Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 February	6 February >

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. I am prepared to userfy if Dontforgetthisone assures me that he has actually found sources for notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Griffin

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

No indication of notability; web and news searches return nothing. Subject is a now defunct retail store; only "reference" is to the store's facebook page. Without actual references, there is no reason to believe that this particular chain meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page userfyed Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~
Comment: I have reverted my non-admin closure of this discussion per the nominator's request on my talk page, as there appears to be more behind this AfD than I was aware of at the time I closed it. Note that the page under discussion is currently at User:Dontforgetthisone/The Griffin. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the page to The Griffin. The creator of the article should never have userfied, as that's the equivalent of blanking the page during discussion, which is not allowed. Userfication should be at the discretion of the closing admin; however, I personally recommend that userfication not be allowed, because this article will never be appropriate for mainspace. The store simply isn't notable. It was a small retail chain that is now closed; nothing more is ever going to be written on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG / no WP:secondary sources. Cimorcus talk 01:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I have stated on my own talk page, I am currently researching off-line for sources and references on this company. I know they can make it notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 03:11, 12 February 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. As with The Griffin, I am prepared to userfy if Dontforgetthisone assures me that he has actually found sources for notability. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: the person now at this title is a different man, moved there from Phil Griffin (presenter). JohnCD (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Griffin

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

Article contains no indication of notability; I can find nothing in news or web searches. Only reference is the facebook page of the now defunct retail store subject founded. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Page userfyed Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This links to a disambiuation page, and the "buisness man" option redirects to the diambig page, too. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted my non-admin closure of this discussion per the nominator's request on my talk page, as there appears to be more behind this AfD than I was aware of at the time I closed it. Note that the page under discussion is currently at User:Dontforgetthisone/Phil Griffin. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the disambiguation page is included in this AFD, it needs to be tagged as such. If it's not, then user pages are not subject to AFD and this needs to be closed. If you think the userfied page should be deleted, then MFD is the way to go. The nominator can easily add the DAB page to this debate, if they so choose. Or, hell, per IAR, I'm going to do that anyway right now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page was unacceptably userfied. This is the second time this editor has userfied this page in response to a deletion discussion. Were I the closing admin rather than the nominator, I would not allow userfication, because it serves no purpose: no amount of work on this article can ever make it meet the notability guidelines, because the person simply isn't notable. Thus, I asked Kuyubribri to re-open, and I am moving the article back into mainspace. Per the AfD process, the page may not be blanked while AfD is under discussion, which is basically what Dontforgetthisone. While it is ultimately the closing admins decision, I hope that userfication will not be allowed unless someone can suddenly find a reason for possible notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - userfication is almost always a reasonable compromise position when an article is sent to AFD. The first time it was userfied was in response to a PROD - and you can object to a PROD just because it's Tuesday, if you like. When he moved it back to the mainspace, material appears to have been added, indicating at least a reasonable good faith effort to improve the article. If indeed the author is attempting to dodge deletion by userfying, that's why we have MFD - use that process and put it to bed. BLP does, in some cases, preclude userfication, but here we have what appears to be a neutral BLP backed by some sourcing - the article might not show notability, but it doesn't breach BLP. So I don't see any reason not to permit the userfication, and then take the userfied page to MFD and have done with it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. My opinion (which is not necessarily a majority opinion, but it's not idiosyncratic) is that userspace must exist to support the encyclopedia. This article cannot support the encyclopedia if I am right about the subject's notability. The problem is, MfD often comes down to the "does no harm" principle. However, if the closing admin wants to allow userfication, I'm not going to fight it. I do object to the user superseding process before we can get a consensus on the subject's notability. Heck, for that matter, pre-emptively moving it to userspace makes it impossible for anyone else to improve the article--it's like the user saying "this is my article, I'll fix it or no otly ne can." Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources that I was able to find. The only reference in this BLP is a facebook link which is hardly a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you know, I am currently trying to locate some references from off-line sources on Phil Griffin as I know they could make this page notable. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 03:09, 12 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Friesen

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

Non-notable film student. An older version of the article was deleted. Another editor declined PROD on the basis of the previous deletion. Pburka (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined the prod because of the earlier AfD, and didn't put it up for G4 deletion because the AfD was long enough ago and the current article was different enough that I thought it deserved a more careful discussion. But I'm not seeing the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that would be needed to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the article itself are certainly not good enough — only two look reliable and they only mention him trivially as a child delegate — and I didn't turn up anything better in a search of Google news. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sigificant coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article doesnt do it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 10 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Job (detailed synopsis)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This detailed "synopsis" of the film is an end run around a discussion on the film's Talk page a while ago about the length of the plot. The consensus was that the film's plot, just like any other film, had to stay within guidelines WP:FILMPLOT, although it actually still exceeds guidelines a bit. The editors who wanted a more detailed plot really wanted to use the film article as leverage to discuss the film's subject matter. In case anyone is curious, the word count for the "detailed" plot article is 1,565, and the word count for the film article's plot is 751. Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure original research and a violation of WP:NOTPLOT created after the material was cut (according to policy and consensus) from Inside Job (film). I'll assume good faith and guess that this is a result of an anonymous user deciding to register an account and not yet being familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an inappropriate content fork. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 10 February 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. However, I hope to remind editors participating in AfDs not to WP:BITE new editors too hard. Some of the dismissive arguments I see here are verging towards the territory of this. Der yck C. 17:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water Charity

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

Not a notable org. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note JahSun has removed the Afd tag. As this discussion is still open, I will add it again. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NONPROFIT by having international scope and 3rd party news sources. -- 202.124.72.34 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Please state where these sources are. Presently there are no 3rd party sources. Also, there is nothing about this subject that passes WP:NONPROFIT. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
::Nothing about this subject? Hmmm... the 2 credentials that need to be passed are 1) International in scope (Check. We operate in 70 countries worldwide & 2) Mentioned in independent 3rd party references (which we are in spades). In Senegal alone, we appear in 50 recent news articles. Don't you have anything better to do than attack a non-profit that brings water to people in need. This is kind of sad.JahSun (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love this charity's work and I compliment the three volunteers (no paid staff) who run it. But it totally fails to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I could find no third-party coverage about it, and none is provided in the article (the only independent link, to the Washington Times, does not mention the charity). MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I could find no evidence that this charity is located in California - or anywhere - and Charity Navigator never heard of them. Also, I could not find it in the official state listing of California corporations, although I suppose it could incorporated in another state and still operate in California. But the bottom line is that absolutely NOTHING about this charity could be verified. MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are not trying hard enough. We are a 501 (c)3 registered in California. There is plenty of documentation for this. JahSun (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOBLECAUSE --Cybercobra (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a !vote to delete or what? MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked essay. That makes Cybercobra's thoughts on the matter clear. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find this alleged news coverage - Google archives gives a number of hits for the search string "water charity" +maldives, but nothing close to significant coverage, just passing mentions of the charity. Numerous other search strings linking concepts from the article here turned up a blank. Noble cause, does good work - sadly not notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As no evidence that subject meets WP:NONPROFIT. The fact the organisation claims to be a noble cause, and yet reliable sources don't demonstrate it, is itself a cause for deletion for obvious reasons. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; although in searching, I find enough non indepth mentions to warrant meeting WP:GNG, the article needs to be rewritten to comply with WP:NEU & WP:COI. Furthermore, more secondary sources are needed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Where are these 3rd party reliable sources that establish notability? Please share if you know of any. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Of The Many 3rd Party References

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/01/03/sea-levels-rise-in-the-maldives-and-drinking-water-diminishes/ http://positive-h2o.com/team_blog/2010/10/water-charity-parnership/ http://gwias.com/category/featured http://www.supsurfmag.com/features-stand-up-paddle/news/positive-h2o-201201011191/ http://onesimpleask.com/blog/2011/12/08/fixing-the-system-water-charity-ceo-jahsun-answers/

There are literally hundreds of them out there. If National Geographic is not enough for you, I may go and dig up the references in Newsweek, interviews on Telemundo & BBC etc. etc. It pains me that I must take time away from helping people to deal with this.

A bigger issue than me as CEO of a major company wasting my time with this frivolous harassment, is the fact that the two major users spearheading attacks on all of my pages are currently being investigated for wikihounding, User:Ism schism's first deletion call was dismissed, and both users have ignored attempts to reach out to them, going so far as to edit their talk pages and disguise things like the fact that until today User:Cybercobra's TODO lists was 2/3rds dealing with articles directly pertaining to me. JahSun (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply None of these are 3rd party reliable sources that establish notability. The article is not the subject of 3rd party reliable sources either... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis: In order: passing mention, not independent (partner org +H2O's blog), unreliable (short announcement by college club of event benefiting Water Charity), not independent (author affiliated with +H2O), not independent (author = JahSun) --Cybercobra (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+H20 is not affiliated with Water Charity. We have done a few projects and events together. You will notice that the fifth source asked me to answer their question of the month due to my notability and that of the organization.JahSun (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you define "affiliated" (which is not the term I used). "Water Charity Partnership: +H2O is proud to be working with Water Charity[...]". --Cybercobra (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. As others have said, I applaud the good work, but the notability still needs to be established. Begoon ^talk 00:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys don't seem to be trying at all. Here is a reference from the world's leading luxury resort chain... http://www.sixsenses.com/environment/WaterCharity.php

Again, that is just a website - not a WP:RS. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JahSun. But seriously cleanup. Rewrite - It reads like an advertisement and promotion, i.e.

“

These projects cost $555 or less,[6] and yet are able to drill wells, install rainwater catchment systems, build latrines, run water to schoolhouses and more. This is often less than other charities spend writing a proposal. All projects are completed in less than a month.

”

---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 00:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: OK, I finally did find confirmation that the charity exists, is a registered 501-c-3 charity, and is located in Crestline, California. That's a relief. But there is still no evidence that the group is notable, much less that it is as "major" as JahSun keeps claiming. Of the sources provided by JahSun, only one is from a reliable source - namely, the National Geographic Newswatch item - and all it does is confirm that one of the principals of the organization was there in the Maldives. The organization still lacks the required substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources and thus still fails Wikipedia's requirements for an article about a charity. MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just like with your claim that we were not registered or able to be found in California, your other claims of lack of notability will be disproven by anyone who takes the time to do any research whatsoever. Our name is a fairly common grouping of words so a cursory Google search might be a bit tough, but if you persevere you will find that we are very notable. We've had world leaders personally thank us for our work... received grants from major foundations who do not give to fly-by-night organizations. A simple perusal of the list of our completed projects will show you that what we have accomplished is notable. It pains me to think that a charity organization must spend the capital it raises to higher a publicist in order to be of interest to some of you guys. We pride ourselves on the fact that all donations we receive go to actual projects. Your focus on PR rewards companies that only spend 20 to 30% of the funds they raise on projects or are headed by celebrities that do not actually do charity work (like recent revelations about Wyclef Jean's charity for Haiti).JahSun (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're also registered with the California State Attorney General's office[1]. Don't make too much of the "delinquent" status; I hear that the RCT is seriously backlogged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Call for dismissal of attack

I repeat that the two main proponents of this attack on me & my charitable organization are both under investigation for wikihounding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cybercobra_.26_User:Ism_schism) defined as following an editor around on the various pages they are involved with to undermine them and make their experience here less than enjoyable. This is very evident in the record here. They have been at the front of the attack on all of the pages I have been involved with, one of which was sumarrily dismissed by another senior editor as having no validity. User:Ism schism had the nerve to assert that one of the articles was pure gibberish and nonsense despite clear evidence that many other users felt it was clearly written and cogent (nominated for the Wikipedia Philosophy Project no less).

Conveniently, once a page is deleted, it seems that its talk and history are gone as well... thus I can not link to the Wikipedia:Project Philosophy badge the article had earned.

In the end, I don't care if my pages are taken down. The idea that they might need some help and assistance from other users more familiar with Wikipedia protocol than I, is not hard to imagine. However, instead of being constructive, these two have taken it upon themselves to hound and attack without any constructive criticism. They have operated like a tag team duo, which makes me wonder if they are not sockpuppets, or at least friends who find this kind of thing amusing. You can read here in this user's archive of at least 2 recent cases where he has been accused of sockpuppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra/Archive_1#Sockpuppetry_case A number of other edits in his talk page are also burying complaints leveled against him, and he prides himself on being a so-called BOLD editor who doesn't care about communication, but just acts first according to his interests. A person with this many investigations and complaints should not be allowed to continue roaming free and intimidating people... this seems to be a weakness of the Wikipedia model IMHO.

With all the articles people could be editing, the thought that someone would randomly be the spearhead of attacks on all of another users articles is far-fetched... the idea that 2 users could be doing the same independently, is ridiculous. A 3rd member of the push against my articles is also present on more than one call for deletion, so they may have a little clique. There is a pattern of working together between these people in their contribution history, but as someone with real life responsibilities... I can not be bothered to spend the hours it would take collecting and collating the data. At any rate, the people in question are very quick to erase conversations and delete things from their talk pages that put them in a bad light. Suffice it to say, I am not the only person who has taken issue with the way these two play Wikipedia as if it were some kind of competitive video game.

(Personal attack removed) If the removal or fixing of the Water Charity page is truly warranted, another editor can engage the process anew. JahSun (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, here is the complaint filed by JahSun against Cybercobra and IsmSchism. I advised JahSun there and I repeat it here: if he would just spend one-tenth of the time posting links to all this evidence he claims is out there, instead of posting long rambling attacks here and on talk pages and at ANI, he could easily cause this whole deletion controversy to go away. Just SHOW us some of these links, instead of insisting they are there if only WE will look for them. If you can show me several examples of significant coverage in reliable sources - as Wikipedia defines "significant" and "reliable source" - I will change my !vote to "keep" and so will everyone else here. Stop wasting your time and everybody else's by telling us how important you are and how unfairly you think you are being treated. Just show us the evidence we keep asking for, and all will be well. MelanieN (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment is a serious issue. My pointing it out is neither long, nor rambling. The history of complaints is an important piece of information. In jurisprudence, the pattern of previous behavior and repeated calls of sockpuppetry are significant. I posted the first 6 links I came across, and one of my attackers consistently claims that websites are not good enough... I don't know how to link to anything other than a website. If you want some more links, how about one of these:

http://52pumps52weeks.wordpress.com/ A Blog set up by the Peace Corps country director of Senegal talking about a 52 well project we are doing with them.

http://www.theaccessproject.com/index.php/from_the_field/story/making_running_water_a_reality_in_rural_health_centers This one mentions the many projects we are doing in Rwanda.

In the Peace Corps Journal Project we are mentioned extensively... having worked with 1,000 PCVs or so over the years. Here is an example of that: http://www.peacecorpsjournals.com/entry/401868-10645-73-http://sharonssenegaladventure.blogspot.com/2012/01/well-improvement-project.html

Or the Burkina Faso resource site: http://www.pcburkina.org/content/appropriate-projects-initiative-water-and-sanitation-project-funding-pcvs

I could go on like this all day, but the issue to me is not the repeated and laughable claims that we are not real or not international or not notable... it is the specious and vicious attacks by the users in question who both have a history of acting in this way. I have read the reliable sources page now, and I think given the nature of the projects we do, such sources as I have provided are the most reliable you could ask for. They not only show that we exist, but they show how much other people in the philanthropic world appreciate what we do. I do not feel that the people who have commented negatively here are in any position to judge us. JahSun (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are reliable sources, so don't go on all day. These are a waste of your time and ours. Instead of searching at Google, search at Google News for current stories - and Google News "archive" (button on the left) to see old news stories. You can link to a news story just as you can to a blog, and I know you know this because you have done it - with your link in the article to the Washington Times (which unfortunately did not mention Water Charity). If you actually read WP:RS, you should have come to realize that we require PUBLISHED sources (such as newspapers, magazines, or books) which have a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. Not some peace corps volunteer's diary. MelanieN (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW nobody has subjected you to "specious and vicious attacks". They are simply pointing out that the articles about your charity, and about you, do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion based on current evidence. MelanieN (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, please read the Wikipedia:Harassment policy because following a user around and attempting to delete all their articles is a blatant case. Even if they were correct, the policy advises that users not edit or comment on any large number of another user's posts. Secondly, it seems you have not read the Wikipedia:RS policy recently yourself. I will quote from it here. The sources you say are not reliable are actually only called Questionable in the guidelines and there are circumstances where they are considered appropriate and acceptable. Here:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is not unduly self-serving; the material does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); the material does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to the authenticity and source of the material; the article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

It seems that I could even post from the many hundreds of articles about our projects from our own website or even the Twitter feeds and Facebook pages of notable experts. Filmmaker Jim Thebaut regularly tweets about us and invites us every year to his Water Forum in Washington DC. WaterWired chief editor Michael Campana also blogs and tweets about us regularly... he is maybe the leading expert on the world water crisis in print.

The idea that a blog to document 52 well project written and set up by the Country Director (highest authority in country) of the United States Peace Corp does not attest to verifiability and notability is an odd idea. Obviously he is an expert in the field. Obviously he thinks the work we do is important.

Forgive me if this exercise in futility seems like a waste of my time. This whole episode has taken hours of my time that would have been better spent doing what I do best... helping people. I don't know what the rest of you do best, but this is not a shining example of it. Save the world from having to see Water Charity and its work on Wikipedia... a real public service.JahSun (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News Sources

You say Google News hits are good? Here is one that pops up, Vogue good enough for you? http://www.vogue.com.au/people+parties/events/kate+bosworth+raises+funds+in+the+maldives,14801 or this http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/press-release/maldives-to-welcome-first-ocean-conservation-event-at-six-senses_56715/ There is a lot of press for our Maldives Laamu event because the resort has a press agent, but we have events all the time. Note that at this event for us, Kate Bosworth, James Morrison, Fabien Cousteau, Jane Seymour, Daryl Hannah, and Rami Jaffee (a Foo Fighter & original Wallflower) were there to promote our work. I personally invited Darryl & Rami, who are only a couple of the dozens of celebrities whom I am personally friendly with. I could probably even get guys like Lenny Kravitz, Ben Harper, Jim Carrey and more to come to this site just to vouch for us, but somehow I doubt that would satisfy you lot. You would just claim that it is unverifiable that they are who they claimed to be. I could get one of my friends to tweet about us on a verified account... If Sonny Rollins or Ian Anderson tweeted that we were major, international and notable would that help? JahSun (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue page won't load for me, but I gather Water Charity was one of several beneficiaries of a fundraiser. At least you are finally offering a published source, although this hardly qualifes as "significant coverage" about the organization. Your second link is a press release; press releases are not considered reliable sources because they are not independent journalism. Name dropping a dozen celebrities won't help. Citing tweets won't help. Look, at this discussion you said that Water Charities is "a major international aid organization, with dozens of mentions and interviews in the mainstream press". Great! Just find us some of those dozens of interviews, or other substantial coverage in the mainstream press (even a mention helps, although it doesn't establish notability by itself), and we can all move on. MelanieN (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue page loads just fine for me. And the second link is not a press release. We do not put out press releases generally, and the policy of WP is that the subject's press releases are not independent. If someone else issues a press release that mentions us and adds to our notability, it seems to avoid this stricture. And here is one of the NDTV features on the event that is up on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI8Wdq7mwAY (there is a link to part 2 of this 20 min feature on this page as well).

You keep telling me what will help and what I should do. You haven't responded to the fact that the actual policies of Wikipedia seem to state different things than you. What, I ask, makes you the authority here. If you want to move on... go right ahead. There is no reason for you... any of you, to keep coming back to all these pages and hounding. Must be nice to boss around and strongarm a CEO, no?

I am done jumping though hoops for you. If the celebrities think we are notable, that holds more water than whether you, MelanieN do. As for the other charities present, we invited them (Fabien Cousteau's charity, and another friend's Blue Marine Foundation)... Six Senses.. as you would know if you read the link earlier is one of our major sponsors, and they do many fundraisers for us. We are the prime recipient of the charitable funds they raise. JahSun (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vogue article is a grand total of 6-7 sentences in length, and the coverage of Water Charity consists entirely of the sentence "Raising funds for [...] marine charities Water Charity and Plant a Fish, the aim of the event was to highlight and discuss marine conservation issues." For the umpteenth time, I advise JahSun to read the WP:GNG (it's not a long read). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read that through many times... it is you who seem to be ignoring WP:ABOUTSELF stipulations on Questionable sources. Being mentioned in Vogue demonstrates some notability whether you like to admit it or not.JahSun (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the Verifiability policy, which is about what content an article can have (e.g. I couldn't edit Earth to claim that it's only 3.14159 million years old without citing a source). Deletion discussions are concerned with Notability, which is whether a topic merits its own article (e.g. some random Pokémon doesn't merit a separate article). WP:ABOUTSELF basically means "if we have an article on an entity, we can typically use published facts from the entity in the article". It doesn't factor into notability though. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try buddy... But the Notability page refers and links back to the Verifiability page for questions of "reliable sources," and in case you haven't been paying attention, the issue being raised with the 10 or more links here always comes back to RS. JahSun (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONPROFIT

I ask that you familiarize yourself with WP:NONPROFIT as it seems you and others here are unfamiliar for what the criteria are for a non-profit like Water Charity and continue to speak as if this was an article on a typical encyclopedic fact. We are only held to 2 criteria, both of which have been amply proven. The wikipolicy goes on to say that our major achievements can be used to speak to our notability, in which case, the hundreds of projects up on our various websites speak volumes as to our notability... as a non-profit. The sheer number of our projects and the scope of our impact around the world is a valid point of argument according to WP:NONPROFIT. If you are going to be a policy stickler... at least know your policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JahSun (talk • contribs) 10:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, the info on your websites is not independent. We had a case of an international group of companies that had an impressive website. And from what we could find, nothing more. The 'celebrities' may consider your organisation notable, but we have no evidence of this. A lot of 'celebrities' go where the free food is, and where the cameras are, so far as I can see with the UK's ones. Water Charity may be doing better work than the big boys, but in doing small projects there is less chance of independent coverage. We have nothing against you or your organisation. We do tend to find that the more ranting there is, the less evidence will appear. And all in all, it must be remembered that this is our field and our ball and our rules. You may start your own wiki at wikimedia.com, or put your articles on AboutUs and Facebook. They don't have our requirements. I wish you well with Water Charity - the small projects are very often more efficient, especially if participants in one village can be 'persuaded' to help with a similar project in another. Peridon (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem delusional. Talking in the 'we' about Wikipedia? "And all in all, it must be remembered that this is our field and our ball and our rules." You've been playing in this public park so long you think it is your backyard? Even the founders of this website couldn't say what you are saying. Wikipedia is just as much my field and my ball as it is yours. JahSun (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that blogs are not considered RS for notability, with certain rare exceptions. Nor are forums, press releases (including PRWire etc), and wikis (including Wikipedia). Peridon (talk) 12:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Nonprofits may be one of those "rare" exceptions. At any rate, you are not the master of all knowledge and correctness here. Everyone can read the policy and decide for themselves what it means. Maybe you have a bit too much of yourself invested here... I recommend you get a few hobbies outside the confines of this odd little world. Your field, your ball, and your rules? Kind of sad. JahSun (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a shame the author has spent his time attacking other editors rather than improve the article. Because the name of the charity is so generic it is difficult to find independent verification using an internet search engine. However, independent verification has been found and, because the charity is international in scope and this can be verified by independent sources such as this one, it clearly meets NONPROFIT. The article doesn't need to meet WP:GNG. It could do with a clean-up and removal of some uncited information. Sionk (talk) 15:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply For NONPROFIT it must meet both: "1)The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." The article clearly does not meet the second requirement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NONPROFIT (2) is not the same as WP:GNG. Water Charity meets (2) because information about the charity can be verified by multiple, third party reliable resources. As someone else has already pointed out, it can also be independently verified they are a registered charity based in CA. There are a couple of news articles which verify they are internationally active (particularly in the Maldives) in charity work. Therefore it quite clearly does meet the second requirement. If (2) was the same as WP:GNG (which it isn't) there would be no need for point (1), or for that matter, WP:NONPROFIT. Sionk (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not pass WP:NONPROFIT. For this article to pass NONPROFIT, it must also past part 2 which states, Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. As this second requirement is not met, the article should be deleted. Please see MelanieN's commet below for more explanation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you have simply repeated what you said above doesn't exactly help or move things forward. Are you saying the additional news/magazine articles are not WP:IRS? Sionk (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Blueboar and WhatamIdoing's comments below. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tried, I really have. We have all tried to explain to JahSun what is required to maintain an article here. But all he has managed to come up with in the way of Reliable Sources is a one-paragraph mention at National Geographic's Newswatch, and a passing mention in Vogue Australia. Despite what he thinks of my research, I spent a fair amount of time looking for stuff and those two items were all I could find too. Plus I found the IRS listing as a 501.c.3 which was pretty much the only official verification I could find - and that is only good for verification, not notability. (My local Kiwanis Club's foundation is also 501.c.3, but that doesn't make it notable.) Unless the self-interested main arguer here can come up with some solid sources, instead of simply trying to overwhelm the thread with verbiage, I am outta here. MelanieN (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is verification that is required to pass WP:NONPROFIT. You seem to be agreeing we have verification. Sionk (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously arguing that the only things required for a nonprofit to have an article here are a 501.c.3 designation (for verification) and some kind of national or international connection? If so, then my 14-member Kiwanis Club (and every other 501.c.3 charity, of which there are millions) deserves a Wikipedia article.

WP:NONPROFIT requires that "information about the organization and its activities" be verified by "multiple third-party independent reliable sources" - a standard which is similar to the notability requirement for WP:GNG. The only two real references provided for this organization - a passing mention in Vogue Australia and a paragraph at National Geographic's Newswatch - do not come close to that standard. JahSun keeps insisting that the organization has been covered by multiple articles in the mainstream press, but he (and we) were unable to come up with a single example, and without them this charity does not qualify. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So someone PLEEEZ explain, what is the difference between WP:NONPROFIT and WP:GNG? If there is no difference then there is no need for WP:NONPROFIT. There is clearly a difference. We are not looking for in-depth news coverage, we are simply looking for verification. JahSun had no tact or manners but I can understand their frustration. Sionk (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both call for 'multiple' sources, with the caveat "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." in GNG at least. We are looking for at least some in depth coverage. We do know it (the charity) exists (unlike the 'multinational' I referred to either here or one of the other JahSun linked articles). Existence is not the same as notability. And without notability as a criterion, we'd be seeing articles for such as the Downby-in-the-Swamp Fish Protection Society's charity stall at Sunquern Thursday Market. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have a difference of opinion. You think the article has to pass WP:GNG and I think it only has to pass WP:NONPROFIT. I don't think this disagreement is going to be resolved here. Consensus will have its way, I expect. Sionk (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a request for clarification of the requirements for nonprofits here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Sionk (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good decision. Ism schism (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors (the people here, not the people writing the article) get to decide which set of criteria are most appropriate for any given article. Additionally, all articles must pass WP:WHYN, which is the list of minimum sourcing requirements that are absolutely necessary if the article is going to pass the major policies like WP:Verifiability and WP:Neutral point of view. An article based entirely on the charity's own website (or on their website and a passing mention elsewhere), for example, cannot meet the requirements of the neutrality policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that User:JahSun has been blocked. Now maybe we can concentrate on the article itself and whether it deserves to remain here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Commenting due to the question asked at WT:ORG (I have also replied there). Peridon is correct here... What is needed are independent third party sources that talk about the organization in some depth - not sources that merely mention it in passing when talking about something else. I took a look at the sources provided in the article so far, and they do not adequately demonstrate notability. The independent third-party sources (such as the NatGeo article) contain nothing more than passing references to the organization. Thus, I lean towards Delete. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure - this question has prompted me to clarify the language at WP:NONPROFIT... NONPROFIT is a section of the larger WP:ORG... which states in it's lede: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. This notability standard applies to all organizations and companies... including non-profit organizations. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification. Hopefully it will help avoid further confusion. Begoon ^talk 09:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of Google hits, but they reflect the fact that the two words "water" and "charity" often occur together. No indication of the coverage needed to satisfy WP:N or WP:NONPROFIT. -- 202.124.72.247 (talk) 09:17, 14 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LEPTON CMS

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

Non-notable software product fails WP:PRODUCT and WP:GNG, PROD tag was removed. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Promotional article. SPA creator thinks that deleting tags will make the issue go away. Doesn't work like that. Tigerboy1966 21:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Keep Before I start, I want to stress that this account is not used as SPA (take a look at my registration date). And I don't think that "deleting tags will make the issue go away". I understand, I don't say that this was correct, maybe only a try to get a little bit time. However, let's come to hard facts. Take a look at this site: opensourcecms.com. This is an ordered list from the best rated cms to the worst ones. And LEPTON is the third one. So If LEPTON needs ads, wiki would be the wrong place. In addition, why are all wikipedians so agressive against this article? I have added third party references to the article. Sure, they are all in German but hey, LEPTON has got an international website and a English forum. So there should be a English article too. And I think that there will be english references too, not yet but soon. Don't the future but LEPTON has a future.
And the reason why I know so much about it is very simple: I use this for my daily work. I am a web designer and LEPTON is great for this.--Develope PC (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please don't edit your comment time. It makes it look like you have something to hide. The original edit was at 19:11 (UTC) and then the time changed 3 times Pit-yacker (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what you think "SPA" means, but it stands for "single purpose account". Your account has never made a single edit not related to LEPTON CMS. I don't see why the date of registration of your account is relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason for notability stated and little found to grant notability. Of the current references two are self references, one is a paragraph from a website that at least seems partly connected with the subject (My German isn't that good), and one is to an online newspaper. So we debatedly have one reference to esatablish notability with there. I'm not sure that opensourcecms.com - a website that by its very name suggests exists to push open source CMS systems can be used to establish notability either. Just because the subject has its own website (with forum) isnt reason to grant notability either. I could start my own website, but I dont expect a Wikipedia article on myself. As for other rationale to keep - Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, as far as I am aware there will be references one day isn't a reason to keep. Equally, I like it isnt a reason to keep either. On the single purpose account accusations/denile, I might find the "not a single purpose account" thing easier to swallow if User:Develope PC had more than one Article space edit on any of these Wikis [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], which wasn't related to the subject or its forerunner. Pit-yacker (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear promo Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is full of such language as "The operation is kept simple so that even inexperienced users can quickly learn how to modify content", "to ensure the future ease of handling", "the project founders were surrounded by a powerful team of volunteers", etc etc, and yet its creator thinks it is not promotional. An excellent example, it seems to me, of the sort of reason why Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourage writing about a subject one has a close connection to: nobody not closely involved in the subject could possibly produce stuff like that and honestly not see it as promotional. More importantly, though, even if the article were rewritten in non-promotional terms it would still qualify for deletion, as there is no evidence that the topic satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There are four references. Two are links to LEPTON CMS's own web site. One is to a site which describes itself as publishing press releases. (See http://www.mittelstandcafe.de/about/, which states that it provides "vielen aktuellen Pressemitteilungen", i.e. many recent press releases.) The other reference is to a page which has one short paragraph on LEPTON CMS. That paragraph says "wir ... gehen davon aus, dass wir bis Mitte August LEPTON CMS 1.0 STABLE freigeben können", i.e. "we expect that by mid-August we will be able to release stable LEPTON CMS 1.0". Clearly not one of these references is an independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:19, 7 February 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 per WP:CSD#A7 SmartSE (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China Garden Restaurants

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

Unsourced article with very few hits on internet (my Google News does not work!). No proof of notability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources cited. And how do we know if its two competitors are actually those restaurants? Nanakoe11 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aparrently there are about 40,000 Chinese Restaurants in the US alone. Whatever the actual number, I can belive this is a good one to visit, but I'm not seeing any reason for considering this one to be especially notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing so far has been cited which satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 21:41, 5 February 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. The organization may in due course become notable under its new name. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Animal Liberation Affairs

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

Questions of notability, verifiability, and source reliability Liborgone (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should update the above with more specifics. I don't believe the that Center on Animal Liberation Affairs meets Wikipedia's general criteria for sufficient notability for listing. Further, dead links make the Center unverifiable and the sources seem unreliable upon first review. Liborgone (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liborgone (talk • contribs)

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that would demonstrate this group meets the notability threshold. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent reliable sources either. Sionk (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Its website was here, but doesn't seem to exist now, and there's nothing in the Internet Archive. I don't know whether that means it has closed, or is just temporarily offline. I've added two refs from 2011 (only one of which is independent), edited the article to make the tense neutral as to whether it still exists, and removed some of the unsourced details (diff). I'm leaning toward delete, unless someone can show it's still active, or is notable enough to retain even if now defunct. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has changed its name to the Institute for Critical Animal Studies; its website is here. It adopted the new name in 2007; see "about". So the best thing is to create that new article, assuming there are reliable sources for it, and redirect this title to that one. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work SlimVirgin has done in attempting to clean up this article but as put forth, there is no website or even apparent archive for this organization (hardly seems notable in that regard to me). I do see that it is cited in the book Terrorist or Freedom Fighters, but this is by the people who founded the organization. This wouldn't classify as objective reliability and would be more self promotional. Of the new links that have been put, neither seems especially noteworthy. The Best and Nocella book is not verifiable online and not a major popular text otherwise and so does not seem to meet the claims of noteworthiness necessary. The citation to the Sorenson essay is to a single line footnote in a not especially noteworthy book, and the footnote simply says (to paraphrase): See CALA and then lists the URL to a non-functional organizational website.Liborgone (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liborgone, regarding the Best and Nocella book – Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on the Liberation of Animals – that prompted the creation of the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs (now the Institute for Critical Animal Studies), it is indeed a notable book within animal rights studies. If you look at the table of contents (here on Amazon), you'll see there are essays from quite a few notable figures within the movement, including Tom Regan, Paul Watson, and Ingrid Newkirk. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SlimVirgin, my response would be that based on what you argue it might be possible that Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? is a notable book, but that is not the same thing as saying that the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs is notable therefore additionally. Also, I should say while I'm a fan of the book you mention, I'm not sure that containing noteworthy writers is a good enough criterion for the book's notability. Is there a body of verifiable and credible (not connected to the Center on Animal Liberation Affairs or Institute for Critical Animal Studies) references for the notability of the book and its importance for the Center? I think that is what is needed. I haven't found such references myself, hence my conclusion that it is best to delete this page at this time. That it doesn't have a working website and a clear body of solid references seems telling about the notability of this Center. But I've said enough and want to listen to others' comments.Liborgone (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's appropriate to delete this for now, Liborgone, as the organization under this name no longer exists. In due course, we can look around for secondary sources for its new name, Institute for Critical Animal Studies, and create that if the sources are out there. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Even under its new name, it lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails to meet WP:BASIC requirements of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:04, 12 February 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. Sandstein 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Marriage Penalty

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

The article as it stands has no references from secondary sources, and seems to be on the WP:SYN side of original research, together with some how-to elements and possibly some soapboxing. I believe some sources might well be found, but this article would likely still be the wrong venue for it. I could see this as a section of a possible Ohio state income tax, but there would be nothing here to use as a base, as there is no proper sourcing here. There is a Marriage penalty, which some information here might be included if it were properly sourced. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest the article be rewritten to meet the standards? If you google the concept, you will find only a few articles from a politician who failed to be elected.

I have provided a link to the tax tables for Ohio, and calculated sample differences in the tax rate.. I thought this would quality as 'original research'.

My goal is simply to arouse awareness so that more people in Ohio will be aware of the possibility they might be able to save on taxes by adjusting their filing status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminemo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's pretty darned rare when the article creator Plaxicos their own nomination, but " If you google the concept, you will find only a few articles from a politician who failed to be elected." just about describes it; non-notable concept only pushed by a desperate candidate with no chance at election. Also, two people cohabiting are always going to be told to contribute their incomes more, so this happens in every state of the Union with an income tax (and federally), nothing unique here. Nate • (chatter) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Your ignorance is exactly why this concept is needed. Most states do NOT have a progressive tax system that fails to incorporate an adjustment for joint filing status. This is also why neighboring states have included a provision to allow you to file with a different status than they file for federal taxes - illegal in Ohio. Most people in Ohio are unaware of this - as evidenced by the large percentage (51%) of married people who file jointly.

To say an article shouldnt be included because there isn't much available information on a topic is ludicrous. I have begun spreading the word, and now even Turbo Tax has added a comment to Ohio filers that they should consider filing seperately. FreeTaxUSA.com has said they will investigate into a note in next years release.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.17 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't even understand what you're saying in an encyclopedic manner at all, and we can't source the usernotes of tax software (which as they are, are more suggestions than anything) for this. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a comment, Wikipedia generally includes a subject if it fits within our notability guideline WP:N, which hinges on substantive discussion on the subject in independent reliable sources. Helping people out with how to file their taxes, though noble, would put this article eerily close to a how to guide, which we are not (see: WP:NOTHOWTO). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:NOTESSAY in a big way. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the creator hirself points out, this is original research on a topic that lacks coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 6 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hotels of the World

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

Unreferenced and not notable. A service marketing arm for a grouping of hotels - essentially just a front service with a web presence. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primary sources only, including Twitter and Facebook? Kill it with G11. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the article for G11 speedy deletion. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a speedy on this: the article is purely factual, not promotional. The article does need 3rd party references to show notability , but I see no indication anyone has looked for them. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did do a trawl for refs before nomination (as would be expected). All I found were sheaves of stuff from individual hotels lauding their membership and similar stuff from travel sites making it part of their sales pitch. Nothing that I would called notable or capable of establishing notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:23, 5 February 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, Kubigula (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news did not return hits, main Google only provided the Wiki and mirror sites.--Lenticel ^(talk) 08:44, 6 February 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. Der yck C. 21:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critical animal studies

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

Article is sweeping with unverifiable claims, appears obviously self-promotional, and with nonobjective authorship Liborgone (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that Critical Animal Studies has a journal and organization associated with it that has received very minor mentions in legitimate publications including the N.Y.T. and Chronicle of Higher Education. The ultimate issue with this listing may not be one of meeting general critieria of notability, but rather that the page is not based in what actually makes this topic notable, making smaller verifiable citations from reliable sources not connected immediately to the topic. The article reads like a promotional piece for the Institute of Critical Animal Studies, with links pointing there (some dead) to support its claims. If this were a minor issue, I would support calling for editing only. But the page is so sweeping in not addressing what is notable about the term or field, and providing legitimate citations on behalf of the same, that I think the best thing to do is to delete and oversee a re-writing of the page based in the objective citations to the term or field. Liborgone (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liborgone (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for this is a bear, what with the similarly named institute and journal, which may in fact all be related. In any case all searches on these things turn up no serious sign of notability, and the articles sources are all in-house to the degree they are provided at all. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that this web page could be (greatly) improved. I am unclear why the move is not towards improving the webpage instead of deleting it. Critical Animal Studies has a peer-reviewed academic journal, a book series from a major academic publisher and (as Liborgone points,) has been mentioned in both the New York Times and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Clearly this meets whatever litmus test we might come up with for keeping a topic on Wikipedia. Why don't we simply shift the conversation into how to improve the entry instead of trying to delete it? I think that would could be a very helpful and productive conversation and helpful to Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.207.4.123 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it clearly meets whatever litmus test might be come up with. There are millions of references to things that receive a very minor mention in notable publications, but that doesn't mean that the minor mentions are therefore notable. The mentions in the NYT and Chronicle of Higher Education (as I remember them) are quite minor in my opinion.

I'm not sure what press the unsigned commenter refers to above, but searching google I see on the Institute of Critical Animal Studies that they have a series with the publisher Rodopi. Here I would make two points: first, in the spirit of improving the listing if that is the ultimate decision, this is another case of the Wikipedia entry being ambiguous -- is it about Critical Animal Studies or about the Institute for Critical Animal Studies? The latter has a book series apparently, the former does not. Second, I would have to seriously disagree with the previous commenter that Rodopi (if this is what is being referred to) is "a major academic publisher." To be fair, they are a long-time independent publisher of academic titles, mainly for Europe. They are not a vanity press, but in terms of reputation they are closer to being vanity than a major academic publisher, which would generally be university presses. I don't want to imply the book series is inconsequential, though. But it does not have a notable history yet. Checking the Rodopi website it appears that the series has only one book published that is listed as "New" and for which I could find no reviews -- notable or otherwise.Liborgone (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose as an article about the Society, describing what it's viewpoint is , briefly and non-progandistically. It'll be easier to do it that way than to write a NPOV article about the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to this article in attempt to address some of the issues raised here. One being to distinguish the feild of Critical Animal Studies as something seperate from the Institute. The page is intended to be about the feild. More work may need to be done, but my thoughts are to clean it up rather than delete. SaratColling —Preceding undated comment added 01:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC). — SaratColling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please see WP:COI for reasons that you, as someone apparently associated with criticalanimalstudies.org and a few other direct connections, should not participate in deletion discussions where you have a conflict of interest. JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've taken my time looking into this and have come to the same conclusions as Mango, above. Essentially, it doesn't meet WP:BASIC or what I could interpret from WP:ACADEMIC as it might to pertain to fields of study. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 12 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gent Code Magazine

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

Contested prod. Unremarkable online magazine. No significant claims of notability. Google search on "Lady Gent Code Magazine" shows only 40 results, none from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:WEB. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because it fails WP:VERIFY. I unsuccessfully looked for reliable sources that directly support the information in this article. Jance day (talk) 21:22, 8 February 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 GB fan, non-admin closure. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M.L.J. (rapper)

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, and no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The references given (except for the Facebook link) are about Lil Wayne. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 16:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has no coverage in RS. As the nom points out, the references from allmusic are about completely different artists. No evidence of notability. Tigerboy1966 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - G2 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Max Stoyalov

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

Nn-bio, repost of Maxim Stoyalov. Most sources are not reliable, no information on his participation in any of the films is available. Both books are written by another authors: the first one is in fact written by I. Komarova, E. Borodycheva, the second one is a collection of anecdotes without author NickK (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 5 February 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bray (baseball)

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:BASE/N. Adam Penale (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search yields unremarkable game logs and mentions of other people with the same name. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable minor league player.- William 00:23, 12 February 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 both, without prejudice against their becoming notable footballers in the future. Der yck C. 17:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denner Paulino Barbosa

(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 without reason being given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ change to Delete - Am I missing something? Denner plays for Corinthians, a major team in the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (a fully professional league), in which case he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The article needs more sources, obviously. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is they haven't ever actually played for Corinthians. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, there is a recent article which says he will be promoted to the professional team this season. I've changed my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 03:42, 6 February 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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wargame: European Escalation

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball no proof of notability shown. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the game doesn't seem to be released yet, there are already plenty of previews available that give significant coverage. http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/wargameeuropeanescalation/previews.html http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/25/ruse-developer-eugen-explains-upcoming-wargame-european-escalation/ http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/05/13/wargame-european-escalation-announced/ are the first promising results. I haven't looked further yet, but there is plenty around to make a largish stub or a small full article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looks like the sources are substantive enough to establish notability. --MuZemike 00:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Coverage in reliable, third party sources.
- IGN
- GameSpy
- Destructoid
- GameSpot
Notability established. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it doesn't look like the deletion is going to happen at this point, I feel I should say that as the person who made the article there was a reference substantiating notability right from the start, even assuming Google does not work for Darkness Shines. I am not sure what his motivation is here but it is difficult to interpret his actions as being in good faith. Praetonia (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in fact partially my fault. When I rejected speedy deletion on the article, I suggested that AfD per WP:Crystal might be in order. I didn't look further (yet) to see if it would hold up to an AfD, so I can understand his reasoning. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, but it's still questionable that he was vouching for Speedy Deletion, prior to that, completely of his own will and influence. (Which is even more of a stretch.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources above. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a game I've been waiting for and I know that this game is gonna become huge! Source from IGN.com is good enough from above Jwjkim (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best possible reason to trust the validity of the game, it is currently being offered on the Steam store with a release data of Fed 23, 2012 SilentVendetta (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage makes it easily pass WP:GNG. I added a bit of additional referenced material to the article. Dream Focus 12:42, 9 February 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. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Quayum

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

This person clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The only possibility in WP:PROF is #8, but I don't think that Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature is a "major well-established academic journal". Contested PROD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Another possibility is WP:AUTHOR point 3: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a ... collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." E.g. [7], [8], [9]. Also found this quote in The Journal of Commonwealth Literature's Annual Bibliography of Commonwealth Literature 2007 : Malaysia and Singapore : It is clear that creative writing did not progress in a vacuum, but received support and succour from a group of increasingly active critics and scholars of Malaysian literature in English. Among the most prominent of these critics and scholars is Mohamad Quayum, who produced two important volumes during the year. Qwfp (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think his editorship of Asiatic: IIUM Journal of English Language and Literature and his formerly (1993-2000) being the Co-editor (name alongside the Editor but ahead of the board) World Literature Written in English (now Journal of Postcolonial Writing) with his works looks enough to Pass WP:Prof to me. Have added this last to the article with a ref and made some little pages on both journals. Searching using Mohammad A. Quayum in google books and google scholar produces more than without his middle A. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:54, 10 February 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. As a rule of thumb, entries with circa 40 interwiki links are seldom non-notable. Sandstein 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toki Pona

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

I'd understand the need for this article if there were a lot of people speaking this language, or it had some documented influence on a subculture, but there is no evidence of that. Instead, it's a long article on the structure of a constructed language written by one person, and it's mostly cited to that person's homepage.

Removing the self-citations, vanity press works and Freewebs.com citations, the article's sources are narrowed down to a single article in The Globe and Mail in 2007. If you check Google Books, no reliable sources cite it other than a programming guide that uses it as an example of how to program language recognition. I see that Wikipedia has no policy on constructed languages but I think that a single newspaper article is not enough to establish notability. Shii (tock) 14:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you look more carefully at the sources you'll find the Los Angeles Times too. But deletionism like this really baffles me - I can understand wanting to delete some vanity software or an individual, but a noteworthy constructed language with a devoted following? Why? Greenman (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of constructed languages, and anyone can invent a new one at any time. I don't think this falls under Wikipedia's purvey. Shii (tock) 23:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, as almost none of the hundreds get any mention in the Los Angeles Times etc. Greenman (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a New York Times article and academic newspaper that mention the Zhyler language. I don't think this language should get its own Wikipedia page just because of the mention; it's not documented as having a significant group of people or cultural impact. Toki Pona is the same. Shii (tock) 07:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What's with this obsessive deleting? Toki Pona has been around for over 10 years, it has an active community [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and has been cited many times in books [15] [16] [17] and newspapers [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] from around the world. Learn it. ~ Iketsi (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia scrapers are not book sources. Shii (tock) 07:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but that still leaves us with at least 3 legitimate book references. ~ Iketsi (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Although it's all very well that a nifty box in the upper right of this page automatically displays all previous AfDs for this article, they make for a grossly incomplete picture of the history because they're missing the DRV that overturned the decision of the second RfD. Is there a standard way to include that important additional perspective in the displayed information in the upper right of the page? --Pi zero (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Toki Pona is in fact one of the very few languages constructed in the 21th century that actually managed to generate quite some media attention and even a group of followers and interested bystanders, which is especially remarkable if you consider that it is not even an auxiliary language like Esperanto. Let's face it, constructed languages are not the type of thing newspapers write about habitually; in general, one article in one major newspaper is already quite a success. I don't really know what precisely explains this success, but Toki Pona certainly belongs to the most remarkable projects of the last decade. A simple search on Google books turns up no less than 115 results – I have neither the time nor the will to check all of them, but it's clear at least some of them are valuable notability indicators and not just "Wikipedia scrapers". —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:10, 13 February 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 both. JohnCD (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Shareef (Maldivian Footballer)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable individual, virtually unreferenced. References have been added but footballer still fails general notability guideline. Cloudz 679 13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 13:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - neither have played in a fully pro league or for the Maldivian national team, meaning they fails WP:NSPORT, and neither have received significant coverage so they both fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 12 February 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 as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scitlabs

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

Total advertisement for a non-notable software. CSD removed by an IP, so brought it here. Can't find any reliable sources that mention this in anything more than the most trivial of coverage. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 10:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (WP:CSD_A7 and WP:CSD_G11) You can find some articles about the university research by searching for "Self Cleansing Intrusion Tolerance", which is what SCIT aparrently stands for (even though the article never tells you). However, I could find nothing to indicate that the Company is in any way notable and the article is clearly purely promotional. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Company appears to have won an award - Security Technologies of Tomorrow Challenge (2010). This may be sufficient to prevent speedy deletion on the grounds of notability, but the spam concern remains. That award appears to be related to the notable Global Security Challenge, but appears to be more of a "best of the rest" consolation prize. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedy or not, as blatant advertising. The tone is entirely promotional; no independent sources; entirely from SCIT's POV. One minor award won't be enough to make this notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising for non-notable company. My search for reliable sources got one non-trivial hit, and even that reads like a press release. The text of the article suggests that it was lifted from somewhere, but I can't find the source to prove copyvio. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, spam and pretty obvious copypaste, although I can't find the source. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 5 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others (Earth's Children)

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

No sources for years, apparently all plot and original research. I doubt there is sufficient (if any) WP:NOTABILITY for this to support an article. The Others are already described in Earth's_Children#People, so I don't think a merger is necessary. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and per WP:NOTPLOT. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 13 February 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. No consensus to delete. (Wikipedia:Non-admin closure) --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friday night death slot

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

This article has OR materials. I don't know how "Friday night death slot" is encyclopedic, but the title is too biased ("death" sounds negative), the content may favor against Friday nights by using shows as examples of successes or failures (even if tone may be NPOV), it looked like an essay... or something personal, and cleaning up this article is too nauseating for me.

I don't know how notable it is, but even finding positive views about Friday night television won't help matters because... there's "death" in the title. I tried to request a rename, but there was no consensus to move. Imagine "Saturday night death slot"... *shudders*

I don't know why notable it is, but there were too many examples. "Success" and "failure" are too biased... I'm running out of words to explain this messy, biased article with messy title, even when media commonly calls it this way... Wait... this article should mention cable, as well. Could cable kill Friday night broadcast or its own Friday night? George Ho (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The verbatim phrase "Friday night death slot" has been in use since at least the 1980s. One of the earlier edits had at least eleven citations attesting to the legitimacy of the phrase. Friday night has been a well-documented graveyard slot in American television, where series have had lower ratings and a higher rate of cancellation than other nights (except Saturday, which no longer has original programming). So, why not a "Saturday night death slot?" Simply because most networks don't program that night anymore; it's not where legitimate series die, it's where already dead series are burned off. As for cable, other than children's channels, most of them do movies on Friday nights. It may need some rewriting, but that doesn't make it necessary to erase the entire article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides good references for at least some of its content and appears to be about a notable concept in its field. Any OR problems can be solved by editing the article, rather than deleting. JulesH (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course "death" has negative connotations. Being squeamish about the name isn't a reason to delete the article. It's a well-known concept, not something made up by an editor. Barsoomian (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The word "death" does not make the article biased, as "Friday Night Death Slot" is the common term. Akihironihongo (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article could use more sourcing (though there's already plenty here, more than enough to satisfy WP:RS) but the term and the concept are widely covered topics about a phenomenon in American television that has been recognized since at least the late 1960s. The TV By the Numbers blog run by the Los Angeles Times offers plenty of statistics related to ratings and discussion of the Friday night issue. The use of the term "death" only makes the article biased if the creator of the article made up the term, but he/she didn't. Regarding Saturday night "death slot" the term didn't enter into used, and in fact do the research and you'll see some puzzlement as to why the networks abandoned Saturday as opposed to Friday which was expected for years. 23skidoo (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 23skidoo. Googling Friday death slot reveals 20,500,000 results, including various articles and books. Ruby 2010/2013 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I could not find a reliable scholarly journal about this: [26]. Search term "`Friday night' television" may help, but I don't know. Presses may refer them as "Friday night death slot", yet I could not call them reliable per WP:NPOV. Per essays WP:AADD and WP:POPULARITY, arguments, even goods ones, won't help me change my views because... I don't see Friday night as a "doom", and putting examples into this article won't help, unless the titled term itself and examplified shows are mentioned in ~~the same article~~ a same/similar source. Why would both Cheers' Sam and Diane and this article's topic be popular, yet my "revision" Sam and Diane may appear something that is opposed to the other? --George Ho (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a matter of neutrality to you, perhaps you should take it to the article's talk page per WP:NPOV rather than putting it up on AfD? Akihironihongo (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted initially, but... well, can I bring this issue simultaneously or after the AFD? If not, then can I remove many unsourced examples and then withdraw this AFD if removal of examples is approved? --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with graveyard slot. illogical pie (take a slice) 18:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Possible, but the targeted article needs sources. I don't know if I want to do that, but we'll see... --George Ho (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for American television. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term itself is notable and well referenced (though a lot of the rest of the article is not). We don't want to merge it in to graveyard slot because there's a great level of detail in the former, that would not be appropriate in the latter. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- And after re-reading the nomination statement I'm even more confused than ever. I can't understand why we would object to an article title as "bias," when the article is titled as the name of the subject. The Gay Nigger Association of America doesn't have the nicest name that I can think of, but I don't think anyone would suggest moving it to Cute and Fuzzy Bunny Rabbits of America just because we don't like the name. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GNAA is an official title, isn't it? I don't think "Friday night death slot" is an official title already. Also, I won't be able to inspect these offline sources because I'm not sure if they are either online or print. Current MLA format requires a medium, such as Print, DVD, Television, or Web, and, if Web, a database that contains a material. Citation Wiki templates... I'd go for simple typing rather than template-making. --George Ho (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official title, then? Akihironihongo (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. This title is common and accepted per WP:COMMONNAME, right? Still, I read the content, and, aside from sections, the lead looks neutral and sourced. ...If removal of all sections with an exception of lead are approved, may I withdraw nomination? If not, then why withdrawing, anyways, other than "no consensus to delete"? --George Ho (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sigh. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:42, 8 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Cricket League

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

Procedural nomination. The speedy deletion of this article was overturned in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 28, and the article referred to this board to determine whether it still fails WP:N. There are previous versions in the history that have more content. I am neutral. Sandstein 08:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I've replaced the one line stub with an earlier deleted version, which I believe had enough sources to establish notability. In fact, this was the version I argued should be re-instated by the deletion review. I was an active Articles for Creation reviewer at the time the article was first created and I moved it to mainspace because it was evidently a very news-worthy event. I added additional sources and copy-edited the article. The 2012 event is clearly attracting significant coverage from the Indian national media, I suspect the 2011 event did not go unnoticed either! The fact the previous deletion nomination was on the basis of the poor standard of cricket and only being notable in the second most populous nation on earth, was laughable.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - This is getting ridiculous now. This article and numerous other variations of it have been taken to AfD and have been deemed to be non-notable; rightly so in my opinion. A celebrity in India cannot sneeze without the media reporting on it. The tournament is a jolly for a bunch of cult worshipped celebrities. The league is not played to a professional standard, is not officially sanctioned (while one can argue the ICL wasn't, it was however a professional league and involved professional cricketers). This doesn't qualify as routine coverage of a sporting event, because the people taking part are notable, not the event. The event only gets coverage because of the people taking part. It's mickey mouse cricket which fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN. One can find all the sources in the world reporting on it, I'd still refuse to acknowledge its notability on the sole merit of a sporting event. Media sensationalism is a poor basis for an article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like you admit yourself, the event gets coverage because of the people taking part. Therefore passes WP:GNG. There are plenty of TV shows, events and spectacles that get attention because celebrities are taking part. That is the whole point of involving celebrities. Sionk (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, again. I still stand by this rationale:
"There is substantial coverage in major Indian newspapers, as can be seen by a simple google news search. I'll list a few here (but note that there are many more): (1) "Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", The Times of India; (2) "Celebrity Cricket League excites Salman", The Times of India; (3) "After IPL, it's CCL!", The Hindu; (4) "Cinema Meets Cricket", Indian Express; (5) "Celebrity Cricket League held in Bangalore", The Times of India; (6) "A feast for the eyes", Deccan Herald; (7) "Cricket’s coming home", Khaleej Times; (8) "Salman's Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", India Today; (9) "Cricket passion rides high as stars take to the pitch", The Hindu; (10) "The cricket star wars get hotter", The Times of India; (11) "Greasepaint to gloves", The Hindu; (12) "Celebs day out", The Hindu; (13) "Cheers to an exceptional performance", Deccan Herald; (14) "K-town puts on its game face", The Times of India; (15) "Joy's game for cricket", The Times of India. Those are all from the first page of my google news archive search [...] I don't think anyone would claim that it's the quality of cricket that makes it notable (i.e. the fact that it doesn't pass WP:CRIN is irrelevant), but rather that it's notable because it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition, it has major crowds (some matches are even being played at Eden Gardens) and is being broadcast on an international television network, Sahara One (ref)."

We must have millions of articles on topics that have only got coverage because celebrities are involved and I don't see why cricket should be an exception to this. Jenks24 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural closure~~Comment WP:SK#1 and WP:IAR, no rationale for deletion. These procedural nominations enable an administrative route to disruption. If there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, then obviously there is no need for the discussion. By closing this WP:NPASR, then anyone that really wants this deleted can properly nominate it tomorrow. Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the entirety of WP:SK#1 which states "Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature (most commonly due to a "relist" result from deletion review), then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep." Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Refuting a speedy keep that doesn't exist is called a straw man argument. Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weren't you saying this should be closed as a speedy keep? Or are you arguing that we should never have procedural nominations from DRV? If the latter, surely AA's delete vote shows that at least someone thinks it should be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The text in bold says "procedural closure". Yes, I'm saying that the experiment called the "procedural nomination" is not working. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Exactly, judging by AA's campaign to delete articles about Indian celebrities, it will almost certainly be nominated. So why not have the discussion now. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        If it is true that it is "almost certain" that someone would have been willing to do the work to prepare the community for this discussion, then it was not necessary to skip that step; with the only alternate (and low-probability) possibility that actually no one wanted to do the work, and this discussion is a total waste of the community's time. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have not looked at any arguments except the nomination, so I expect to change my !vote to a comment if consensus is not quickly reached (<24 hours) for a procedural closure, as by then it will not be timely. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stick by what I put :) I'm a cricketing purest who dies a little inside when I see articles like this! I see no reason why this discussion cannot take place now. I'd have only AfDed it again. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not understand why the article should be removed, just because that the quality of cricket played is not good? well consider this article as something to do with celebrities not cricket--sarvajna 08:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs)
Keep - The event received a wide media coverage and was viewed by millions, the TRPs on TV and footfall in the stadiums were quite high as well, a google search on Celebrity Cricket league or CCL yields 36 million results. Hence I feel an article on an event of such importance can't be ignored. I strongly support to keep the article. As such many non professional events have articles on wikipedia. Deleting this article would mean deviating from the original tenets of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.234.119 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article demonstrates sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Maybe it's India's spin (bowler) version of Battle of the Network Stars, maybe it's not a top-flight athletic league, but it does meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly for Keeping - CCL is viewed by Million and it makes it noticeable. User:Jeevanjoseph1974 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep - Considering how the second season garnered much more attention & viewership(both on TV & the Stadium). And that there are enough considerable sources available over the internet for citation & reference. I strongly support & urge others to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyrmaten (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all reasons above. Adequate media coverage of events EelamStyleZ talk 04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Although the article is currently poorly written, but is well known enough. Keep! 131.107.0.70 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The league has gained huge viewership in its second version. Keep it! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:17, 13 February 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, marginally, keep, and more work needs to be put into the article to improve its standard. Der yck C. 17:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keerthi sagathia

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

Lack of sources on this person means fails WP:GNG, It reads like a promotional piece written by an a friend (maybe even WP:G11). Mt king ^(edits) 08:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having song for that many films, you'd assume he got coverage somewhere. Clicking Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, I see ample results.

The Hindu [27] The album couldn't have started on a better note. “Marhaba” by young Bollywood singer Keerthi Sagathia, is a classic example of Sufi meets Bollywood meets classic Rock. So he is in fact a Bollywood singer. I'll look through the rest, to see what else I can find. Dream Focus 10:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per coverage in The Hindu and Filmfare Magazine. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those are the Significant coverage called for in WP:GNG; they are mentions and nothing more. Mt king ^(edits) 07:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both provide coverage beyond a passing mention or trivial coverage. However, they may not be the most significant in terms of comprehensive coverage just about this individual. Hence, the !vote for "weak keep." See also: WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Doubt: Do we consider multiple film enteries under IMDB's profile as notable? Kirti Sagathia -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally no. Diego (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs substantial work to address tone issues. However, sourcing supplied strongly suggests notability, and there are quite a few smaller hits on GNews to back up the limited sourcing that is more substantial in depth of coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might suggest notability but none of the sources actually demonstrates it, as you accepted here. Mt king ^(edits) 07:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article have been expanded since I posted that, and as such my opinion has changed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Diego (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per wp:SNOWFLAKE and WP:NRVE - Filmfare is an important reliable source for indian films, and the article is significant coverage with critical commentary. Together with the number of works in which he performs, this creates a reasonable presumption for the existence of non-english reliable sources. Diego (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There also exists An interview with Delhi Belly singer Keerthi Sagathia by BBC Asian Network's Gagan Grewal (previously ~~available? here?~~) which reinforces the possibility of non-english coverage (a 'keep' criteria per Wikipedia:NRVE#NRVE) even if we don't have access to it. It's still weak evidence, so I can see this being closed as 'no consensus' to be reevaluated in a few months; this would give native speakers the chance to find reliable sources in hindi. Diego (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been viewed 401 times since it was started 7 days ago, and ten different individuals have been involved in editing it. If the article is removed it may dismay some of the readers and discourage those who contributed from further participating in Wikipedia where editors are not compensated financially for their contributions.

The article needs work, but this should not be a reason to remove it. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, none of those are reasons to keep it, either :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was resisting the urge to comment on any discussion listed at the ARS page, but this is something that I cannot let go. When I saw the username I immediately Googled it and, based on Keerthi's Facebook page, Ginseng's comment at the list was dead-on. Rakhi Sagathia is the General Manager and Press Contact for Keerthi Sagathia.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, not terribly surprising given the tone of the article (and the editor's name, natch). Definitely needs some cleanup if kept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:57, 13 February 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. It's interesting to see WP:NOT and WP:Notability playing directly at odds against each other on this AfD. From what I observed in the arguments below, a few points may be drawn:

Most agree that the topic has adequate reliable source coverage to be notable;
Many concede that WP:NOT has the power to override WP:N if applicable;
Many argued that WP:NOT excludes this topic from Wikipedia, however this position did not gain majority consensus.

Hence I'm closing this AfD as no consensus. A minor point for those who invoked ideas along the lines of WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE: no, common sense does not apply here. We're all artificially potty-trained. Der yck C. 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Public restrooms in Bratislava

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

Not nearly a notable article. Strangely sourced, but entirely unencyclopedic. And Wikipedia is not a travel guide. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify a bit more per Unscintillating's comment. The article is poorly sourced, and I don't think it means WP:GNG. Of the three sources listed, none are used to back up the items on the list. If one considers it a list article, it doesn't meet WP:SAL, in that none of the items in the list are notable in their own right.. largely because they're bathrooms. But it's really just a wholly unsuitable topic for Wikipedia. We don't have articles on public restrooms in various locations because we're not a travel guide. The initial commit on the article had this edit comment: "For the benefit of the thousands of visitors to Braitslava for the 2011 IIHF World Championships and for the enlightment of future generations :)". It was created as a guide for people and doesn't belong in mainspace. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. 198.252.15.202 (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that several reliable sources have been added to the article as of this post. The article is no longer "strangely sourced", as stated in the nomination, and it is no longer "poorly sourced" as stated by the nominator in their subsequent comment below the nomination. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After skimming this article, I don't see why the nominator wants this article listed at AfD; fact is, the nomination does not make a complete argument for deletion, nor does the word "delete" in bold using an argument listed at WP:ATA constitute an adequate !vote. So the best thing would be to get this speedy kept WP:SK#1 with WP:NPASR within 24 hours of nomination, so that the nominator can decide if he/she is willing to do some additional work to prepare the rest of the community for a deletion discussion. Given that parts of the lede appear to be WP:OR, there could be content problems, but to separate this possibility from good material it would help to show that the Hungarian sources are not adequate. Beyond that, it helps if an AfD nomination explains why the content is so objectionable that it cannot be merged. Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There, I've added to my nomination. But really, you mentioned merging - what would you possibly merge this into? Public restrooms in Slovakia? We don't have articles on public restrooms. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically "unencyclopedic content" is listed at WP:ATA...but that doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to catch your drift, but the drift seems to be censorship, are sewage treatment plants also topics that we avoid? Where I have lived, even visits to Mexico, the idea of a public bathroom with a bathroom attendant to take payments is totally unheard of. To me I find this view into the infrastructure of a city in a former Soviet satellite to be fresh and practical. As for merge, there is Bratislava. But if most of the article is WP:OR, we have a content problem. Likewise if most of the content is unsourced. That still leaves those pictures, there is a lot of material here to explain why it should be deleted, when right now we have an interesting functional article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Brutalhovno, who created the article, also took a majority of the pictures. But here, let me ask you: since you think public restrooms should be included in the Bratislava article, why don't we have a "Public facilities" section in all articles about major cities? Some trivia factoid about attendants is trivia and doesn't justify an entire article. The entire article is OR, i.e. content generated by Brutalhovno based on his own research, which is where all the pictures came from as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - You said, "The entire article is OR, i.e. content generated by Brutalhovno based on his own research". What evidence do you have to support that statement? Also, I did not say that "public facilities should be included in the Brataslava article", nor do I know that we discuss sewers in city articles, but I found without an real effort London sewerage system, 1929 Ottawa sewer explosion and Louisville sewer explosions. Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)'[reply]
        This article is not even remotely the same as the sewerage systems ones. This is a list of exact locations of public toilets and the times they are open. As to evidence to support the OR thing: until I nominated the article for AFD, Brutal was the only editor on the page. He took nearly all the pictures himself. He cites no sources for any of the locations or times that the public restrooms are open. Based on this, it seems likely that he went around Bratislava, noted where the public toilets are, and took pictures of them - the very definition of OR.

And even if he did find reliable sources for them, it still shouldn't be included. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion in Wikipedia. A list of the public restrooms in Bratislava, no matter what shape or form it's in, is not worthy of inclusion here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flush down the toilet. Public facilities would have to be magnificently out of the ordinary in a particular ___location to merit an article. Something could be made of the Lack of toilets in the Palace of Versailles, but Bratislava? Meh. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTTRAVEL for the actual list and WP:N for the rest. I couldn't see merging any of it into the main article. The citation issue is not a reason for deletion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are not a travel guide and it is poorley constructed. Peter.C • talk • contribs 23:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Fellow Wikipedians, let me state first that currently the article does indeed read a little like a travel guide and there are other issues, which can be fixed. However, there are also the following points to consider:

1) I firmly believe that the subject matter merits its own wikipedia article, because public toilets are a striking feature of the wider city center of the capital of Slovakia and like other public structures in the city they should be covered on Wikipedia in some shape or form. I also disagree with the logic, that the absence of a "Public restrooms in New York" article merits deleting this article. Not only there would not be millions of articles on Wikipedia if everyone thought so, it is also completely reversible (that means since there is this article, it could be implied that a "Public restrooms in New York" article should be created).

2) The article is not a stub, a lot of work was put into it mostly by a single person. It is very discouraging for an editor seeing his work destroyed, especially when it was OK to let him publicly work on the article for almost a year. Editors from obscure countries should be nurtured, even the ones like me.

3) The argument for deletion is still poorly constructed (please take no offense). In a nutshell: WP:NOTTRAVEL is an easily surmountable problem, "unencycopedic" is too vague and I have a huge problem assigning it to public structures in capital cities of the world and "strangly sourced" is both an opinion and an easily fixable issue. Also, I do not consider uploading your own images as WP:OR, I always thought of it as a way of improving Wikipedia. As for WP:N, that is the only real issue. For me, this is part of the basic city infrastructure and it is notable enough.Brutalhovno (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separately. The content of our article is verifiable by multiple reliable sources, even the first page of the G-search result for verejné záchody v bratislave (Public restrooms in Bratislava) provides good sources about this topic [28], [29], [30], [31]. From what I can read in Slovak, I can confirm that the content of our article is not OR and corresponds well with the sources listed in the article or here. Of course, the article needs more inline citations, but the topic is in my opinion notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's not just a question of verifiability - it's about whether the topic as a whole, i.e. public restrooms in Bratislava, is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that if a topic is being discussed widely in the national media in a long time span, then it probably is notable. We maintain hundreds of articles on video game characters ... do we really want to delete verifiable, interesting and useful information about the life in the public places of a big European city? I'm sorry but I disagree. There is sufficient coverage to compile a good article about this issue. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources:

"Public Toilets Should be Improved". Petit Press. August 31, 2006. Retrieved January 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Cloaca". Petit Press. July 11, 2008. Retrieved January 30, 2012.
Krafka, Jaro (July 5, 2011). "Public toilets are pretty expensive, a visit to the city comes to € 22". Markiza TV. Retrieved January 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Public toilets in the city are still dwindling, government knows that a shortage". Bratislava newspaper. August 31, 2006. Retrieved January 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"The deficit in public toilets: the sound Bratislava nas.ali and resolve it your way!". Ringier Axel Springer. August 31, 2006. Retrieved January 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Municipality to build new public toilets". City of Bratislava. July 4, 2008. Retrieved January 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Poverty and Public Toilets Gloss". Bratislava Courier. 2008. Retrieved January 30, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) [PDF from Old Town Courier Volume II. No. 7 (2008).]

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, per WP:V: "While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion." Just because you can source something doesn't mean that it necessarily gets in. Those sources could be used for a section called Public utilities on the Bratislava article because they're about the sewage system, but they don't validate having an article that specifically lists the ___location of each public toilet in Bratislava. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sewage system? I'm just sitting here looking at the titles of the articles, but how do you get "sewage system" out of an article titled, "Public toilets are pretty expensive, a visit to the city comes to € 22"? That looks to me like an article focusing on public policy for "public restrooms in Bratislava". Now that the WP:GNG issue it has been shown that reliable sources exist, there is still the WP:OR and WP:NOTTRAVEL issues to get past. One of the WP:NOTTRAVEL concerns is to avoid pricing, and I've already removed the pricing from the article. The line you have quoted from WP:V has to do with prominence and WP:DUE, not WP:N notability. Yes, a list with addresses is a WP:NOTTRAVEL issue, but since not all of the locations have pictures, it seems just a matter of a few edits to remove locations that lack sufficient prominence for inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor clarification: The translation of the title "Public toilets are pretty expensive, a visit to the city comes to € 22" is incorrect and misleading. The report by TV Markíza says that one visit of a public toilet costs the city (not the visitor) 22 € (Verejné WC sú poriadne drahé, jedna návšteva vyjde mesto aj na 22 €). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: As WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." Therefore, to claim 'keep' it is not enough to provide sources (which can only demonstate WP:N), but it is also necessary to address WP:NOTGUIDE concerns raised by others (including nom). Ipsign (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The same kind of sources presented above can be found for very many places - try, for example, this search. Presented in isolation the list above misleadingly suggests adequate coverage, but the bigger picture is that the coverage is entirely run of the mill. Whilst there may be a notable sub-topic of Public toilets to cover here, there is nothing to indicate notability of Bratislava in particular. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Richard. Removing the unsourced travel guide list we are left with a short history section that might be notable enough to get a mention in the Bratislava article at a pinch, but is not enough for it's own article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with an article on Bratislava sanitation or public facilities that would include other similar content.--Avala (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide an example of an article on public facilities that would take this sort of list? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, this is not so much a list as it is an article that includes a list. Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000 has shown that the topic passes WP:GNG. I have added material, inline citations, [citation needed], and [original research?] tags to the article. I have removed some WP:NOTTRAVEL content including prices. I have removed some material that appears to have been WP:OR. I have not removed any of the locations in the list, but the mere presence of content that could theoretically be used by tourists does not mean that the article as a whole qualifies for a WP:NOTTRAVEL deletion. According to a source, the tourist industry is not happy about the toilet situation. IMO, this is a fresh and practical article about a real-world topic, with pictures of the turf of the "legendary" hajzelbaba. The first edit has an edit comment,"For the benefit of the thousands of visitors to Braitslava for the 2011 IIHF World Championships and for the enlightment of future generations". We are now in the phase of this article being enlightenment for future generations. Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTGUIDE (which overrides all WP:N considerations according to WP:N itself: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.". Ipsign (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a goal of eliminating any possible source for the position that WP:NOT is applicable for this article, I have elided nine of the entries on the list. I have also recharacterized the list as a partial list. Do you agree that WP:NOT is not now applicable? If not, specifically what is still objectionable? Unscintillating (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I see it, it is still in direct violation of WP:NOTTRAVEL, which explicitly says:"An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead.". Ipsign (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see how on earth the encyclopedia is improved by an article about one city's public toilets; WP:ROUTINE coverage does not the WP:GNG meet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is quite irrelevant as that is talking about events. Warden (talk) 12:04, 5 February 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, Sandstein 08:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting after the article has been substantially edited during the AfD. Sandstein 08:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the GNG and NOTTRAVEL will be met if the following sentence in the article is indeed true: "Under communism, the tradition of public toilets formed, which influences the city to this day." The single source addressing this issue does, in my opinion, not suffice. If public toilets indeed influence the culture or other elements of Bratislava than, indeed, we can imagine a reader wanting to read the article. As of yet, I don't, though. Maybe the author could expand on why the toilets are indeed influental? Jhschreurs (talk) 09:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is quite well-written, well-sourced and fascinating. Editors who do not care for the topic have no right to delete it on such grounds - see our policy. I would just observe that the title should use British English rather than American, as Bratislava is in the EU, not the USA. Warden (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well-written" and "fascinating" are not reasons to keep an article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is our editing policy to preserve such content. Warden (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The assertion that BrEng should be used is not supported by Wikipedia guidelines or policy; see especially WP:ENGVAR. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is our policy to use British English for topics set in Europe because British English is an official language of the EU and American English isn't. Also, "restroom" is an inaccurate euphemism and so is improper. Warden (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about Public WC in Bratislava?. As I look at the pictures I have found two that say "WC", so it should work to span both dialects and be literally relevant for Bratislava. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a British English speaker I would like to find a way to agree with you, but I believe you are mistaken. WP:TIES says that articles about the institutions of the European Union should be written in BrEng; it doesn't even extend that to the member states, let alone articles about subjects that just happen to be within the member states. On the other hand, WP:RETAIN, below that, very explicitly says that 'an article should not be ... renamed simply to switch from one valid use of English to another'. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not a valid use; it is a euphemism. Warden (talk) 12:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is an acceptable alternative according to Public toilet. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no convincing argument that the subject is in any way notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a matter of argument; it's a matter of sources. The article has perfectly good sources which testify to there being some interest in the question of whether Bratislava has adequate provision of such facilities. Warden (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are you looking at? The entire Partial list of public toilets in Bratislava section is unsourced. If you're talking about the content at the top, that could maybe be merged into Bratislava, though I don't know where. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are no different from those posing the same question about very many other cities; the coverage is entirely run of the mill and therefore not notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL is not a policy; it is just a personal prejudice. And if the issue is common to many cities then the content might form part of a more general article. See Inclusive urban design: public toilets which "highlights the role of urban design in reversing the trend of inadequate toilet provision". Warden (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have inclusion thresholds for good reason; equating them with censorship is a bit of a stretch. You are indeed right that the search results I cited may indicate a notable sub-topic of Public toilet but our task here is not to debate that, but whether there is anything exceptional, and therefore notable, about the ones specifically in Bratislava. There is not; the issues are common-place, the subject is mundane and run-of-the-mill; it is not notable. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) provided the sources above. Haus^Talk 03:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, public toilets exist. Yes, public toilets in state/town/city/region exist. I'm sure there are travel guides, directories and the occasional "state of public restrooms" news piece that make note of such locations. However, we're neither a travel guide not directory, which is all this article is. I really hope that someday the ARS will stop embarrassing the project with drivel like this. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the travel guide and directory arguments made above by numerous people. I'm not sure why the newspapers over there go on at such length about the toilets, but that they do so doesn't make the subject notable. Mangoe (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question If this is deleted, is there a chance that it could be userfied as its sister article was? It really is quite humorous. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. North Amer. has done a great job of showing the sources prove this is notable generally. What makes the subject notable is that the WCs in this particular city are so much worse than other cities in the 1st/2nd world. We have lots of weird stuff on Wikipedia - and it's a bad argument to claim it should be deleted merely because it's weird. Hell, we have lots of weird stuff here. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does this really have to be explained? Or is this like the train stations in Britain thing? In that case, quick!, we most definitely need an article for Public restrooms in Wyandach, New York.VolunteerMarek 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Statues in Dublin and Railway stations in the Netherlands, don't be snobs just because they are public toilets. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objection - WP:OTHERSTUFF is an inherently invalid argument. Ipsign (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on railway station directory articles either, and for the same reasons. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

（╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ Being hyper-literary should be a blockable offense. Yet, I will try to accommodate your lack of trying to hear my point by changing my statement to this: Every reason possible for keeping Statues in Dublin and Railway stations in the Netherlands are applicable here as well. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly WP:OTHERSTUFF and therefore is not a valid argument. It may happen that those 2 articles don't belong to Wikipedia either, but now we're discussing Public restrooms in Bratislava; as for 2 other articles - feel free to start separate AfDs on them. Ipsign (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". I'm guessing you assumed the content? My argument stands as valid as the only difference between the two articles and this one is the subject is crass. Back to the actual argument rather then this tiff, List of bus routes in Queens and Parks in Dubuque, Iowa are again quite similar to this article, and like this article they have information someone may one day seek. There are references on the subject, then as a reference work, wikipedia should contain information on the subject. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OSE, unfortunately, differs from the one widely accepted in Wikipedia community. Ipsign (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ლ(ಠ益ಠ)ლ Y U NO THINK? 99.235.194.16 (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ipsign, I don't agree that being often misrepresented means that the misrepresentation is widely accepted. The essay speaks for itself on what it says. Unscintillating (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I myself am happy to be a snob about it. Public bathrooms ~~is where I draw the line~~ is way over where I draw the line. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just because Unscintillating and Northamerica found some references on the 'net doesn't mean we have to have an article. Even if this passes NOTE, it fails both NOTDIRECTORY and COMMONSENSE Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 05:33, 12 February 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. henrik•talk 19:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kadyrov Cup 2012

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

Contested PROD. Concern was no evidence of notability. Cloudz 679 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 08:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable competition. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kadyrov Cup, though I doubt even that's notable. Giant Snowman 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All sports events with media coverage are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeyBilout (talk • contribs) 16:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — HeyBilout (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Unlike the Kadyrov Cup 2012, then? Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable friendly tournament. There is insufficient coverage for it to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:42, 12 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JahSun

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

Unable to locate sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. The fact that there seem to be several people with the same or similar aliases makes it unclear exactly who's who in the few sources I can find, but at any rate, none of them seem to be covered enough times in sufficient depth to be notable. Article was created by its subject. Cybercobra (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cybercobra (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As CEO of a major international aid organization, with dozens of mentions and interviews in the mainstream press... someone who has personally helped over a million people gain access to clean drinking water and sanitation, this call for lack of notability strikes me as somewhat ridiculous. If the removal of this article is called for, then why not the articles for the other CEO's of charity organizations. The fact that Scott Harrison and others warrant Wikipedia articles speaks to fact that being the CEO of an organization like Water Charity is notability enough.

Personally, it seems that User:Cybercobra appears to have a personal issue with me at the moment, which is uncalled for in this forum. He has taken it upon himself to personally spearhead attacks on all of my posts. I can understand if the Omnientheism article is not kept, as one of the sources of information for the article seems less than reliable. But for him to spend so much of his time obsessing over me personally and calling into question the notability of an organization that has a very proven and public track record of projects in approx. 70 nations worldwide, seems frivolous and mean-spirited. (note that charity:water only operates in 19 nations and has a page.)

If someone who comes to this page knows of any way to complain formally when a certain user targets someone for harassment or decides to have a vendetta, please post them here. Wikipedia should not be a place where petty people with nothing better to do with there time can make it their mission to target people for harassment. With the vast number of articles on the site, even if the user in question was unemployed and completely focused on Wikipedia, the idea that he could be spearheading attacks on every single entry I have made on this site purely by chance is ludicrous. JahSun (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Wikipedia:Harassment

I ask that you call off your harassment of me and undo your most recent posts on the pages in question, and apologize to me. Should you continue in the manner you have, I will be forced to take this to arbitration. JahSun (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like a bit more evidence. 'Published author'? Doesn't seem to be available on Amazon. Being available there doesn't confer notability, but not being there.... I looked at the jahsun site, but no writings are listed there, either. It does say 'mostly done through [his] agent', but does that mean the writing or the publicity? The bit where he is addressing Rotary International (the whole organisation? the Deadman's Flats branch?) is a bit unnecessary, as he is merely quoting someone else. I am puzzled by a statement on the Water Charity site, which is probably not really relevant to this discussion (not a 'forum', please...): "Although Water Charity is relatively new as an organization, we have been “doing water projects” for well over 40 year". I don't understand that. There could be a case for notability here, but at present I am not seeing it. The only source in the references that is considered reliable by Wikipedia (see WP:RS) is the Ban Ki-moon one, which does not mention this person or his organisation. By the way, finding the same people at different places is not unusual here. We follow links from things we've found. Cybercobra is a long serving and respected volunteer here (virtually all are volunteers - the paid staff is not big enough to make a football team), and he does what a lot of us do - he follows through. That is why I am here. Peridon (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I will change my stance if reliable sources are brought up according to WP:RS (persons). At presence there is not more than the mere statement that those exist, not the sources themselves. L.tak (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you mean WP:RS#Biographies of living persons ? --Cybercobra (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it was Wikipedia:Notability (persons) that I meant, but I didn't check my link anymore after posting.... L.tak (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Clearly not a notable person. The article was created by the subject, and is an advertisement/personal website. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that Scott Harrison and others warrant Wikipedia articles speaks to fact that being the CEO of an organization like Water Charity is notability enough." Not quite: WP:OTHERSTUFF --Cybercobra (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note The claim that JahSun is the CEO of a notable organization, Water Charity, is not true. Like this article that JahSun created about himself, this article is also not notable, and doesn't have any 3rd party reliable sources that establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to claim that I am not the CEO of Water Charity? Perhaps you are just being unclear.

I am not only the CEO, but a co-founder of this organization which is active in 70 nations worldwide. Why you feel the need to hound me on page after page baffles me. It is a sad commentary when you find this enjoyable or worthwhile. Wasn't the summary rejection of your last call for deletion enough to show you that you're lacking impartiality in this?JahSun (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence that JahSun or Jah Sun has received any coverage by independent reliable sources, which is required for an article here. I am also puzzled by JahSun's claim to be head of a "major international aid organization, with dozens of mentions and interviews in the mainstream press". Are you talking about Water Charity? According to that article's Wikipedia page, Water Charity has no paid staff and is run entirely by three volunteers (one of them being JahSun), and I could not find a single mention of Water Charity in any independent source. I could also not verify any ___location for Water Charity, and I could not find any listing for it at Charity Navigator. It's hard to see how this could be defined as a "major international aid organization" by any stretch. MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See new references posted on the delete page for Water Charity. You seem to have not put much effort into your research. If helping 1 million people worldwide does not make us a major international aid organization I don't know what does. The fact that I donate my time as CEO does not make my work any less difficult or important. http://watercharity.org/node/6 clearly shows my rank in the Water Charity organization. JahSun (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The references you provided, to back your claim that you are a notable individual, are not WP:RS for a WP:BLP. Please read these two articles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotional autobiography. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG so a neutral edit isn't going to help things. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless reliable sources establishing notability are provided. Begoon ^talk 00:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above. After removing the promotionsal info, you are truely left with nothing. 132.3.33.68 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, etc. Qworty (talk) 07:00, 12 February 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 per WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenway movers

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

Speedy tags are being repeatedly removed by a probably sockpuppet (or meat puppet). Concerns are G11 and A7. Eeekster (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page is both informative and unbiased. Other pages far less informative within encyclopedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy420 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Skippy420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
no changes were made by a bot, just a human flesh and blood. Page similar to prime van lines and thousands of others and is not in anyway bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippy420 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Skippy420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP: I'm saying keep, all attributions are there (UTC)

G11 is a no go because it has been written from a neutral perspective.

A7 is a no go because it has refrences that show it is both notable and relevant.

I think there is nothing wrong with this page, it follows all guidelines and is unbias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.46.65.169 (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — 99.46.65.169 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

dont think it qualifies as a G11, article is written from a netural point of view and is facts.

dont think it qualifies as a A7 as there are refrences showing the article is relevant and notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chadhennington (talk • contribs) 06:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Original arguments of A7 and G11 are valid. The article is too close to an advertisement. A general search for any WP:N shows no news articles and only some personal reviews. Should be tagged as db:spam. Pmedema (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Original arguments are not valid, please see other pages within industry. I searched google and found articles about this company, see prime van lines as a accepted article very similar in wording to this one, makes no sense to delete this article but allow ones like that. Just because a general search did not pick-up any news doesnt mean there isnt any.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Garden City High School Gym

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: unreferenced, no indication of notability. Eeekster (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. It's a high school gym, for Pete's sake, with absolutely no indication of anything other than normal gym activities taking place there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 No claim of notability. The high school also likely has a lunchroom, a principal's office, a library, some sort of athletic field, and a parking lot. Please let's not create articles for each of them. Edison (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A7 cannot apply, since it is a building, which rightly or wrongly are not eligible for A7. That said, it is obvious it should be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. This nomination reflects a shortcoming in our speedy rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:50, 8 February 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 for now, obviously without prejudice against his doing something amazing in the future and becoming notable. Der yck C. 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Binder

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

Film director of questionable notability. Google search on "Bryan Binder" Breakaway (his only directing to date) shows only 11 unique results, none from reliable sources - it's not even listed on his IMDB page, which shows mainly minor assistant roles. A search on the movie claimed to have been written by him shows only 49 unique results, again from questionable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've improved on the article to show notability and have included reliable sources and news articles. I also Wikified the article. AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Appending my original "Keep" post: The Hollywood Reporter article does include Binder's name (in the 2nd paragraph), : http://warbirdsmovie.com/thehollywoodreporter.pdf AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:54, 14 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one reference, The Detroit Jewish News, is about him, the others are about the films. That reference is iffy as it his hometown paper. Breakaway hasn't been released and according to IMDb War Birds hasn't started filming, but footage is shown in an interview. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Should only count on events that have happened. Even if the films were released, I don't he would pass WP:FILMMAKER. Bgwhite (talk) 07:17, 26 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:49, 29 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already. Only source is local, any activities pending notability haven't occurred yet. WP:TOOSOON. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Usual Caveats apply, however; if Mr. Binder does direct a major release, or if "Breakaway" comes out and gets coverage, then an article might work. But there isn't enough here to justify an article at present. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:08, 14 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Conan

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

Not notable: one time character for Funny or Die – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge to List of The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien sketches if appropriate. Disavian (talk) 04:50, 29 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in reliable sources. The reference provided does not mention the character. Tigerboy1966 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Achilles

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

No notability from WP:RS and no indication of importance outside of site that subject founded. Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If an article existed on the website he founded, then redirect to that. But I can't find any reliable sources for Achilles himself, just press releases etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 28 January 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the refs doesn't mention the subject: the other is his own website. So no coverage in Reliable sources. Tigerboy1966 21:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Sun

AfDs for this article:

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

This music producer lacks substantial multiple RS coverage in gnews and gbooks. The article creator is an SPA, whose name (M-sun) suggests a possible COI. Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. No indication of notability.--Michig (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 29 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom & fails WP:MUSICBIO. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seemed to get a weak, "benefit of the doubt" keep last time round. No improvement or evidence of notability in three years since. No indepth coverage in reliable sources. Tigerboy1966 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this project; does not appear to meet WP:GNG and I'm unable to verify (in independent reliable sources) that it meets any of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 21:00, 12 February 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable credit union. Fails WP:N as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Does not satisfy any of the standards in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Being "oldest and largest entirely student-run credit union in the country" doesn't confer inherent notability absent multiple independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. And, no, I do not believe that the presence of Georgetown University-related sources does not count toward the notability guideline. The purpose of the notability requirement is to only include subjects which have attracted "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." The fact that a Georgetown entity is covered by a Georgetown student paper is does not satisfy that purpose. --GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that the article was created by Guasfcu (talk · contribs), who is now blocked as a role account--raises issues of WP:COI and possible POV-pushing). GrapedApe (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the article, and provided sources from The Washington Post and BusinessWeek among others. I would specificity point to where these published sources highlight the "The organization’s longevity and size of membership", which are the first considerations in determining notability according to WP:CLUB. The editor who first created the article in 2008 is irrelevant to its current status.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A half paragraph in Business Week. That makes Washington Post 1 legitimate independent reliable source. The "longevity" factor Patrickneil speaks of in WP:CLUB is a sub-consideration of the secondary factor "Factors that have attracted widespread attention." That's not sufficient on its own.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:UNI we've been over it time and again, and the consensus is always that independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be. While they wouldn't be enough on their own, they work to provide backup for The Washington Post, BusinessWeek, The Boston Herald, The Dayton Daily News, Bloomberg, and The College Buzz Book. So, a multimillion dollar corporation with thousands of members across the United States, and the oldest and largest in its field. I'm tempted to ask for Speedy Keep.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - boring but obviously notable, as demonstrated by Patrick's sources. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Patrick this article now meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:GNG with multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Gobonobo ^T ^C 21:47, 5 February 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. Completely rewritten, no consensus to delete in this version owing to very little discussion. Sandstein 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudorationalism

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

The article is an unsalvageable hodge-podge of POV pushing and coatracking. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, this is not a meaningful concept, just a synthesis of numerous pieces from not particularly reliable sources that happen to share a pejorative. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support [deletion] per nom. I originally prodded this article last week based upon it being an obscure concept with little in the way of reliable sources, but didn't get round to moving it here after it was contested - by a now blocked user. QueenCake (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, per nomination. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:43, 30 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsalvageable as nom says. Whether it's quite a neologism or not, there's nothing substantial here, just POV dressed up with a few unsatisfactory references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - as a dictionary definition doing the lambada with an original essay.~~ Carrite (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will stand down owing to the article's second life with new content. The 1935 article definitely exists, using the German for "Pseudorationalism" in the title, which would imply a keep is on the way. I'm not sure the content here is particularly useful, but that's ultimately an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, I blocked the sock who created this article--he has a history of creating poorly sourced articles on neologisms and the like. But the article has been completely rewritten so everyone who !voted above might want to take a second look. I'm not qualified to assess the references used but at first glance the article seems much improved and lambada-free. Valfontis (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted after a complete rewrite to generate a discussion on the new version. 23:14, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. After the AfD was largely decided, another editor rewrote the article into an entirely different (and reasonably sourced) topic. My initial intention was to close as inapplicable on that basis, but I welcome evaluation of the material as rewritten. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:21, 12 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasjim Djalal

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

Does not pass WP:DIPLOMAT Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the same way that people holding certain elected offices are automatically notable, I seem to remember a stated or tacit consensus that top-level ambassadors are automatically notable. This is bolstered by coverage in reliable sources which might not be enough to support an article on its own but which supports the notability of a person who gains notability from his position. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has he had a major role in an event of international importance, per WP:DIPLOMAT? Not every diplomat / ambassador is inherently notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think every diplomat is inherently notable either; I just seem to remember that past discussions on ambassadors demonstrated a consensus that the ambassador of one country to another (so, not any member of embassy staff) was notable, and in this particular case the coverage in reliable sources, joined with notability from his position, seems to support an article. (Recall that WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ACADEMIC, etc. do not exclude WP:BIO). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ WPDIPLOMAT makes it pretty clear that holding a diplomatic post does not bestow automatic notability. We need coverage of partcipation in significant events. Probably salvageable. Happy to change opinion in better stuff emerges. Tigerboy1966 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep Changing my mind. The text of the article doesn't give grounds for keeping, but the sources have lots of detail on his contributions to Indonesia's international relations and maritime law. So I think we have an editing/improvement issue rather than a notability problem. Tigerboy1966 01:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete bd2412 T 22:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto music

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

Prodded by me with "Very short article. Most of the bands listed are redlinks. Unsourced since forever. Concept does not seem widespread enough for an article." Deprodded with "There are eight interwikis for this, some of which appear to be much more substantial than the English article. This suggests there is more to this topic than has thus far been said in the English article; and that, in turn, seems to me to suggest enough doubt to justify not deleting without discussion."

I still believe that the subject is not widespread enough, as evidenced by the lack of blue links in the artist list and the fact that the article has gone unsourced nearly 5 years. A search for sources found nothing of note — only Wikipedia mirrors and false positives (e.g. "studies include esperanto, music, x, y, z"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are some sources and scope for expansion here. According to TIME magazine, Bing Crosby sang an Esperanto song in The Road to Singapore. There's a book here which covers Esperanto musicians. Other coverage of Esperanto songs and music: The News (1924) - news article about an Esperanto song book, a news story from The Age (1913) about opera singer Eleanor de Cisneros having songs translated into Esperanto and intending to perform them, a story from the Gadsden Times (1967) about a Hungarian Esperanto song festival. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which pertain only to individual works in Esperanto, and not the concept of Esperanto music as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the 'concept of Esperanto music as a whole' is the sum concept of the individual works, but perhaps the sources we have would be better used to expand the section in the Esperanto culture article. The article in other languages seem a bit thin on sources. I think a Redirect would be appropriate here.--Michig (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Esperanto culture#Literature, music and film depending on whether sufficient material can be found during normal editing. Clearly a viable article topic one day if not today. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any sourced/sourceable content to Esperanto culture#Literature, music and film, as per User:Cusop Dingle, and leave this as a redirect. TPH is correct in saying there is not enough substantial coverage to merit this article (not yet anyway), but it's a plausible search term, and the Esperanto culture article is the ideal redirect target. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is actually List of things relating to Esperanto music and strikes me as an excellent source of useful in-links. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Esperanto culture per Cusop Dingle. Some merging may be appropriate, particularly from the sections 'Classical music' and 'References to Esperanto in music'. In response to Michig, synthesizing "the sum concept of the individual works" is considered original research and is contrary to policy. Cnilep (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that you read WP:OR before throwing it around in discussions. Referring to material from reliable sources is not original research. It would only be synthesis if those sources were used to advance a view not directly supported by those sources.--Michig (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly; if one were to cite works "which pertain only to individual works in Esperanto" and assert that they surely add up to "the concept of Esperanto music as a whole", one would be advancing a view not directly supported by those sources. Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't what I was saying, and it's the fragmented nature of the coverage found thus far that makes me think redirecting and using those sources to improve the target article would be the best approach. If we had enough sources to create a comprehensive article on the subject it would be a different matter, and it would not be original research or synthesis to do so. Believe what you want though.--Michig (talk) 18:53, 6 February 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Control (film)

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

This article fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability Guideline. It is nothing but a poor mirror of IMDB page of the film, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per #1 of WP:NF#Other evidence of notability
Film was distributed to Italy, Iceland, USA, Germany, Spain, UK, and France. link
I also found two full reviews from the critics Nathan Rabin link and Dragan Antulov link Cimorcus talk 07:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done. Your argument is indeed valid and sound. However, this only solves half of my nomination's proposal. The other half, which is WP:NOTMIRROR, is still not resolved. Please note that WP:NOTMIRROR is more important than Notability: Notability is just a guideline but WP:NOT is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If this jumble of text which we call "article" is not improved, it might be speedy deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify, and with respects, film articles are generally not speediable... even if poorly written or lacking proper sources... as notability is a different threshold than CSD. And WP:NOTMIRROR is set to address "collections of external links or Internet directories", "collections of internal links", "collections of public ___domain or other source material", and "collections of photographs or media files", and not an article that has context and content, even if it's a stub which may have been poorly written and improperly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cimorcus. It would be good to add this info to the article. ●Mehran ^Debate● 07:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Per nom. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has confused a badly written article with rules around notability. A film starring Kiefer Sutherland and featuring Henry Winkler must have some shread of notability, which has been demonstrated above. Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability requires verifiable evidences and insulting the nominator will not fulfill this requirement, no matter whether the film is directed by Kiefer Sutherland or God himself. Fleet Command (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - Apart from the aforementioned IMDB source and Nathan Rabin's review (mentioned above) there is no substantial comment about this movie anywhere. There in no information available about the production house. No idea about its budget or earnings are available. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a rating of 44% but that's temp. Not enough people have reviewed it yet. From all indications this was meant to be a TV series but was turned into a movie at the last moment. More information would surely help this article. Wikishagnik (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has pointed out two main concerns... One: the article's current state is poor. Okay.... but Wikipedia is a work in process and does not demand immediate perfection. A poor current state is more a reason to allow issues to be addressed over time and through regular editing than it is for deletion. Demanding deletion because someone else has not improved an improvable topic is not what AFD is for. If something can be fixed, we acknowledge that it can be and then allow it to be done... over time and through the course of regular editing. A surmountable issue is not a valid cause to delete. Two: Notability requires verifiable evidence, yes... but such evidence need not be in an article in order for a topic to be determined as notable. We have enough offered so far to see that WP:NF is met. Even the delete above by User:Wikishagnik discussing the article's current state offers "More information would surely help this article". I see this observation as one indicative that the topic will benefit from improvement, but I do not see it as a valid reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent argument. However, neither I can improve this article nor I believe anyone else would ever do so. I believe the current status of the article to be its eternal state. Fleet Command (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can accept that you feel personally feel you could not improve the article, but your opinion of your own editing skills or speculation about editing skills of future unknown others does not overrule existing guideline and policy... nor is there any mandate that the article must be improved right now or be deleted per WP:NOEFFORT. While I can offer editors MANY examples of articles that other nominators at other times felt unimprovable which were were subsequently improved to serve the project and its readers, my WP:WAX comparisons, and your own admission of inability still must be weighed against this encyclopedia being a work in process that acknowledges that it itself imperfect. We do not mandate a deadline for perfection and instead allow and encourage regular editing over time... even if you as nominator do not think others have the ability or inclination to perform improvements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, it is not just personal feeling; it is article history too. And, I am not speaking of just any imperfection, but implausible, WP:NOT-violating imperfection. Still, I think we should reach a compromise here. I'll be glad to withdraw the nomination, now that you and I are almost in the same page. It was good to know you; I like people who can put up a sound argument. Few do so. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 12:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - How long an article might not be improved has to do with contributor interest in the topic. And while it is a sad truth that histories can show that many lessor articles might sit untouched for months or years, when such addressable issues as illuminated by you are not acted upon, we do better to have patience. That said, I have enough film industry experience and background to find sources that others might not, and as I will have the time in the next few days and have the inclination to fix this, I will address article issues myself. Because you are willing to withdraw the nomination, it will be prudent of me to show that your withdrawal was well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Schmidt.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

As my work on it is just beginning... and to report in about how the Find sources link assigned by the AFD template is not always the be-all and end-all, specialy for films that had releases in other countries and under other titles, this film has had its initial 1998 theatrical release in Italy as Rischio d'impatto, followed by addtional theatrical and video releases in multiple countries and under different titles, as well as television premieres in the United Kingdom in 2003 and the United States in 2005 under the article's curent title. Under WP:NF and as expanded in a related essay, commercial re-releases more than five years after initial theatrical screening are a decent indicators of notability. Having other languages and titles for which to search broadens our possibilities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...and if these alternate Find sources offer non-English coverage and reviews of a film first released outside the US and under a whole different title, that's perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. More to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Since User:Wikishagnik's delete opinion above, the article has begun to be improved. While it might never reach GA of FA status, that is not a concern, as the stub that was fist nominated is being improved. More to do, yes... but addressable issues are rarely valid cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After going through the work done on this article, I have changed my mind. Good work Schmidt Wikishagnik (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I apprciate the compliment. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article looks 200% better - Awesome Job Schmidt!! Cimorcus talk 01:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I was happy to be able to address the nominator's concerns. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe it's time to withdraw, after MQS's good work. Congrats--you did it again. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can fix something, I do. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 11 February 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. (non-admin closure) B music ian 04:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Johnson

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable artist; references refer to exhibitions of his work but nothing establishing notability of the artist. Frank | talk 19:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveats, or userfy. The article is a mess of primary sources, but ... it's clear he meets WP:CREATIVE. The artist has shown in art shows, galleries and museums around the United States. I found several good sources with a few clicks: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], etc. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All those links do is confirm that he exists and has shown his work in galleries and exhibitions; this is not in question. However, none of those links does anything to establish WP:NOTABILITY per WP:CREATIVE, which is the real question here. You assert that it is "clear he meets WP:CREATIVE"...can you specify which sub-point of that guideline he meets? Frank | talk 16:45, 3 February 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 18:08, 4 February 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 February 5. Snotbot t • c » 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this artist has been written about in San Antonio Express News and The Kansas City Star, which are quite reputable newspapers. Also the artist has exhibited at some reputable venues, so I believe he meets all requirements of WP:NOTABILITY Wikishagnik (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have citations for those newspaper articles, and are they about him? As I noted above, there are several hits that mention him exhibiting, but...that doesn't make an artist notable. Frank | talk 03:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fwiw, please consider that this is a creative professional whose notability is further established by the accessioning of their works within notable public collections, both domestically and abroad; unless the creative professional's works are deleted from those public permanent collections, it would seem a disservice to the wikipedia community--and greater public at large--which wikipedia serves to delete this, or any, creative professional's content whose creative works have been established within public collections. Furthermore, this humble observation comes from one who thoroughly appreciates the process articles undergo here and truly respect each of the previously stated views; I'm certain that those of you dedicated to this cause will ultimately make the best decision in the interest of the wikipedia community. As a patron of the arts and someone who frequents museums, both domestically and abroad, and who depends on wikipedia to find information on creative professionals, such as the individual proposed for deletion here, I thank you all for your time and consideration (if I didn't say state this now, I may never have another opportunity to share my sincere gratitude to this community for their hard work, efforts and endeavor). 12:00, 10 February 2012

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, see below. Quasi human | Talk 11:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenbergia itamarajuensis

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

This article about a plant species is a one-line stub. Despite an extensive search, I can find no more information about this than is already in the article. The source cited, [38], mentions the subject once in a list of similar species. A google scholar search for the title in quotes produces 3 results, one is the source already mentioned, the other two do not look any more promising (although I have access to neither). One looks to be just a list of similar species, the other, [39] is an analysis of 2,875 newly discovered angiosperm species in Brazil. A google book search is equally fruitless, it produces 2 hits, one to a book published by Books LLC, a company which republishes Wikipedia articles in book form, the other is inaccessible to me. This article looks like it does not meet the GNG. Quasi human | Talk 00:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Quasi human | Talk 00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. 202.124.74.36 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Species are generally notable, given the literature associated with finding and naming them, although online sources are not always easy to find. -- 202.124.74.36 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. Every single species on the planet has at least one reliable academic source due to way they are named. The two sentences and the taxobox also provides valuable information to those who can understand it. Do not confuse length with notability. Please do not nominate taxon articles again for GNG reasons alone. The only instances where organisms are usually AfD'd is if they are hoaxes or if they are infraspecific ranks like commercial cultivars or hybrids of doubtful notability. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy doesn't seem to apply, but WP:SNOW does. General notability is met, so unless the nominator can come up with a better reason, I suggest the nom withdraw or this be a WP:SNOW closure. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consensus has emerged that species are notable on a per se basis. If it helps ya sleep at night, rest assured that there are sources "out there" dealing with every known species on the planet as part of the naming process. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deluge Keep, only because this notable species is from Brazil and probably wouldn't survive the snow. Published species are inherently notable because they need to be published in a reliable academic source, like this one. First Light (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publication as a species meets the notablity threshold. Melburnian (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tens of thousands, if not more, one line organism stubs on wikipedia, many with fewer sources than this. Feel free to spend your time on en.wikipedia nominating every single one of them on similar grounds. Pseudofusulina (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, species are inherently notable and encyclopedic subject matter. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the arguments above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep All species are notable, no matter how obscure or unremarkable, as long as they have been found in at least one source. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per WP:SNOW, consensus has been established, although I disagree with this consensus, and no guideline has been pointed to which indicates that species are automatically notable, there is no chance that this article will be deleted. Quasi human | Talk 11:18, 5 February 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.