Petri Krohn says it was published by "Herättäjä-yhdistys", which apparently is a Christian publishing house [20]google-transl However, I cannot find any reference to this book on their website [21]. But a place where I can find this book is on the website of this Finnish Neo-Nazi publisher: [22]. The alleged ISBN cited above cannot be found anywhere except on the Finnish Wikipedia article and on the Google books entry (which doesn't show anything beyond it). So, which is it? Does this book exist, except on NeoNazi propaganda websites? Do any reputable libraries have it? A 98-page biography published by these Nazi nostalgists would certainly not qualify for us, would it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a reliable source. A Google inauthor search for Iivari Rämä shows a number of books on church-related topics with different publishers. Iivari Rämä's book is cited in Jana Fietz's book on Nordische Studenten an der Universität Greifswald in der Zeit von 1815 bis 1933 (Nordic students at the University of Greifswald in the period 1815-1933), also used as a source for the article. Rämä is interested in a priest who had a very turbulent life. Incidentally, there is nothing in the article or in the sources that say he was a Nazi, although the name seems to indicate that he was of German origin, and he was clearly right-wing and pro-German. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the Finnish Wikipedia article Herättäjä-Yhdistys has published Christian literature from 1892. The article on Awakening (religious movement) says Herättäjä-Yhdistys is the umbrella organization of "Awakening". Not a mainstream publisher, but neither a Nazi printing house. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems Aymatth prefers Finnish soldiers to 1960s interior design..♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Ernst. I feel the same way. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are some subjects where it is best to just draw the curtain and tiptoe away. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Drmies. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability must be established in the lead and it is not. If there is a book written about him because he had an interesting, although obscure, life, then the article should be about the book, provided it is notable. TFD (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, shall I add "is notable for" to every other sentence in the lead? And add that a biography was published about him? That's all in the article. I'm trying to find a sentence in WP:Notability that says notability must be established in the lead, so far unsuccessfully. Mind you, I don't find that other articles meet that requirement of yours--including Willi Schlamm (complete lead: "William S. (Willi) Schlamm (1904-1978) was an Austrian-American journalist"), Kenneth Goff, Gilbert Cooper. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would be nice, because I still see just a man with a job. Being a soldier in wartime, a priest or a teacher is, in my humble opinion, not something to make someone notable. The Banner _talk 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The manual of style says the lead should explain why the topic is notable, and the notability guideline defines what is meant by "notable" in the Wikipedia sense - basically coverage by more than one good source, as with this article. Put together, they could be taken to imply that the lead of all articles should establish notability in the Wikipedia sense: "Vladimir Putin is notable because he has been discussed by the following sources: 1) People Magazine..." It could be easier to tweak the guidelines than to fix all the existing articles to meet that criterion. But neither guideline says a topic has to be interesting or unusual to be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Willi Schlamm is notable because he was a prominent Communist in Germany, raised the money for William F. Buckley's National Review and became one of the leaders of the John Birch Society. Kenneth Goff was notable because he was a witness before the Dies Committee and a major influence on Christian Identity. Gilbert Cooper meets the requirements of notablity because he was a member of the legislative assembly of Bermuda, a mayor of the capital and a knight. This is mentioned in the lead of all these articles. TFD (talk) 05:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I cited the unabridged lead for Willi Schlamm. He was an Austrian-American journalist. But this is not a conversation that will bear much fruit, and I'll bow out and leave it to the closing admin who will, no doubt, read beyond the lead if needs be and take into account the many references and the nicely fleshed-out biography. Drmies (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've read and re-read this article, and I can't find anything notable about this person. The mere fact of being a Nazi doesn't make one notable. No decoration or medal in recognition of some notable deed, no war crimes or even allegations, no post war career of note, nothing more than millions of other veterans of WW2 might have experienced. --Nug (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline does not say there has to be anything unusual about the person, just that several reliable independent sources have written about him. This simple rule avoids a lot of subjective debates. The subject is assumed to be notable if he has been noted. In this case, we have a short bio in the "Finnish Jaegers" book, a book-length bio written by Iivari Rämä, and various other books and scholarly papers in Finnish, English, Swedish and German that discuss aspects of the subject's life: soldier, student, seamen's pastor etc. The cited sources amply demonstrate notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It only states 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.. It does not say: A person is automatically 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. So even with several biographies he is not automatically notable, that still depends on the quality of the biographies and their independece. I would not regard a biography about a nazi issued by a nazi or extreem right coloured publishing house as reliable... The Banner _talk 13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out above, the author of the biography has written several books on church-related topics, and the biography is published by a Lutheran organization. The verifiable existence of the biography helps demonstrate notability. If we had online access to it, I would have no problem using it as a source. This biography about a Lutheran pastor issued by a Lutheran publishing house probably has a Lutheran bias. That does not mean it is an unreliable source of facts. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point is that Fut. Perf casts some doubt about the book in his edit at 9 August 2012 (12:58 UTC), something you and Petri Krohn could not take away in your responses. The Banner _talk 14:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fut. Perf noted that the Finnish neo-nazi website includes Iivari Rämä's book in their list of books related to the Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS. That is not surprising. Kalervo Kurkiala was chaplain to the battalion, and as liason officer may have had significant authority. Presumably the biography describes his experiences and activites while in that role. I do not see the relevance to this discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth, apparently the group of Jager volunteers was limited to around 1,100. One of only 1,100, there's some additional special notability for those who need it. Can you add that book reference (unimpeachable: Cambridge UP) to the article in the proper format? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see that as showing notability, but it is useful background so I have added it - plus some from a couple of other sources. I think the article is a bit more coherent now for a reader who knows nothing about the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I, but we were already convinced of the guy's notability. Above, the idea is proposed a few times that what the man did was run of the mill. Well, it wasn't--only a small group of Finns went over to the Jagers. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not convinced. The main claim to notability is his biography published by Herättäjä-Yhdistys. A biography of a Lutheran pastor published by a company associated with Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. The notability criteria requires sources independent of the subject, this is not the case here. --Nug (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland claims that 78.2% of Finns were members of the Church as of the end of 2010. Would you consider that no Finnish sources are independent, since the subject is Finnish? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

78.2% of Finns aren't employed as pastors of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland. Just because the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland's publishing house contracts a writer to write an biography about one of its former employees, does not mean Kurkiala achieves general notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Nug (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a biography that covers the person's life from birth to death. Those facts of his life are verified by reference to reliable sources--books, journal articles. Even if the guy had been one of a million potato farmers, the very fact that we can write his biography in the way in which it was done (thank you Aymatth2) means that he passes the GNG. If he didn't, we wouldn't have this article. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see just a man with a job and nothing that makes him in anyway "special" or notable. The Banner _talk 09:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Suarez

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

On-notability grounds. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization and fails to meet notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MMANOT due to having no fights for a top tier promotion. Also has no wins against notable fighters. CaSJer (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Service Availability Forum. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service availability

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

Article defines phrase in way used only by a single trade organisation, the Service Availability Forum, that does not agree with standard usage. Xnn (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. It's possible we could have an article on service availability as the phrase is normally used but it would still need to be vetted as a notable topic; Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. But this is not even that. Further, this article's hijacking the term for proprietary use pretty much guarantees that all the sources would have to be WP:PRIMARY. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why wouldn't this article be merged into "High-Availability"? The subject is simply a questionably-standard term used for an extreme extension of high availability. The concept may deserve coverage, but only as a subset of high availability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtechm (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Service Availability Forum. Material already included there. No evidence of independent notability. --Kvng (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No One Rides for Free

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

Couldn't find any sources for notability Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 03:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the artist's article- I don't see why this album is individually notable. Ducknish (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real album released by Bongload Custom Records in 1994. I have it on CD and LP why is even being considered for deletion. This album is found on every major music site and the article has a direct link to AllMusic. This needs to be removed from the deletion list ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgr927 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC) (Reformatted to remove all caps so that it's readable. wctaiwan (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Because there is nothing to indicate that this Albumn is notable. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the debut album by the popular California band Fu Manchu. They are still performing today and are very relevant. This album will inevitably be relisted if it is deleted. It is extremely notable and needs to be edited to appear like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgr927 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if restored it will be nominated for deletion again if there are no sources. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Establishing notability for a pre-internet-era album (1994) can be a bit tricky due to the lack of online references. I found 2 online reviews[23][24] and a mention[25] in addition to AllMusic[26]. The Rough Guide to Rock calls it "classic"[27] but doesn't have much else to say, and the Encyclopedia of heavy metal music (William Phillips, Brian Cogan, 2009) and The rough guide to heavy metal (Essi Berelian, 2005) mention it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tertiary sources should not be used to establish GNG. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

How many sources does it need to be notable. You found 3-4 yourself, but did you ever think of checking ebay? [28]I own this album on CD and on Vinyl. Please do research into the record label. Bong Load Custom Records was also the music artist Beck first home. This is a legitimate album, I don't know why you waste your time trying to get rid of this when theres plenty of other flawed wikipedia articles out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgr927 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Album Notes Fu Manchu: Scott Hill (vocals, guitar); Eddie Glass (guitar); Brad Davis (bass); Ruben Romano (drums).After a number of 45 inch singles and EPs, SoCal stone rockers Fu Manchu inaugurated their career properly with 1994's No One Rides for Free, a solid collection of groove-laden tunes that would establish a formula the band would hardly touch for years to come. Produced by then-Kyuss drummer Brant Bjork (who would officially join the band three years later), this is a confident debut from the get go. After racing through opener "Time to Fly," they unleash their first classic in "Ojo Rojo," whose lyrics about hot rods and drag racing would become a band trademark. This recurring theme pervades many of the album's other highlights, including "Superbird" and "Mega-Bumpers." By comparison, the soft acoustic guitar strumming of "Free and Easy (Summer Girls)" remains a career anomaly -- though an interesting one at that. Ironically, No One Rides for Free would remain the only worthwhile Fu Manchu album for many years to come, as subsequent efforts failed to yield any truly memorable tracks, no thanks to their often non-existent choruses and nonsensical lyrics. ~ Eduardo Rivadavia

Editorial Reviews 3 stars out of 5 - Their mid-'90s albums defined Californian stoner rock....NO ONE RIDES FOR FREE is assured... Q (20040401) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgr927 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has a couple references with reviews, but both sites apparently have no editorial process, nor are the users hired reviewers, so they don't seem to be reliable sources. I would accept a tertiary source as a reliable source, but it'd have to be more than a passing mention. eBay sales of the album obviously are not RSs. To users who would like us to feature an article on this album: my advice is to send copies to major reviewers and ask them to take a look at it, see if you can get some pieces published on it. It may become eligible for inclusion then. Dcoetzee 08:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has reviews from at least Allmusic and the Los Angeles Times [29] [30], both of which are reliable sources. That the Rough Guide to Rock, which is also a reliable source, describes the song as "classic" indicates that there were other reviews to support such a statement. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This album Mellow Gold is a legitimate album released in 1994 with a catalog number of BL12 (Bongload Records).[31] Yet this Fu Manchu album [32] has a catalog number of BL10 and was also released in 1994. Record labels release albums in sequential order. The Fu Manchu album has a lower catalog number so it MUST have been issued sometimes in 1994 or earlier. The songs on the album were even published in 1993! if you took the time to read the liner notes. This is starting to get ridiculous, Fu Manchu has been a band over 20 years. There is no motive for anybody to fabricate a debut album for them. This is a REAL album whether you find "reliable sources" for it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgr927 (talk • contribs) 05:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IGI Global

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a publisher at the high-volume/low-production-value end of the academic publishing industry. There are various sources in google, which fall into four groups (a) passing mentions as the publisher of a work being referenced / cited (this is the overwhelming majority) (b) entries in databases of publishers (academic libraries are big on such things) (c) non-independent materials originating from IGI Global itself or EBSCO (which is a primary reseller of IGI Global works in digital form, mainly selling the content in bulk to the academic libraries mentioned previously) and (d) independent sources which have a take a strongly negative view of IGI Global and/or their business practises, negative to the point of being attacks. See [33], [34], [35], [36], etc. Content based on those references has twice been as attack content, leaving the article without independent references. PROD was removed by User:Pundit without prejudice. Note: This company appears to be completely seperate from the similarly named Insight Global, which appears to suffer from similar issues. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion about notability here. They definitely have been criticized in the blogs mentioned by Stuartyeates, and also e.g. disputed in the Chronicles of Higher Education forum. This controversy perhaps increases the notability, but only slightly (also, the controversy itself is difficult to be properly sourced). At the very least, they are quite apt at selling books to very respectable universities, e.g. Harvard libraries have 169 volumes published by them, so irrespective of quality concerns voiced at blogs, they are probably not in the same bag as vanity and pay-to-play presses. On the other hand, they just are a rarely mentioned outlet, and looking for sources in their case is a real pain, since google regurgitates thousands of hits with their publications, and not descriptions of them as a publisher. Pundit|utter 13:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying question is whether these critical sites amount to "significant coverage" and "reliable sources" (in which case the topic is notable, the article lives and the content gets included) or not (in which case the topic is non-notable). Third opinions sought. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I have an opinion on Idea Group / IGI Global's notability either. I have a minor interest to declare as I used to help review articles for one of their technical journals and had an article published (and I too found their style and methods somewhat "challenging", but their publications generally useful). It is indeed tricky to find reliable independent sources for such a publisher, as they ceaselessly publicise themselves, while people (e.g. authors) who find them useful seldom then write about publishers; and other people tend to ignore publishers completely, unless indeed they find them a nuisance, in which case they blog, negatively: and again, such attacks are rarely in WP:RS. They certainly produce many journals, which in turn makes them widely read; and they have been running for many years now. Notability may however be difficult to establish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Regarding the sources: 5 is an interview, so not independent. 7 is a wiki, so not reliable. 8 does not appear to be reliable either. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Black The Ripper

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

DePRODed by creator, but the added refs neither assert notability per WP:BAND, nor are they WP:Reliable sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix the page up. Hello, I have created the page, and I do believe that it requires more information. If the sources do not seem reliable I will have them updated within a week. Just let me know which refs are unreliable. User:JoyRiderProdz (talk)
- At this point sources 1 to 9 are all not reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The best I found was passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully, the article can be kept now. Added 3 sources, which I believe to be reliable. Sources: 5, 7, and 8. User:JoyRiderProdz (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. copyvio of http://grimedigital.com/artist/black-the-ripper. A manual review of the sources reveal open wikis, an interview, and youtube videos. Clearly lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 17:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Source 5 is a reliable source http://www.mtv.co.uk/music/urban/201700-black-the-ripper-the-interview interview on Black The Ripper with relevant objectives as to why it is a good article. JoyRider (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Request withdrawn. 2011wp (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator without any non-keep !votes - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raka, Tibet

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

It may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The article in Chinese is being discussed in zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2012/08/03#Raka. 2011wp (talk) 01:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As of 01:53 8 Aug (UTC), this article is unsourced, and more critically, lacking of Chinese/Tibetan and administrative divisions more specific than the Tibet AR. A search on Google Earth near the coordinates as stated (29°26′N 85°50′E / 29.433°N 85.833°E / 29.433; 85.833 reveals nothing that could be a reasonable Mandarin transliteration of Raka, say "Laka". GotR ^Talk 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of small thoughts. I couldn't find Gullet quarry, Malvern on Google Earth, despite its geological (and historical) notability. I also feel that Mandarin names shouldn't be a touchstone for the notability of Tibetan places. —Misty_(MORN) 11:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For locations below the county-level, Google Maps/Earth almost always only provides the transliteration from Mandarin, so the Mandarin translit definitely factors into the notability. GotR ^Talk 14:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer, populated places that can be verified through reliable sources are always notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There should be a rule against nominating verifiable populated settlements for deletion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It's certainly not unsourced now. —Misty_(MORN) 10:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Verified places of population are always notable. Ryan Vesey 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazir

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 16:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. See WP:GNG. Article created by now blocked indefinitely editor.[37] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 08:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The gypsy queens

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

Prodded for not meeting N (MUSIC) but prod was removed. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a textbook WP:TOOSOON. No sources yet, no album yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cairns, Dan (20 November 2011), "Killer QUEENS", The Sunday Times is a substantial article about them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That's one good source. But I can't find any other independent, verfiable sources and don't think it meets WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON and it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Edward and Austin Bryant

AfDs for this article:

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

now that significant time has passed, yes there has been some but only a little coverage post March. but this really is a routine sad disappearance. [38]. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. If we are going to list all missing persons we'd have a million of these pages.Michael5046 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No I agree we shouldnt make articles on millions of missing people but we should do articles on notable missing people. Like this one that clearly passes WP:GNG. User Micheacl5046 have given no guideline or rational to his opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in these circumstances WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG otherwise you'd be creating articles for every spike in media coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, as well as the subsections WP:EFFECT (i.e. no evidence that the disappearance has resulted in different laws or missing persons procedures), WP:GEOSCOPE (i.e. very few reports outside of the local area of interest), WP:INDEPTH (i.e. no coverage in books, major news magazines, or TV news specialty shows), WP:PERSISTENCE (i.e. only one or two very brief news spikes), and possibly WP:DIVERSE (i.e. no significant national or international coverage). Sad to say, the couple's conviction on theft charges was barely reported which demonstrates how little of consequence or interest this disappearance is/was. Location (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant sarcastic exchange between two esteemed Wikipedians

very well said Location. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every !vote doesn't need your stamp of approval or disapproval Libstar.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and have you ever engaged in such behavior yourself? LibStar (talk) 09:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two wrongs doesn't make it right.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And actually I can honestly say that I have never engaged in such behavior to the extent that you do on a daily basis.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

really? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Joanna Yeates LibStar (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said daily basis you do what I did there on a daily basis on several AfDs. Secondly that article became a FA-status article. While you said it should be deleted based on that it wasn't notable what so ever at that time. So I would say I was entitled to fight for that article in that particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow this is irrelevant to this AfD discussion and I am not taking anymore of my time to discuss it with you. So bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On the basis of not news. This is a "mysterious disappearance of kids" story with routine coverage. Not an encyclopedia-worthy topic, tragic though it is, no lasting judicial or sociological impact. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Location. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Location, Carrite, and BDD; they said it all. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian Services for Children of Vietnam

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

fails WP:ORG. noble organisation but don't see extensive coverage [39]. let's see if my AfD followers turn up at this AfD. LibStar (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Quad Shopping Center

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

Single source article about a Shopping Mall, which is almost exclusively a list of tenants. May fail to meet WP:GNG Zaldax (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The shopping center gets a few mentions at Google News Archive but they are mostly trivial, and what coverage there is does not make the mall sound notable. One item describes it as "perennially struggling".[40]) --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject does not appear to be notable; does not pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Patel

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

An Attorney General (and possibly the current one) of Zimbabwe, and therefore eminently article-worthy, in one way or another. The problem is, although he verifiably has been Attorney General, this laudatory page about him is otherwise almost completely unsourced -- I've found that the Canadian government (unsurprisingly) doesn't like him, but that's it. The article was created by an SPA and immediately flagged with a CSD notice, removed by Gogo Dodo; it was later prodded but the prod notice was removed by Phil Bridger. Not speediable, not proddable, but also not tolerable in anything like its current state, and I therefore propose deletion in the bureaucratic way. However, if anyone can turn this into a well-sourced article that meets the usual criteria, I'll happily withdraw this proposal. Hoary (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 01:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close - AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you suggest? -- Hoary (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. No answer from Bushranger, who wrote AfD is not for cleanup. But I cleaned it up anyway. Now what do people think? The article presents an alternative name, a birthdate, and two mentions of the fellow as AG; is this keepworthy? -- Hoary (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient national government position to merit encyclopedic biography. Sources showing to confirm post. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial position in a national government, much like the article Attorney General of the United States, there is certainly a way to cover the man and his position appropriately. On that page (which includes a chronological list), every single individual who held that high title has an article. As I see no meaningful distinction between this one and those cited above, I think the aritcle should be kept. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and is it snowing yet? GregJackP Boomer! 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The snow is happily falling. What's not accumulating is any content. Here's what the "article" says: Bharat Patel or Bharatkumar Patel, born 16 April 1952, was the Attorney General of Zimbabwe in March 2004 and May 2008. In July 2009 he was Public Prosecutor of Zimbabwe. That's it. That's all. Is it enough for an article? One might add that he's persona non grata in Canada (from the Canadian link provided) and the EU. (Actually I'm about to add the latter.) My Lord Roem, if I read him correctly, sees no meaningful distinction between an Attorney General of Zimbabwe and one of the US; but I think that this is a little harsh on most (though not all) US Attorneys General. -- Hoary (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vishakha Dugarh

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which verify the existence or evidence the notability of this actress under WP:GNG. Language issues could easily in play there, additional sources welcomed. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 19:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Electric Catfish 00:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; not enough sources to even make a case that she meets WP:NACTOR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources. J04n(talk page) 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Secret of success (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmaker

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

Not notable. Awards are usual industry awards that everyone has in that sector. Advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Just another web design shop. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete plain WP:ADVERT .LibStar (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete -- A NN company: just an ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can undelete in case sources turn up Wifione ^Message 02:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protica

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

Fails WP:CORP as there has been no significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Apart from it winning an award in 2006 (along with >50 other companies) and a few articles about it's packaging, I can't find anything other than press releases. SmartSE (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP as above, has issues with dubious sources (see talk page). Main contributor to article has been blocked for faking references and a history of spamming. Autarch (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to see that someone turned up eventually! SmartSE (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Babajide Ogunbiyi

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails N:FOOTY as he has not played in a fully-pro league and he fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested by User:Gri3720 for no reason. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 31. Snotbot t • c » 22:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has still not received significant coverage, and is still yet to play in a fully pro league, meaning this article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for now. Major League Soccer is the highest level in this sport in the United States and Canada, and though he hasn't appeared on the field in that league yet, he's still part of the New York Red Bulls roster. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does not matter. Many players have played in MLS and never got a game in. Although the chance is unlikely for Jide it could still happen. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a silly argument. He's a significant signing for the New York Red Bulls and will certainly see the field. He was a significant player in college and played in Denmark. Seems a no-brainer to keep it around for the time being. Pavlovscat456 (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Now who does not know the rules around here. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not sure if he obviously fails WP:GNG. There's a fair bit of news coverage over the last few years in various languages. Hack (talk) 07:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this comment, there seems plenty on this player with a simple Google search, particularly with reference to his move to NYRB. In addition, although he has not yet played in a fully professional league, he has played for a fully professional club and has been in and around various Nigerian, so it would seem likely that he does fulfil WP:GNG. Weak keep and at worst userfy as it seems likely he will fulfill WP:NSPORT in the near future. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: Nominator might wish to consider editing their nomination following review of WP:WEASEL, words such as "obviously" are inherently subjective. In addition, PRODs can be contested for any reason and there is no requirement to give a reason according to WP:PROD. Finally Arsenalkid, you have already been blocked for a substantial period of time for edit warring, it might be advisable now you have returned from that block to tone the aggression down, there is no need to add comments proclaiming that other editors "do not know the rules", particularly when you make claims such as "obviously fails GNG" about without stating how. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: My reasoning for that comment was due to this User_talk:Gri3720#Babajide_Ogunbiyi (see the opening sentence). Yes I admit I was childish and should not have done that. Also the reason it fails GNG is because there is only one source on the entire article. If someone can find more and add that than yes I will not say that it obviously fails but at this moment it does obviously fail. Also I understand I was blocked for edit warring last month and so far I have kept away from them and asked questions before doing any actions. Trust me I have learned and seen the what can happen (vandalism etc). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to re-read WP:GNG as your interpretation of it is not correct. An article does not fail GNG becuase the article itself is only from one source, but because there are not sufficient sources externally to support notability, so no the article in itself does not "obviously" fail GNG. If your interpretation of GNG was correct then the thousands of unsourced articles and those reliant on only one source would be summarily deleted.

In addition, the comment you left on my talk page stating that you did not even look at google to see if there was a possibility of fulfilling GNG through external sources is concerning. Whilst a simple Google search is by no means sufficient to esablish GNG, a nomination and an admission that you did not take even the most cursory steps to confirm GNG is to me quite worrying.

Whilst I do not intend this comment to suggest the article should definitely be kept, I think the nomination now appears so weak and the process entered into by the nominator so cursory that the nomination should be withdrawn. If there is a genuine case that there is insufficient external sources for this footballer then it should be nominated again, but in a much more robust manner. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fine. So you will just stop complaining and I can stop being a troll I will withdraw from the conversation and remove obviously. To be honest I actually copy and pasted the heading from a another AfD I did earlier which was obviously failing GNG but again no excuse. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe the article should be kept as the player played on a fully professional club and was on the clubs books as a notable player, additionally other sources have been added to the page, including a trial stint with German side in which the clubs negotiated a transfer fee for the player but the transaction never went thru. Elop76 1 August 2012
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it may be worth getting some input from a Danish-speaker about the extent of coverage in reliable sources for Ogunbiyi's stint at Viborg. I'm leaning toward delete and userfy as the English-language WP:RS coverage appears a bit weak (all of this could be rendered moot if he appears on Saturday). Hack (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that depends on how Red Bulls see the fitness of the team. I still see the back four as Solli, Conde, Holgersson, Miller with Lade playing in midfield and then if Barklage is fit then Solli on the bench. Really doubt we will see him till later this month at least. I would expect with his injury and suspensions before signing that he would stay in New York and train. Be available for August 10th. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 09:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL to me, Arsenalkid. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ I think it a bit strange that a professional player who has played with a fully pro side, which in the past has had success at the Danish top flight, has produced international players fro Denmark, etc. is being being considered for deletion. The sources on the page both in us media and danish papers should be enough to show he is a pro player. He is not an amatuer soccer play and Viborg is not an amatuer soccer side in the least.Elop76 2 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not !vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this to see how he is technically not notable by wikipedia standards. Just like Jeremy Vuolo who is with a professional team and was with a club that was in the Finnish top division, still does not mean he is a notable player. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the rules different for basketball? He is notable in that he plays for a pro club. He also appeared in a Danish Cup match, would that qualify? --Elop76

The consensus is that only footballers that have played in a fully profesional league are presumed notable under WP:NSPORTS. Given he falls short of that requirement, it must be proven that he meets the requirements of WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources in the article to me it seems he does meet the requirements of WP:GNG. --Elop76 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.191.147 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we put the WP:FPL-list aside, this guy have been one of best players at the 16th best club Denmark in 2011-12, which is the 11th best ~~league~~ country in Europe according to the UEFA ranking. This guy might not pass WP:GNG by a large margin, but just about enough to have an article. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Danish 1st Division is the second tier... Hack (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, but Viborg finished 4th in the 2011-12 Danish 1st Division, plus the 12 teams in the Superliga, which might mean that Viborg was the 16th best club in Denmark that year. Struck "league" and replaced it with country in my original comment. However, what I'm trying to say is that he is notable because he passes WP:GNG, not because he "almost" passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY as he has never played in a fully pro league (comments like "he's expected to play in the near future" are WP:CRYSTAL) and fails WP:GNG due to largely routine media coverage. – Kosm1 fent 03:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment He got some media coverage in Denmark, and was quite popular in Viborg where he played apparently. I think that if taking Danish language sources into consideration he may pass the GNG criterion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with various articles in various countries over the years. And even if he didn't, I hardly see the point of getting rid of an article that's a major signing of a top team, who will likely be playing within days. It's just a waste of everyone's time and energy; it's a shame people weren't more interested in improving the project, rather than simply trying to police rules beyond common sense. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meh. There are 14 sources. 4 sources are to do with his high-school and college career which I see as routine and alumni info. Another 5 have to do with the same topic (2 have to do with him aiming high at Viborg with almost the same wording, while another 3 have to do with him signing for Red Bulls. I still would not consider this page notable. Specially as so far his impact is small (I am being harsh however as there has only been 2 games yet he is not on the bench in either one). Also why should he be an exception. There are many players like him in other leagues that have been debated before. Just because he signs for an MLS club does not mean he should have an article automatically, especially if the club he signed for was not notable. I could do the same with Jeremy Vuolo (who had a similar AfD as this one here). --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will use my dad to convince Panathinaikos to sign me for a week, so I can legitimately have an article which doesn't pass any notability guideline!!! (since, according to Nfitz, it's okay to not pass GNG or NFOOTY and have an article) Hooray me!!! – Kosm1 fent 05:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenalkid700, under WP:GNG, the references proving notability don't have to appear in the article. Hack (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets GNG. Player is addressed in detail by a number of reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Hill Mall

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an article about a building complex, which hardly seems notable. Only source is the complex's website. Zaldax (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was minimal, but I have now added more content and numerous references. Please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn as per statements of article creator. Hooray! Zaldax (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But if you mean me, I'm not the article creator. Rescuer, maybe. --MelanieN (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lucas

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP of an actor where the only external link is the official web page. Actor may not meet WP:Entertainer guidelines for notability, and the entire article is simply a list of movies and roles. Zaldax (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' There are some more sources out there beyond his own page such as this interview, and a film festival bio here. Just from a quick Google search, so there may be more out there.Rjp422 (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Creator has contacted me with justification for inclusion and added reliable sources to the article. Hooray! Zaldax (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupt (verb)

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is little more than an expanded dictdef. I don't see how it can ever become a valid article. Declined PROD. DES ^(talk) 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. DES ^(talk) 00:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge to a topic related to psychology/behavior, and/or communication. Perhaps something in the ADHD field. I started this page and thought it would be notable enough to stay. But yet I admit it does read more like a dictionary entry. The word interrupt is very common and the verb part should have some sort of disambiguation from its primary subject, located here: interrupt, which deals with computer technology, along with its own category. I believe people would search the verb, like I did, and if there was no page on this, they would have to go to Wiktionary, which can be inconvenient if they are already here. We have several words that may be close to dictionary definitions, as seen here: Category:English words. I have listed sources on the talk page that could turn this article around into something more encyclopedic, as opposed to a dictionary definition. Tinton5 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There's nothing worth saving here. If a psychology or communication oriented interruption is encyclopedic, it would have to go under a different title anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because current title and content are unsuitable for redirect or article. (Context for tinton: Unless a decent amount of reliable sources are available (that are discussing the word itself) then it's simply impossible to ever make it into (even a short) Featured article (what everything is essentially striving for). There are a few words that qualify, but not many.

But we could use either a hatnote pointing (somewhere?), or just a Wiktionary template (now added), at Interrupt . ('interruption' redirects there).

Where could we disambiguate it to? What is an 'interruption', a rhetorical technique? "Verbal communication" just redirects to linguistics, so that's no good. Maybe something in Category:Oral communication? (catmain links to a tiny 1-paragraph-subsection at Communication#Oral_communication so that's no good). Any suggestions? -- Quiddity (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were enough to create an article, IMO it would belong at "interruption". As to the point above about Category:English words, some of those should probably be deleted also, don't argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But many of them are cases where a word or phrase has actually gotten sufficient attention to be notable of itself, such as the article about the controversies over the use of "niggardly". DES ^(talk) 14:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a Disambig. page or just create a page called that? I think Quiddity is on to something. I do favor the idea of adding a note, directing the word someplace or just have a brief mention in a particular article related to oral communication/or etiquette/social behavior/conversation, etc. Tinton5 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the word Interruption currently redirects to Interrupt, which deals with computer software. If we created a DAB page with the word "interruption" the following entries would be listed:

and then have the content related to the verb added in someplace. Thoughts? Tinton5 (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DES: Absolutely. I wasn't suggesting that we should have an article about interruptions, I was hoping to find an existing article that has (or would reasonably include) a sub-section dealing with interruptions (citing any existing studies concerning their usage in verbal communication). If such a ___location exists, then we would simply add to the hatnote at Interrupt, something along the lines of:

"This article is about computer interrupts. For interruptions in verbal communication, see [?x?]. For the study of the effect of disruptions on job performance, see Interruption science."

@Tinton: A Disambig page at interruption is definitely valid. I'll make one now. But we still need to figure out where the entry discussing communication-interruptions would point the reader to. (and if there is no appropriate article, then all we can do is use a Wiktionary template.) -- Quiddity (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as interruptions in conversations are involved, the natural spot to find that treated is in Conversation analysis, in which it is a much studied topic. Strangely enough, our article fails to spend a single word on it; there really ought to be a section on interruptions there. If someone has time to do s.t. about it (I don't), a much cited classical study on the influence of sex roles on interrupting behaviour is the one by Zimmerman and West (1975), and a whole chapter (Chapter 7: Who's Interrupting: Issues of Dominance and Control) is spent on the topic in the well-known and popular 1990 book You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation by Deborah Tannen. There is much more material. Not all of it is directly related to sex roles; see e.g. Talbot (1992).
- Don H. Zimmerman and Candace West (1975). "Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation". Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Newbury House. pp. 105–129. ISBN 0-88377-043-1.
- Mary Talbot (November 1992). "'I wish you'd stop interrupting me!': Interruptions and asymmetries in speakers-rights in equal encounters". Journal of Pragmatics. 18 (5): 451–466. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(92)90084-O.

--Lambiam 01:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We neither need lexical entries in Wikipedia for common English words, nor even soft redirects for them to Wikitionary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore this comment since the user has been hounding me several times. Did you even look at Category:Redirects to Wiktionary? There are over a thousand entries. I don't see what the problem is. Tinton5 (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tinton, that user is an admin, an OTRS assistant (he/she helps answer emails sent to Wikimedia), and has worked as a lexicographer. I would suggest great caution, in making assumptions, (we all do it, constantly, as human pattern perceivers. but don't trust your assumptions too strongly ;) By which I mean, kudpung probably has purely good intentions, but there might have been some miscommunications (boyohboy do we have a lot of those around here).

That said, Kudpung could (should) have read the responses above, a bit more closely, (eg the details from Lambiam), before replying to this thread. "Keep or redirect" aren't good options, as we've determined already - we've moved on to discussing hatnotes, and potential locations that the topic would actually belong. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Varieties of democracy

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

The topic is well covered by Democracy#Forms and Outline of democracy#Types of democracy. Any information that needs to be preserved can be moved to one of the these pages. Yaniv256 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. So long as the information is preserved, I'd be for this. In particular, I'd like to see the information in Varieties of democracy#Hybrid democracy receive its own subsection under Democracy#Forms, since the Democracy page does not currently include any information about hybrid democracy. Other relevant, sourced information in Varieties of democracy could be merged into the appropriate sections of Democracy#Forms—but I would want to avoid merging much of the substantive info into Outline of democracy#Types of democracy, since the outline page is supposed to be rather light on details. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I sould have been more clear about the details, but you described it very well. I plan to do it myself, but would welcome any help. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 08:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is Articles for Deletion and deletion does not preserve anything. The process wanted here is merger. Warden (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree, this is a merger project. Important content, just needs to be streamlined.Rjp422 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Will reopen as a merge project. →Yaniv256^talk_contribs 18:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wifione ^Message 02:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy Patterson

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

Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs)

Keep -He meets WP:Footy. Which was already pointed out to the nominator.Blethering Scot 22:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's already appeared in league fixtures, thus passing FOOTY. Is the nom not paying attention? Ravenswing 06:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a fully-pro league. Needs improving to bring up to GNG - not deleting. Giant Snowman 11:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Only 2 league appearances and 80 minutes in a league whose fully pro status has been contested in the past. Coverage-wise is also weak, nothing but routine match reports; fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 13:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Its not a matter of one rule for one and another for a different article. The consensus on every occasion last year was that it was to be included therefore during the season that he played that makes him meet WP:NFOOTY.Blethering Scot 15:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He passes NFOOTY and GNG as well. Although I do believe we should discuss whether to keep the Scottish First Division (2nd tier).--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly does he pass GNG? – Kosm1 fent 19:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why are we here? Easily meets WP:GNG and [[WP:NFOOTBALL]. Nfitz (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to show why he "easily" meets GNG when all there is about him is routine match reports? – Kosm1 fent 05:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Marenghi (footballer)

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

Fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwaq (talk • contribs)

Delete - Has not played for the first team so fails WP:NFOOTY automatically and does not meet WP:GNG.Blethering Scot 23:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for now. I agree he doesn't meet the technical requirements, but he's playing in preseason matches, and it's premature to consign him to the second team; this is an article that if deleted now may well just be speedily recreated. The first league fixture is day after tomorrow. Not only played in all but one preseason match after his signing, as well as in the two Cup matches, but played in the first league fixture today, thus meeting WP:NFOOTY without any question. Ravenswing 06:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Ravenswing - please see WP:CRYSTAL - we should not keep articles on possible future notability. Giant Snowman 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If and when he makes his first team debut, he may be notable, but not now. As others have already stated, he has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom – he hasn't played in a fully pro league or received significant media coverage. – Kosm1 fent 13:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As was readily predictable - speaking of WP:CRYSTAL - the moment competitive matches began, the subject was on the field, playing in matches for the Scottish Challenge Cup [41] and the Scottish League Cup [42], both of which in fact qualify him under WP:FOOTY's second criterion ... and had done so before this AfD was opened, something which surprised me that not a single Delete proponent noticed. I call on the nom to withdraw this AfD. Ravenswing 15:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At FOOTYN: "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports)", a guideline where playing in a cup competition doesn't justify notability. – Kosm1 fent 17:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... and, as eminently predictable, played in the first league fixture today [43]. Any more point to this? Ravenswing 15:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes. He appeared in the Scottish Second Division, which is not a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 15:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with articles such as [44], [45]. Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a match report, the second is transfer news, making both sources routine coverage and insufficient for general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league (the only match he played was at the third tier in Scotland) or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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