Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 July	5 July >

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. No prejudice against recreation if notability is established. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bills

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

Unsourced article with little to no information about a low-level retired MMA fighter. Does not meet minimum notability standards. Luchuslu (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete Non-notable MMA fighter. He has a so-so record with, primarily, minor MMA organizations. The only source is his fight record at Sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Could be re-created if subject attains notability or an editor finds enough to prove notability under GNG. Tthaas (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Black Kite under criteria G3; "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes". (non-admin closure). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán Jones

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

I was torn with tagging this as an attack page for speedy deletion. None of the references seem to support the content properly and it is full of negative comments that are offensive and unreferenced. It's well crafted to hide the fact that it is an attack page unless it is read carefully. I think it is better deleted than "cleaned up" leaving this kind of stuff in the history:

"Ciarán Jones had no children yet, but would love a little asian kid he can kick in the face."
"In 2012, it was discovered that Ciarán has an accurate net worth of approximately $10000 trillion."
"Ciarán fell out with Drake due to his arrogance and lack of understand of the music world. Drake confronted Ciarán, but Eminem broke them up, Drake told Eminem he would have to choose who he would work with, Ciarán or Drake. Eminem chose Ciarán and since then they haven't looked back. Drake is an unknown artist now and probably working on trying to get his fame back."
"Ciarán stated that, contrary to rumors, Eminem and Ciarán were together again and would soon be getting married." QU ^TalkQu 21:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Essentially a copy of Royce da 5'9" with names and details changed. Take a look t the intros to both articles :). FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good spot. I should have noticed all the references were about Royce da 5'9" when I read them (I did notice it but it didn't twig). Thanks QU ^TalkQu 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria G3: "pure vandalism...blatant and obvious misinformation". Tagged as such, can't have rubbish like this hanging around. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:19, 4 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Biography of Jesus

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

Appears to fail all criteria of WP:BKCRIT. Google Books hits don't seem to offer independent, reliable coverage, while Google News and News archives turn up nothing. (I used the search term "A Biography of Jesus" Tom Cowley.) I am also nominating another book by Cowley:

It also appears to fail all of the above-mentioned criteria. Google Books, News, and News archives searches for "Remember The Heart of The Bible" tom cowley turn up nothing. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Unsourced, not notable. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Both articles lack sources of any kind; searching online yielded nothing that could be used to give notability. Unless sources can be provided that satisfy WP:BKCRIT, neither are suitable as Wikipedia articles. - Sudo Ghost 00:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability when looking for sources. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 00:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. These articles are unsourced and do not clearly explain the notability of these books. Furthermore, one of the books has not even been published yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. No citations, reviews, or news coverage. Not notable. -- 202.124.73.78 (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a source: http://www.amazon.com/Biography-Jesus-Simple-Lessons-Life/dp/1612611451/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341488186&sr=8-1&keywords=a+biography+of+Jesus. It took me about 1 second to find that, whoever searched for that and couldn't find it shouldn't be nominating articles for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrwiki (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Clrwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not an independent source: it's just Amazon selling the book. It doesn't contribute to notability in the least. -- 202.124.74.140 (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I concur completely with 202. Amazon doesn't qualify as an independent, reliable source because it has a vested interest in the book, as it's trying to sell it. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would certainly support keeping a book of this title. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And besides WP:ILIKEIT, on what policy do you base your !vote? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't get to inherit its notability from its subject, Jesus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these are the usual re-tellings of the life of Jesus, two of the many, neither of which book is notable. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy of Enemy at the Gates

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

Unreferenced original research. Even if technically verifiable, it would probably still be a case of synthesis, and even then, Wikipedia's job is not to point out every little inaccuracy in movies or television programs. Such content infamously plagues various articles on made-for-TV paleontology docs, and consensus around those parts is generally to delete it on sight. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, no sources, not WP:NPOV. The main article Enemy at the Gates already has a section on historical accuracy. If any of these statements can be verified then they can be merged back in to the main page. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No objection to this being done speedily. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful/delete. Main article on film isn't long enough to need spin-out. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per CodeTheorist, the nominator, et al. If any of the statements can be verified, they can be merged back to the main page. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't need a separate wikipedia article. --Artene50 (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Intothat darkness 17:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. Prestonmag (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an OR piece. -Cntras (talk) 06:02, 9 July 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 - article speedy deleted (WP:CSD#A1) by User:Metropolitan90 at 14:38 on 5 July 2012. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campusdada

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

Contested PROD. Lack sufficient context, no assertion or indication of notability. KTC (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A1. What is it? Author doesn't bother to tell us. DarkAudit (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (don't know why I didn't do that in the first place) per previous user's comments. Note: Article has been deleted (A1) by User:Metropolitan90. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 09:21, 5 July 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. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Marcos

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

Contested PROD, removed by IP with no reason given. Original rationale was that this player fails both WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:ATHLETE. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:NFOOTBALL at present. It could in future if he plays in a premier league match. --Artene50 (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I don't know why the PROD wasn't reinstated after the IP removed it. I agree that it fails WP:GNG and WP: NFOOTBALL Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, or represented his country at senior level, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, by my searching. — sparklism ^hey! 08:59, 9 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

InFOCUS

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

no citations, sources, may fail WP:GNG Murry1975 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to be as much about their launch venue as the band themselves. Apparently they were 2nd in an Irish contest in 2001 ([1]), but that's about all. No evidence of meeting the WP:NMUSIC notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not proven. ww2censor (talk) 05:21, 10 July 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. With so little participation here, a consensus cannot be found, so am closing as no consensus with no prejudice to the article being renominated at AFD at any time. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EyeTech Digital Systems

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

Nominating on the grounds that I do not belive the company is notable per Wikipedia:CORP Fayedizard (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google Books search turns up records of the company's tools being used in human-computer-interaction research: for example [2] and some snippet views. AllyD (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 27 June 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, Wifione ^Message 18:07, 4 July 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 - a keep result doesn't bias one way or the other a future editorial discussion of merging, of course. Wily D 11:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newsrail

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

No evidence of notability given excluding self-references. Simple verification of one aspect of magazine notability would do. Previous failed deletion proposal appears based on assertation that "it is notable" with no evidence given. Oranjblud (talk) 17:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Article doesn't assert notability and the sources are unreliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep indexed and held by National Library of Australia, first published in 1973, note that its had 3 name changes[3] Gnan garra 06:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment its cited in 240 articles on Wikipedia that alone is sufficient reason to have a stub article Gnan garra 06:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per issues raised by Gnangarra Satu Suro 12:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Australian Railway Historical Society. I merged Australian Railway History after it was PRODded (I removed the PROD). It would seem that keeping all the magazines published by the Australian Railway Historical Society would serve the articles and content better. Roodog2k (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - for three reasons: 1) Reliable sources are not necessarily notable themselves. Some examples would be individual scientific papers, user manuals, press releases or government reports - some of them might indeed be notable, but in general they will not be. 2) There are currently no reliable sources cited in the article (one is a journal directory, the other is the journal's own website), so it doesn't even pass GNG. WP:NBOOK states that being archived by the NLA is a necessary but insufficient criterion. 3) This article has no reasonable prospect of expanding very much beyond its present two-sentence stub status, and thus would be far more appropriate to merge its content to Australian Railway Historical Society#Serial publications. The notability of ARHS is not in question, so independent RSs are not required for inclusion there.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnangarra; appears to meet the bar for independent notability, although article needs improvement to reflect this. Orderinchaos 03:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by this periodical being used as a source by academics. Verifiability is not a problem either, as the details about this periodical can be found in many a bibliography, such as the Australian National Bibliography and its successor Recent Australian Publications, both of which are published by the National Library of Australia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:11, 11 July 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. Cosensus is that the coverage is available to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Levin

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

Article has been tagged as needing reliable sources for many years with no improvement. Previous AFD was a joke, with participation being limited to multiple votes by the editor who created this article (admitting on the last AFD to be in personal communication with the subject) and an editor with a long history of kneejerk keep votes with unsubstantiated claims of notability on AFDs, and a non-admin closure by someone who has since been banned from Wikipedia after his conduct in this and other areas was questioned. Claim made previously in article that this person was cited in someone's published memoirs is both a trivial reference for purposes of determining notability for Wikipedia and seemingly erroneous, as link went to Google Books and a "search inside this book" test failed to show the name (so that claim has now been removed from the article). Only other sources cited are individual's own MySpace page and a very short review in the New York Times. The NYT piece could certainly be part of a larger collection of reliable sources, if any exist, but on its own it is very far from what is required to have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faust Harrison Pianos Features Beth Levin, 4/20 Broadway World. Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And from the article history itself, a source for a statement in the article that was removed rather than improved (by the nominator): "Levin is also cited by name in Filar's published memoirs." From Buchenwald to Carnegie Hall published memoirs. Specific page: Beth Levine
We really should not delete because of a typo, eh? Or give up the search for references for that reason, imo. Instant deletion of sources without a search in this way is contrary to the intent of Templates such as Template:Refimprove and Template:Not in citation given and rules WP:V#Other issues and WP:CTT. Not just because it is peremptory, but because it usurps the right of other editors to assist the article (that is why Template:FV automatically categorizes articles as lacking sources for verification). I am sure that a lot of editors would love to think that FV tags articles so that they can nominate the article for deletion, but it ain't so. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are quite a few sources about Beth Levin, as quick GNews [4] and HighBeam[5] searches, or even just a quick glance at the quotes at her own website[6], would suggest. For example, multiple substantial Boston Globe articles [7][8]. Nor does the nomination earn any added force for its intemperate and unwarranted language about an editor who not only remains in good standing but is now an administrator.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG

Eichler, Jeremy (June 10, 2005). "Emotional Pianism, a Welcome Distraction". The New York Times. Retrieved July 05, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Taubman technique polishes Levin to perfection - The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | HighBeam Research (subscription required)
Beth Levin adds new colors to her palette - The Boston Globe (Boston, MA) | HighBeam Research (subscription required)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steam World

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

Doesn't establish notability, as mentioned in the previous afd discussion - the obvious reason for keeping would be one or more of those listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. This needs to be established - as I understand it if the journal is "yet another railway magazine" (no matter how popular, or widely published) isn't sufficient. There was one reference to this magazine found [9] - which gives the magazine a reasonable write up - however this is only one source, which I do not believe to be enough? If kept then please source/explain why it is notable this time. I should note that List of railroad-related periodicals exists and can cover the basic details of individually non-notable magazines.Oranjblud (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Putting every Rail magazine up for AfD is hardly a good faith effort and looks like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as well as WP:POINT. As noted in the last AfD, according to W H Smith, this is "Britain’s best selling historical railway magazine" [10], easily satisfying #5 of WP:Notability (media)#Newspapers, magazines and journals ("significant publication in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets").--Oakshade (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See also my other rationales for keeping the other related Railfan journals AfDs for WP:Articles for deletion/Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine), WP:Articles for deletion/Live Steam & Outdoor Railroading (magazine), WP:Articles for deletion/The New Electric Railway Journal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Railways. I don't feel that notability is absolute. If something is notable in a notable field, provided that field is non-trivial, it's notable. Roodog2k (talk) 19:53, 6 July 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). Till 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Railways

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

No evidence of notability - source currently given, a bookseller, is just a list of items for sale which includes a sales description of the magazine [11]. I should note that List of railroad-related periodicals already can cover the basic details of individually not-notable magazines.Oranjblud (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this magazine is clearly notable - it's probably the best printed English language source of information about contemporary continental European railways, and is distributed worldwide. To establish notability, the most important requirement is a reliable source. A non-independent source is sometimes still reliable. Finding independent source material about magazines is actually quite difficult, because non-affiliated periodicals tend not to review each other. I figured that a comment by a large specialist bookseller was about the best reliable source I was likely to find about a magazine within that specialty. It's true that the source is not completely independent, and that the quote from the source is a sales description, but there are laws that prevent advertisers from publishing false sales information, and it's reasonable to assume that the bookseller, which has been running a relevant and successful specialist business for a long time, is complying with those laws. To add weight to the assumption that the source is reliable, I have also cited a second, independent, source confirming the stated information about the bookseller. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Amazon has a reputation, too, but still we don't consider it as a reliable source. Booksellers cannot be neutral, after all, they're not going to tell you something like "this novel is absolutely boring"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
another - a source may add useful and/or interesting information about a topic, without establishing notability - I think the bookseller source refereed to above is an example of this.Oranjblud (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Deleting reliable sources that are used as evidence of notability for other topics seems very counter-productive to this project and, if we go by Wikipedia:Notability (media), this easily passes its "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area", "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" and "are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets".[12] --Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as per Wikipedia:Notability_(media) - you state it meets "are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area" (and "..frequently cited by other reliable sources..") - no evidence given - as far as I can tell the only place using Today's Railways as a source is wikipedia. In short : wikipedia does not count as a reliable source
- The magazine may well satisfy other criteria - but if it does it should be verifyable - quote "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria" - my underlining. We can all assert that something is notable, good, expert etc until the cows come home but those assertions remain as opinions without verification. If the magazine is what is claimed it should be easy to supply sources showing so that meet WP:VERIFY. Currently there are no reliable sources establishing notability.Oranjblud (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your rebuttal is simply a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming Wikipedia counts as a reliable source, but that this publication, Today's Railways, counts as a reliable source and is cited by muliple other reliable sources. [13][14][15][16]--Oakshade (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely distributed magazine on its subject matter. G-13114 (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments from Bahfrend and Oakshade Satu Suro 09:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable magazine for railway anoraks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per guidelines, you can have duplication of information between lists and articles. Also, you seem to be PRODding or nominating every railfan magazine for deletion, which smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least Today's Railways Europe -- I cannot speak for Today's Railways UK; they are separate magazines as the article now makes clear. The original Today's Railways, now Today's Railways Europe, is AFAIK unique in covering a whole continent, not just mostly one country, as all other railway magazines do. It is an extremely useful English-language source on European railway matters and very well-researched, with excellent maps. The founding editor David Haydock is a respected and well-known railway journalist of long standing. It would seem ridiculous not to have a Wikipedia article about this unique and useful magazine. -- Alarics (talk) 06:47, 6 July 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. None of the keep arguments address the issue of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which is required to meet the notability guidelines. Therefore they can be given little, if any, weight and so the consensus for deletion here is apparent. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Msys Test Automation Solutions

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

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

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

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

The article does not cite independent sources, and I did not find evidence that this subject meets the notability criteria. Previously prodded. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found no reliable sources indicating any notability, and there's a strong overtone of advertising, I think. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful. Google searches turned up nothing useful. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSOFT. -Cntras (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article is an independent sources of an Test Automation Solutions, Msys test automation solutions and it is an useful information source. 220.227.30.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — 220.227.30.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, Good tool for Automation testing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bala2it4u (talk • contribs) 08:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Bala2it4u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, Its an unique testing solutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneshw (talk • contribs) 09:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Vigneshw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: I wrote this article to use less language from their website and add more meaningful citations (I am not affiliated with this project). This is an solutions for automated testing. It will useful notable article that should be present in Wikipedia article page as Encyclopedia. Aanand2888 (talk) — Aanand2888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: This page is from a reliable information source. Googling this throws several links like whitepaper etc and this doesnt look like marketing. This is a crisp information base for a moderately popular software. Worthy data and wikipedia could keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawilinie (talk • contribs) 09:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Shawilinie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. All of the Keep !votes appear to be a mishmash of WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:VALINFO, WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:ILIKEIT. These are all WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. At AfD, the only thing that matters is whether WP:Notability can be established and for that, it takes reliable sources. It's not enough that a subject seems notable. Others not connected to the subject have to have actually taken note and they have to done that in WP:Reliable sources. So far as I could tell – and none of the keep !votes offer evidence to the contrary – those sources don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 14:27, 11 July 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines as it does not have the coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts International Federation

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

I can find no independent sources for this organization and nothing to show it's notable. The article's only source is its own web page. Papaursa (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any independent sources either. Seems like a purely promotional article. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previous nominator for speedy deletion under criterion G11. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the arguments above.Kendo 66 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)
Delete per lack of WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP valid organisation. Was a member at one time. Will try to get info for article. PLEASE give me link. Thechristiancontender (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP valid organizations on Wiki. Martial Arts International Federation] (MAIF) is a valid organization. The official website is Martial Arts International Federation (MAIF) - Kontoreg (talk) 12:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already voted above to delete the MAIF wikipedia article. Kontoreg may like to know that the main page on the MAIF website that he refers to above, was last updated on 9 July 2009 and the what's new page was last updated on 16 June 2009. So really using the website as proof of existence could be challenged.Kendo 66 03:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs)

A page does not have to change if the organisations infomation is current and accurate infomation. No rule says pages need to be constantly updated if the info is accurate and nothing needs adding. This organisation is a valid organisation and is known by martial arts instructors. Thechristiancontender (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's true - and an organization can no longer exist and still be notable. Problem is that I don't think this organization is Notable and the article makes not attempt to address this issue. The only source of information is its own web site - no third party sources.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the organisation still exists and is notable. A good example of notable but without current mention on wikipededia is the late grandmaster Glenn Ellis Kwan. Martial Artist from all over the world were at his funeral. So to say that you have to have a large number of sources to be an active credible organisation is simply false. Thechristiancontender (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is that perhaps an article should be written about Glenn Ellis Kwan. No one said a large number of sources just something beyond their own website. One or two primary sources would be more than enough. That would also be true for Glenn Kwan. Wikipedia has pretty clear guidelines. Please see WP:NOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that there is no information on when, how and by who it was founded. If it is kept some attempt to make a better, more informative, article should be made.Peter Rehse (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article has no indpendent sources and nothing to show this is a notable organization. My search found nothing independent that supports notability. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 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. Consensus is that the article does not have the coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RHP Multimedia

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

Article about a company that doesn't credibly meet guidelines for notability. Article was speeded as Advertisement and Non-notable and re-created with virtually the same content. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the proper notability. This article was written as an honest submission, modeled after published and approved content on Wikipedia. What should I change about it? Jtechlover (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A brief follow up to my previous comment. What should I change about it? Jtechlover (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, I have updated the article removing links that might be considered advertising, in accordance with your policies. I hope this is sufficient, thank you. Jtechlover (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment. To Jtechlover - although there are a few different possible reasons to delete a page, the one that seems most relevant here is notability. Specifically, we need to find out whether the company passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations. To prove that a company passes the guidelines, we need to find significant coverage about it in reliable sources that are independent of the company itself. (See also this simple explanation of the notability guidelines.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything that can be stretched to meet WP:CORP and I can't find a reliable source that backs up the claim of altering the way that people use their smartphone cameras, etc., which might well denote notability if arm's-length third-party sources that agree explicitly could be provided. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references found to indicate that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 05:29, 8 July 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long Point Road

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

I can't find any evidence that this community exists. It's not included in the GNIS, nor is it listed on the official highway map of Onondaga County, nor do references seem to exist anywhere else to indicate its existence. While there is a Long Point Road in this area, there doesn't seem to be a community by the name, and the road itself isn't notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability. Dough 48 72 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:21, 4 July 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 16:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inline-twin engine

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

This article is a POV fork created in the midst of a move discussion at Talk:Straight-two engine. Bridge Boy (talk · contribs) was unable to win consensus to move Straight-two engine, and was unable to win consensus for the idea that the terms straight-two engine, inline-twin engine and parallel-twin engine are not synonyms. This page was created in spite of clear opposition from multiple editors, with no editors supporting a new page. Inline-twin engine exists on the basis of cherry-picking sources which support the belief that the term is a distinct engine type, and stubbornly ignoring all the sources that treat the terms as interchangeable. Straight-two engine is less than 1,000 words in length, and Inline-twin engine is barely over 500 words, not even counting duplication. Wikipedia:Summary style doesn't recommend spawning child articles until length is in the 6,000 to 10,000 word range. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet more example of this author's refusal to accept the principle of community consensus and an attempt to railroad that process. This is an unnecessary content fork. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork by an editor who's disgruntled about not getting his own way. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close AfD is not the appropriate forum for this. There's an attempt at a serious discussion to sort out this broader issue at Talk:Straight-two engine I'd invite those interested to contribute there, not piecemeal here. If deletion looks like the best result after that broad decision, we can delete then. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unneeded content fork. This AfD can continue during the more detailed discussion at Talk:Straight-two engine. Deleting this article is a strong signal to Bridge Boy that consensus must be won; cross-grained independent action will not suit. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. While I agree with the nominator's rationale, and agree that this article should be deleted per policies and guidelines, I also agree with Andy Dingley. I feel that the timing of this AfD is an unnecessary escalation of a WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From an engineering point of view, there is no difference between the two types; it's just a matter of the sort of transmission used to deliver the power from the output shaft to the final point of thrust. The argument that the longitudinal versus transverse arrangement is fundamentally flawed; if that's a reason to split the two, then the transverse-mounted V-6 engine in my Buick would require a different article from the longitudinally-mounted V-6 in either the Ferrari Dino or the Honda NSX. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork. As to the close arguments above, your discussion can continue on the talk page, but this AfD gives a broader consensus on if the subject needs to be in a separate article. Forking the article was itself an escalation of the dispute. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close AfD is not the appropriate forum for this. Having failed in an attempt to have the article Reversion Deleted, the proposer is carrying on a WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute. The topic is clearly not a content fork and anyone with any industry and engineering knowledge would have to concede these two configurations of twin cylinders engines, parallel and inline, are so significantly different, widely used and raise such significantly different problems that they would benefit from separate or different topics. The comparison to automobiles does not apply most of the application in which these engines are used and relate to body/chassis effects and design . --Bridge Boy (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wish to note that when I called it a "WP:BATTLEGROUND content dispute," I was in fact referring to behavior on both sides of the dispute. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the appropriate forum for a WP:POINTy WP:POVFORK, and this needs to be speedy deleted as such forwith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per various arguments, above. The article is redundant, and this IS the correct venue for the deletion discussion. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - An article for an internal combustion engine with two cylinders in line along a common crankshaft already exists. The characteristics of such an engine do not change significantly with the orientation of the engine in the frame of a vehicle, and the changes in characteristics caused by orientation are better suited to a general article on different cylinder orientations than a specific article on a specifically configured two cylinder engine. Whether the engine is mounted along the frame, across the frame, or even upside-down with the crankshaft at the top and the cylinder heads at the bottom, it still has the same general configuration and characteristics. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Straight-two engine, or whatever that article is renamed as, for the same reasons listed in my original "Delete" vote. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge any well sources information back to the main article at Straight-two engine. Design and use variations are best dealt with in separate sections of a single article so readers can see the differences without a need to jump between several smaller articles. Creating a WP:POVFORK article against consensus during a discussion was/is disruptive. DocTree (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Walker on the difference between inline and parallel

Dennis. in previous discussion you stated that "Mick Walker was cited to support use of "parallel twin", but this is grossly misleading. In the very same book, he uses "inline twin" interchangeably. Walker does the same in European Racing Motorcycles. It's strong evidence that there is no real distinction in the minds of the foremost experts today."

I pointed out politely how this was a clearly an error or misreading, probably on your lack of knowledge of the Rotax 256 and other inline engines at that time, and as across numerous books Walker clearly uses the convention of calling the inline twins "inline" and the parallel twins "parallel".

You've consistently refused to acknowledge this, or remove your assertion, and continue to use highly loaded and prejudicial language in the introduction above.

If we are going to make progress across these articles, it will really have to be based on fair and honest communication, and it would go a long way to prove good faith to me if you can admit that were wrong here and Walker, one of the "foremost experts of today" as you call him, was clearly differentiating between the two.

I also underline that in Talk:Straight-two_engine#What the trade, manufacturers, experts etc call them, all of the manufacturers used the term parallel and we have not resolve that topic yet, so we cannot know how this one will lie.

Examples:

and, most notably, in

Japanese Production Racing Motorcycles

Where he differentiates between the two differently configured KR Kawasaki models, again, by the terms inline (early) and parallel (later).

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:COMMONSENSE. Two cylinders in a line = inline-twin engine. Saying "it's transverse therefore it's 'parallel' not 'inline'" is WP:JARGON at best and ignores completely the fact that regardless of terminology the engines are mechanically identical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And where are your, and everyone else's, references to support that? The industries involved disagree with you.

Why would an acknowledged expert differentiate between the two configurations? Neither you, nor anyone else, has addressed that. I am sorry but I did actually spent hours looking over this and the only other commonly used term to come anywhere near the industry use and predominance of parallel or inline twin is a simple "two cylinder".

FYI, I think I found one solution for this and mentioned it on the Talk:Straight-two_engine. --Bridge Boy (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Tuttle of Rider magazine is an acknowledged expert. Why would he treat inline and parallel as equivalent? Spoiler Alert: that's what jargon is. Words that mean different things in different contexts, or to different people. Explaining those differences is an encyclopedic subject for one article. Because it is one thing, whether you turn it sideways, frontways, upside down, or don't even install it in a vehicle at all. What really changes is the transmission and the rest of the drivetrain. Same engine no matter what you call it or how you attach it. Everyone sees that. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to solve the fork: Why not simply have a section on Straight-two engine called "Variants," in which the differences between inline-twins and parallel twins can be discussed? Of course, I'd say that more than a paragraph would be undue weight, but while when you come down to it they both are straight-two engines, that doesn't mean the differences don't mean anything at all. They're just minor enough to not require two articles. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. There already is solid consensus for just this approach. Beyond that, it would not be undue weight to spend an almost unlimited amount of space discussing the pros and cons of the different packaging issues of each engine configuration and orientation in Motorcycle engine. And the contradictory jargon used by different experts. Its what that article is all about. It isn't as if the only choice is between a transverse and longitudinal crankshaft parallel twin. They could instead use a single, an I-4, a flat twin, the list goes on. The History of motorcycles essentially consists of 120 years of one guy after another trying yet another way of installing the engine, and they each had their reasons. Many of them attracted a loyal fanbase... which helps explain why there is an undercurrent of passion for this obscure technical terminology. It's a fascinating, encyclopedic story, and it belongs mostly in Motorcycle engine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an excellent and common sense suggestion. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. This sounds like a good solution. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. That'd be perfect. Ebikeguy (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

a) because the scope goes beyond motorcycles, especially with inline twin engines, and

b) unfortunately, no one has even yet to establish, with good references, an argument to support Straight-two engine. :: Is deleting Straight-two on the cards and moving back to two cylinder?

As we see, from its history, Straight-two was started by a non-native English speaker, without any references and the Wikipedia and internet have been burden with that decision ever since. There is no "solid consensus" either, despite how often Dennis tries to impress it, just a personal assertion which is not back by an equal weight of reference to the ones given and an unwillingness to discuss the references which have been given.

I've yet to see explained why there is the great need to condense these topics when comparing them to comparable topics in other fields (including horse and pony paddocks.

BTW, Dennis, journalist Mark Tuttle goes on to describe the F800R exactly as I would, i.e. "liquid-cooled, transverse parallel twin" with no mention of inline and the Triumph as an in-line triple, not a "straight three" in his next article, so the balance swings back again. [17].

Inline-twin engine sticks for inline twins, just allow me to develop it with others who care, (of course the premature delete tag is going to put people off doing so), and I am happy to move Parallel-twin engine to Parallel-twin (motorcycle engine) as it is so inarguably predominant in the industry and throughout its history. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've mentioned horse and pony at least three times, and not one editor said, "gee, good point." Repeating that point, and not to mention other points you keep repeating, is WP:DISRUPTIVE, to wit: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has rejected it, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input."

For the third time, I repeat for you and you alone the Mark Tuttle citation: Tuttle, Mark, Jr. "BMW F800S." Rider Dec. 2005: 15. General OneFile. Web. 29 June 2012. "BMW will tackle the middleweight market in the late spring/early summer of 2006 with a new F800S sport tourer, powered by the first inline twin-cylinder engine in BMW's history. The 800cc parallel-twin is produced in cooperation with Bombardier-Rotax…" The bike is both an inline twin and parallel twin, because the terms are interchangeable. I said this three times, in three different venues, and once again you claim there is "no mention" of inline twin. Why? See WP:COMPETENCE.

The editor-in-cheif of the DK Visual History of Motorcycles is none other than Mick Duckworth, based in Nottingham, author of Honda CB750, TT 2007, TT100, Triumph and BSA triples : the complete story, Classic racing motorcycles, Triumph & BSA triples : the complete story, Norton Commando, Classic racing motorcycles, Original Kawasaki Z1, Z900 & KZ900, and Triumph Bonneville : portrait of a legend. English is Mick Duckworth's native language. Contributors to Motorcycle: The Definitive Visual History are Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Hugo Wilson and James Robinson. Native English speakers all. Editor-In-Chief of Car: The Definitive Visual History, which uses straight-two 18 times is one Giles Chapman, contributors are Charles Armstron-Wilson, Richard Heseltine, Phil Hunt, Malcolm McKay, Andrew Noakes, and Jon Presnell. How much more English can you get?

Please stop your disruptive editing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partner vetting system

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

This article has no references and seems to talk about a particular government policy that hardly seems notable enough to warrant its own article. At best its content should be merged into non-governmental organization (Unless of course someone can show some reliable sources that mention "PVS."

I did some searching, and the only reliable mentions I found of Partner vetting system were brief ones on government websites, but there were no results for the term in mainstream media, and very few in a search of an academic database. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 02:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Without reliable independent citations, it is purely original research.--JayJasper (talk) 18:59, 27 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no no WP:RS given, this suggests the article is based on WP:OR unfortunately. --Artene50 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 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). Till 11:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pawprints of Katrina

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

Borderline notable at best; 215 copies only in Worldcat, which is very little for a book on a subject which would seem so appealing. Minor reviews. Much of the article is about the various animal rescues, not the book. Typical example of the current standard of promotional writing on Wikipedia DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search turned up two additional reviews from The Times-Picayune and Tampa Bay Times, both reliable sources. They are in the article now. The article has been edited and the stories about animals deleted except for 2 that were covered by the media. The book was included at the Nat'l Book Festival in D.C. which should count toward notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorAuthor (talk • contribs) 23:28, 29 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indication of widespread media coverage, meets book notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:10, 4 July 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. No evidence of sources which would establish notability via WP:GNG, no claims of notability under WP:NACTOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trishna Vivek

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

Indian TV actress. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Attributes to IMDB alone since 2009, which also seems to be of some other person with same name. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom: the subject fails WP:NACTOR, and I found one good example of in-depth coverage that would count toward but not satisfy WP:GNG: her wedding announcement. Perhaps WP:GNG could be met if non-English language sources were put forth, but my Hindi is nil. I'll watch in case any are found. JFHJr (㊟) 12:17, 27 June 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found only one source about her wedding. Fails Notability. Also WP:TOOSOON applies. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Madras Christian College#Cultural Festival. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Woods

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

Notability issues. As a student of the college in question, I do no believe the fest is notable enough to merit its own article in Wikipedia. La Alquim ista 14:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your first-hand knowledge of the festival should matter in the discussion, per the no-original research policy 70.21.117.227 (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Although I don't agree with the nominator's rationale for deleting the article (relies on too much original research), I feel that the article fails WP:GNG. From a quick GNews search, I see three articles published by The Hindu - 1 does not cover the festival in detail and has more to with a popular band performing. 2 seems to cover the festival in detail, but again it was published in the "Metro Plus" opinion column. 3 only mentions the festival briefly. Propose to redirect or merge with Madras Christian College. — westeros91 (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Madras Christian College#Cultural Festival. As Westeros91 shows, it does not pass GNG. Anyway, a good merge/redirect destination exists. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:42, 9 July 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 Wily D 14:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby League Live 2

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

The article is unsourced, and I couldn't find any sources about this game online that would indicate it passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Until the game is released and covered in secondary sources, it is probably too soon for Wikipedia to have an article on it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rugby League Live where it is mentioned as a sequal. No independent notability yet. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge fully back into the prior game's article. It seems silly to delete this only to have to recreate it after a month or two. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this will probably be notable when it is released. However, that might be longer than a couple of months away - from what I read, it was slated for release at some unspecified time in 2012, and there is always the possibility it may be delayed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but we're already more than halfway into 2012 and so there's only so much further it can be released. I do agree that if it's cancelled or more substantially delayed (say, to 2013) then action should be taken. Remember, it doesn't take an AFD to merge something, it could simply be merged into the other article until reviews and such start surfacing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as not yet notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to a large NZ online retailer, Mighty Ape, the estimated release date is 31 August and they are already taking pre-orders. Mattlore (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Australia, EB Games are also taking pre-orders for a 2012 release. 60.240.243.216 (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First stores often use placeholder dates so the EB Games listing does not prove that the game will be released this year. Second, even if that is the case we still do not have significant coverage of this game to warrant a separate article yet so it should be merged at this point. As the games release date gets closer there will likely be previews and analysis from reliable sources and the article can be recreated at that point.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added six sources to the article, and there are many games that haven't been released or just announced, that have their own Wikipedia pages. The Game Muster (Talk) 4:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - The sources added aren't of the best quality. One is from Facebook, and at least 2 are merely game announcement sources. Not sure how reliable "Zo Knows Gaming" and some of these sources are... Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following The Game Muster's revamp of the article. Mattlore (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus below indicates that the topic meets notability guidelines. (Non-admin closure). Till 10:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BUFF (Malmö Film Festival)

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

Of no importance. Andrei S (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Does not seem to fully satisfy: WP:INDEPTH as it seems to be more like routine reporting in most press articles and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE as the news coverage seems to come and go although the festival has been going on for 23 years according to some of the resources below. Andrei S (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gets annual press coverage[18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Mentioned in many guidebooks e.g.[25] and lots of official government sources[26], filmmaking reference works (Adam Langer, "The film festival guide"), etc. "Of no importance" is not a reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if Colapeninsula hasn't already found more than enough evidence, the Swedish national daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter covered Buff on 15 March 2011 (brief mention) and 18 March 2008 (Pia Huss). The other major paper, Svenska Dagbladet, has 18 March 2011 (Malena Janson) and other mentions (noticeably, the mentions assume readers already know all about Buff). It's a notable film festival. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above presentation of references. __meco (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG:

(in Swedish) Både galakänsla och övergivna barn - Nöje - Skånskan.se
(in Swedish) BUFF slår upp portarna - Lokaltidningen
(in Swedish) Dags för Buff igen - Lokaltidningen
(in Swedish) BUFF inleder med Kenny - Lokaltidningen
(in Swedish) Åtta filmer tävlar om Svenska kyrkans ungdomsfilmpris - Svenska kyrkan - Om oss
(in Swedish) Blå Malmöfilm på Buff - Nöje - Kristianstadsbladet - Nyheter dygnet runt
(in Swedish) Buff-pris till kortfilmsduo - DN.SE

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep per meeting WP:GNG. And I am unimpressed with the deletion rationale "Of no importance", as it feels too much of personal opinion, and is not one of the policy or guideline arguments preferred by WP:DEL#REASON. While it may indeed by "of no importance" to the nominator, notable to Sweden, as shown, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:11, 6 July 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. There was a consensus that the sources did not reach the level required to establish notability via WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Bin Said Al Taibi

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

On a Guantanamo prisoner with no coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports) There is already a list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay giving the same info. DBig Xray 22:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:25, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primary sources, no general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is lack of WP:RS and fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. →TSU ^tp* 15:10, 8 July 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. There was a consensus that the sources did not reach the level required to establish notability via WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Hamid al Qahtani

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

On a Guantanamo prisoner with no coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists, giving the same info. DBig Xray 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:37, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Primary sources, routine case details, does not satisfy WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is lack of WP:RS and fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. →TSU ^tp* 15:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jon Arbuckle. This would probably be a no consensus closure as there is a resonable argument about whether he meets WP:NACTOR or not. However as a BLP where no reliable sources have been produced for verifiability, it cannot be kept, so a redirect to the article on his major role where he is mentioned is the correct closure. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Huge

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet notability requirements, either WP:GNG nor as per WP:ACTOR. As a WP:BLP it's completely unsourced. (Note:the article was previously a redirect after the 2008 AFD) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No reliable sources, so clearly fails BLP requirements. If sources are provided, he may be sufficiently notable. JoelWhy? talk 18:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Voicing one of the two main characters for a 121-episode series would push him over to be notable per WP:ACTOR. There are plenty of references to back up that he atleast did the Garfield TV and film shows. Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see why a redirect is in order. If he was a musician that was notable for being in one band, this would be a redirect. Huge has done acting for only one character. Another redirect could be good middle ground in this case. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, I agree with Bgwhite, this article should be kept because the topic IS notable. How? Because his roles were every single Garfield cartoon except Here Comes Garfield and The Garfield Show. Interlude 65 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until/unless sources are added to the article, per BLP. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bgwhite, Thom Huge has NOT voiced only one character; see the article for proof, here. Interlude 65 00:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:25, 27 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 10:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On the cusp of notability though it's incredibly tenuous and is more based on the recurrence of his role rather than his actual acting career which is minimal at best. Yeah, he's had work within other Garfield productions but that's playing minor roles which isn't exactly unusual within voice acting to do both voice work for a primary role and a few minor one-shots in addition. Sadly playing a character through several productions doesn't mean the actor is notable if that's all they did and the character they played remains relatively obscure. tutterMouse (talk) 20:51, 8 July 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 -- Selket ^Talk 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bare Infinity

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined prod; does not seem to pass WP:BAND — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 11:48, 4 July 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. Serious problems meeting WP:V, possible hoax j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avlor Landić de Hazelrof

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

Article appears to be a hoax -- no books by him are found in WorldCat, Hollis (Harvard University Catalog) etc.; up for a WP:SNOW deletion as Hoax at fr:. "Unfinished Revolution in China" is not by the subject. I cannot find any sources to support the claims here. No hits in GS either. I declined a speedy-del as hoax, but think it should be deleted here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(comment): as far as other articles by the same writer, the existence of Xavier de La Chevalerie can be confirmed [27], but there seems to be hoax information there too ("Poètes et chansons Recueil de vers d'Auguste Daufresne de la Chevalerie (1818–1881), publié en 1877." -- for a person living 1920-2004 seems an odd cite). Worldcat lists three translations of Wealth of Nations into Chinese; none by Hazelrof or Jun mǎ (the French article says it's in the "archives de l’université de Yangzhou, Jiangsu"). I can't find anything on a priest Bernard Renaud Von Jacquemol or his supposed essay "l'épuisement du poète". It's not absolutely impossible that this could be a well-researched, badly-cited article, but it's more likely a hoax in my opinion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, apparent hoax, a google search of .hr sites brings up no hits on a Croatian person - which is most unlikely, and even if it's not a hoax, it still fails both WP:V and WP:GNG. Pity I didn't catch it earlier when I had noticed it was unreferenced. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy was denied earlier so it couldn't be done again. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I indicated support for the speedy here, as more of an appeal to WP:DUCK and WP:SNOW :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, this seems entirely made-up with fake sources; it was created first on French Wikipedia (18 June 2011). On the other hand, Xavier de la Chevalerie (French Wiki again) certainly existed, as did his ancestor Auguste (the book of poems is not used in that article to prove anything about Xavier). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a queer hoax and per Joy above. With the "Works. In Other Languages" compare the bibliography at Israel Epstein. For "The American strategy, Jean Vinatier, Seriatim V 34, Gaul Press", see this blog. If "Jon Claudius Jubin" ever existed, he's managed to avoid any easily traced online footprint. Et cetera. A Google Books search does not return anyone at all with either the first name Avlor or the second name Hazelrof; even if these were nonstandard transliterations or something, the same nonstandard forms would have occurred at least one other time in the past two centuries. ^davidiad _.: 20:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also Edith de La Chevalerie (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No online reliabie sources to establish subject's WP:V --Artene50 (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources can be found, either off-line or on-line, which could verify this person's existence, let alone notability. I don't think it was a deliberate hoax, more like some fanciful original research. Note that I have completely re-written the Xavier de La Chevalerie article (created by the same editor) to contain only information which can be verified by published reliable sources. The previous version of the article had no inline citations, very dubious and vague sources listed, contained much original research and quite possibly many inaccuracies and "embellishments" (to say the least!). Voceditenore (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The corresponding article in French Wikipedia is also being discussed for deletion. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:17, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KevJumba videography

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

This lengthy trivial article serves no purpose in the bio of KevJumba. This is not a notable article split, and see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigahiga videography. 117Avenue (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 4. Snotbot t • c » 05:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally inappropriate--and I would in this case not merge it back, as I agree it's trivial. The detailed article on the individual would appear to me overextended in any case. Personally, even were these formally published material, I would regard separate discographies as appropriate only for major figures. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely trivial. I'm not going to say that the main article's subject isn't notable, but he certainly isn't notable enough to have a separate videography article, especially when said article is nothing but a list. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging this with the article KevJumba, which already exists as a separate article in Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I agree with DGG that it is excessive and trivial detail which should not be merged to the main article. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not warrant a stand-alone article, and there is nothing merge-able - none of these videos have a stand-alone article (or would warrant one) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:39, 6 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Stubbings

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

Stubbings fails Wikipedia:Notability and the article appears to be written by him or someone with a close link to him. Mattlore (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAgreed. This looks like a significant COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weird article that devotes very little space to the thing he might be notable for, i.e. TV work, and focuses in great detail on his schooling, further education, his wife, his hobbies, etc. There's not much encyclopedic content here, and he doesn't appear to be notable based on achievements/coverage. A brief mention on The Crowd Goes Wild would be enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated the article per PROD BLP, but sources were added (some are not that releable). Probable a COI. —Hue Sat Lum 14:41, 4 July 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 deleted WP:CSD#A1 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priestblock 25487: A Memoir of Dachau : Fr. Jean Bernard

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

Article was put up for speedy before and deleted. Same article is now back with the same information. Time to put it to the community. Keystoner idin (speak) 04:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete by criterion G4. --BDD (talk) 05:22, 4 July 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. Consensus is that this is not an appropriate list. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of BMG Music Club's top-selling albums in the United States

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of BMG Music Club's top-selling albums in the United States

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

I'm not sure a best-selling list of a single mail order retailer is necessarily notable or suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially when the only source for the list comes from a press release by the retailer itself and not otherwise verifiable. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Verbatim press release for a retail concept which has thankfully gone the way of the dinosaur, and for sure many of those aren't sales, but albums "sold" as part of their "12 for a penny" promotions to get people in, so the criteria of the list is highly suspect. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The club doesn't appear to be notable (it redirects to Bertelsmann Music Group but isn't mentioned there). So why would its list be notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The club was very notable. http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/12-for-one-cd-deals-no-more-bmg-music-service-ends-in-june-20090310

It serviced millions of people for over a decade, and, these sales are not included in SoundScan numbers,its a great way to found out how many records were sold, keep in mind the 12 for a penny catch was that you had to buy albums at regular club price after joining. That was just a way to get people to join. Dam!ta (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't why which albums sold the most through this club warrants a list on Wikipedia. It's pretty much regurgitating a press release. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:14, 8 July 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 per WP:NEO ---- Selket ^Talk 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First world problem

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

Failed prod back in January. Poor article on a Reddit meme, basically, sourced to Reddit. A couple of sources have the words used together in a normal discussion as those words would normally be used so now an editor misconstrues those as academic support for the meaning of these words as an academic discussion of a term and thus supposedly justifying a Wikipedia entry... the real world problem here is that that's not significant coverage by any reliable source, that's about as trivial coverage as you can get, as it's not even discussing wat the article was intended to cover (the Reddit joke). DreamGuy (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you joking, that it's just a Reddit thing? Did you do any WP:BEFORE whatsoever? Yes, it's most frequently used by the privileged to lob softballs at themselves and their peers, and that can be grating--so what? Yes, the first cite is to Reddit, the next seven are not. So, I'll start adding more. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? We need real cites proving it is an actual notable thing, not random associations of the words failing next to each other. DreamGuy (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until such time as the term really is "used by scholars and economists" as the article claims but doesn't substantiate. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-known meme that satisfies WP:WEB. Here's some coverage outside Reddit and Tumblr[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's such a pity that the article at hand is the results of Google searches stitched together without any attention to meaning and is a self-contradicting mish-mash of random article title and phrase matches, supported by a random list of book and song titles, and nothing like what would come out of some of the things that you point to. Moser 2012 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMoser2012 (help) in your list is pretty much another random title/phrase match, by the way. It's a first-person opinion piece about an airplane trip. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, so someone needs to edit and expand the article, potentially using the linked articles above as sources. Rome wasn't built in a day, and most articles aren't WP:GA immediately (or even after years of editing). Tthaas (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DreamGuy. While some sources have used the phrase, that doesn't mean that they're used widely in the academic community to discuss a situation. Also, I would argue WP:RECENTISM as I doubt that the article as written refers to anything with a lasting impact. Regardless of the foregoing, if the article is kept, it would need extensive cleanup. Velinath (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. Tthaas (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I nominated this article for prod the first time around. It's true that it's not as blatantly offensive and inappropriate as it was at that time. But really it's still problematic under WP:NEO; of the five sentences, at least four have major sourcing problems:

Reddit's not an appropriate source for the first sentence, and the starbucks article (ref #3) is original research/a primary source because it doesn't actually talk about what the phrase 'first world problems' means, it just uses it. The new york times really says nothing to support the "but which are banal when compared to the difficulties encountered by those in the less developed Third World" part of the sentence, but overall that's at least a decent source.
Reference number 4 is also a primary source/original research problem; it just uses the term, it's not actually about the term. I think that the final sentence also suffers from this problem, though I've not listened to the NPR broadcast.
References 5 through 8 similarly are primary uses of this phrase. an appropriate article would be something like, "this article discusses how social scientists use the term 'first world problems' academically." *not* "here's a use of 'first world problems' that I found on JSTOR" or whatever. there are also substantive issues with at least 1 of these references, but that seems a bit far into the weeds.
The "exact provenance" sentence has no source. It seems like this would be a crucial part of a legitimate article about a phrase!

I originally nominated this article for deletion over six months ago. Hardly any new sources have been added and the article hasn't been expanded at all. Given the major sourcing issues, I think it should be deleted, personally. But I don't participate in AfD discussions hardly at all, so this is just my 2 cents. AgnosticAphid talk 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The important point from WP:NEO (emphasis added) is "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." AgnosticAphid talk 21:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and Agnosticaphid's analysis. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:56, 11 July 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. Opinions are roughly split as concerns notability, and in particular, whether the sourcing is substantial enough. This is a matter of editorial judgment, and without consensus about this issue, the article is kept by default for now. Sandstein 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Fire Department

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

Short, unsourced dead end with no claim to notability. Nouniquenames (talk) 03:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously every city has a fire department. The article for Richmond, California has a link to the official city website which takes you to the fire department site. All the info in the article is already there. No secondary sources provided to show the notability, although of course every fire department is mentioned in the news almost every day but that's not coverage in depth. Borock (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is more than trivial coverage for sure, the Richmond Police Department clearly gets a ton of coverage and their shared labor unions have been blasted in the press for their manipulation of local politics and corruption. Furthermore copious coverage even if less than in depth based on sheer volume is considered in its totality especially when you can add numerous facts together. Most American fire departments are their own government agency with a unique history, different than say a military unit and are thus automatically notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing is "automatically notable" without the sources to back this up. Right now, the only sources provided are to official sites, and thus don't count as secondary sources. I did a search myself, and was unable to find anything that helped establish notability. Though, to be fair, it seems that a search is made difficult by the fact that the most common results are referring to the much larger Richmond, Virginia fire department. I'd be willing to change my vote if someone else can find any reliable secondary sources, but I don't know how likely that is. If nothing else, perhaps this can at least be kept as a redirect to Richmond,_California#Government. Rorshacma (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a reasonable stub article with plenty of opportunity for material to be added to the existing article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, until this plenty of material actually is found and added, this article is not passing the GNG. Seriously, giving a Keep vote without actually addressing the fact that there are currently no in depth secondary sources doesn't actually do anything to solve the notability issues that caused this article to be nominated for deletion in the first place. Rorshacma (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Police Departments, High Schools, Fire Departments, Transit Systems, Settlements, and other specific categories are generally automatically notable since the sources are easily found and they are society topics that people would reasonable like to know about. If we delete now, the sources will never show up. Richmond VA is causing trouble but we should wait this one out as the department exists and it is for a major port city of over 100K people and well written at the moment.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge without a redirect (because there are so many other cities named Richmond). Google News Archive finds plentiful links for "Richmond Fire Department" but they relate to larger cities named Richmond in other states and provinces. Limiting the search to California finds passing mentions but no coverage in depth. It should be noted that LuciferWildCat's opinions about things being "automatically notable" are often at odds with Wikipedia consensus. I have never seen any consensus that police departments, fire departments, or transit systems are automatically notable; they have to demonstrate their notability by showing Significant Coverage by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant depth of coverage in any of the sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richmond, California, which is notable, and the fire department is a significant aspect of the city. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect ~~Merge to Richmond, California~~ - there is not enough sourced material here to justify a stand-alone article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, you know if Fire Departments were say retail companies they would be considered notable as per the amount of branch locations and workforce and service area. Furthermore I am already finding sources and in a city like Richmond with the General Chemical Company poison gas cloud and the Chevron Richmond Refinery they have had a role in answering a lot of very serious events, and those were also major news item type calls and we just have to dig a little before we indiscriminately and spuriously hit the chopping block. Is there a procedural mechanism to extend the AfD a while longer or suspend it while improvements are made? I am disappointed in you Melanie, it seems like you have simply given into the deletionists side just to avoid the debate itself but hopefully I will inspire you to overturn with some cleanup and you too North America.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one source that has been added since this nomination happened does not help matters at all. It is an article about a Cinco De Mayo parade in which the fire department is mentioned amongst many other organizations that participate. That is the very definition of a trivial mention and does nothing to establish notability. Furthermore, calling out specific users and accusing them of giving in to "deletionists" is in excedingly bad taste, and makes it sound like you think that this is some sort of conspiracy specifically to get rid of this article, rather than multiple people just agreeing that this topic is just not notable. Rorshacma (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following MelanieN's work on including relevant information into the city's article, I have changed my !vote to delete - there are other Richmonds, so this is not the primary subject for this title, so there is no reason to keep it as a redirect - indeed, if there was any primary subject under this name, it would probably be the much larger Richmond, Virginia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is just one, I have found several others, the one's from the 1990s are harder to get by, does anyone know of a way to get someone with access to lexus nexus to help me out a bit? There are numerous other sources I just need to work them in still and copious routine coverage is very indicative of notability especially for the fire department of a major city. MelanieB and NA and I have a long history of having collocated edits and working on Bay Area related articles, no conspiracy is alleged at all, we have just all dealt with an incredibly high level of drama with certain other users is all and I am mentioning that a bit of fatigue might have set in, make sense?LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also it seems having an article for every school district, police department, fire department is the norm per Category:Fire departments in California, this article simply suffered from being much more of a stub than say Oakland Fire Department or Santa Rosa Fire Department. Nevertheless these are often also their own legal entities such as a Fire Protection District and are quite obviously and inherently of note, interest, and of educational and historical and henceforth encyclopedic value.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New sources do not convince me that this department is notable enough for a stand-alone article, so my Redirect above stands. If this was a company, I would not consider it notable enough, if it was another organisation then I would not consider it so, either. Having an article for every fire department, etc, is not the norm. Fire departments are not inherantly notable, they need to clearly meet the criteria for notability (especially those for organisations) and this one does not. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This department clearly meets the GNG, there are multiple non trivial sources that cover the department and its operations in depth, as is common for any fire departments in the United States in city's with fire departments and newspapers. Are you saying the sources don't cover it in depth and that there are not at least two of them, in addition to other sources providing additional content?LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources, at a glance, cover events in a way that mentions the fire company in passing (See WP:CORPDEPTH). You would have a better argument using them to make individual articles for the events they describe (although WP:EVENT would likely prove a barrier)--Nouniquenames (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No not in passing, read all of them, some are entirely about the fire department. And it is not a company, fire departments don't make any profits and are not private operations, they are public entities. The events are what makes a department exist and what it does and answers too. Your argument is like claiming that the articles should be on chocolate bars or cocoa powder not the Hershey's or Ghiradelli company because the company is not notable just its service, or a gym is not notable, only its obese customers are.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Ohio's Revised Codes (as they are close at hand) and take note of the fact that a fire department can in fact be a private organization. (Source: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/gp9.60 Point A5). A Pennsylvania fire department's constitution and bylaws identifies a township as responsible in case of dissolution, but the department otherwise exists as an independent (non government) organization (see http://www.sipesvillefire.com/constitution.html). This supports WP:CORPDEPTH as applicable. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat my comments at my talk page: "Sorry, I'm not convinced that these new references are "significant coverage" about the department - it's just normal news coverage of fires. And it appeared in trivial local publications: The Berkeley Daily Planet (a free weekly paper) and the Richmond Confidential (an online publication produced by journalism students at Cal). BTW you have a contradiction in the article - you list two different names for the fire chief." And I will add: please give me credit for judging these things on their merits, rather than giving in to "fatigue" or a "the deletionist side to avoid a debate". You should know me better. You and I have often been at odds over your conviction that every single teeny-weeny aspect of Richmond, California deserves a Wikipedia article, so it should not surprise you that I disagree with you in this case. It's true that both NorthAmerica and I like to rescue articles when possible, but that does not mean we have to !vote "keep" in every discussion; we do realize that not all articles are deserving of retention or capable of being rescued. Anyhow you, my friend, have been the cause of "drama" at least as often as the other person you are referring to; in fact you are escalating the drama level here as we speak. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Like I said: escalating the drama. I couldn't even post the above note, because of an edit conflict with your constant repetition of the same points. Please calm down, you are hurting your cause rather than helping it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even the one's that only cover the fire department itself? The coverage about any topic is just the normal news coverage about it and what it does, a bank just its money and loans, a furniture chain and its defects and couches, a car company and its recalls layoffs and products. That reaks of IDONTLIKEIT and surely if the individual councilmembers are generally found to be notable and the Richmond Police Department and Richmond City Council and the city's damn Refinery are found to be notable the Fire Department is too, there just seems to be a warranted continuity there. Those are the merits I'm talking about, I feel your ratationale here was rather defeatest and that the article could not possibly be improved or ever warrant an article, and I did not repeat myself, I found new arguments and information to support my claims, there seems to be an article for every city's fire department here, many with a majority of just a list such as San Francisco Fire Department and no one is suggesting we delete all of those too. This is an important society topic that you read about in the paper, the ease with which I found sources should point out that this is of note, mind you I have yet to do a check on the Oakland Tribune, San Francisco Chronicle, or Contra Costa Times. I bet if we actually worked to find more sources this could even be a good article. Honey I am calmed down this is just wikipedia but I am confused that every other city has this article but Richmond is being omitted penchantly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Luciferwildcat, you could always have an entire Wiki just about Richmond, California - either get your own ___domain and install MediaWiki on it, or go to Wikia and create one there. Then you could decide on what you have on it - you could have an entry for every street, house or rock in Richmond if you so desire. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia entries will only be considered for things which meet the notability criteria, which includes significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the subject which can be properly cited to verify the information. In this case, that standard is not met. A mention of the fire department could be made in the Richmond, California article (although a sentence or two would probably suffice), but more than that just is not justified from what I can see. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are so much fun, knowing how to write articles about rocks and such, wow I wish someday I could be as sardonic as you, don't know if I can achieve that baby. The GNG is met, newspapers are reliable sources and I have numerous articles about this department cited in the article, give it a read.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid keep rationale, but let's take a look at it anyhow. As you well know, not all the Richmond city council members have articles (even though you fought tooth and nail to keep every one of them). The Richmond Police Department looks pretty marginal, but at least it does have somewhat better sources than the fire department. As for "every other city" having an article about its fire department, let's take a look. Richmond ranks 61st among California cites in population. There are no fire department articles for the 58th largest (Norwalk) or 59th (Carlsbad) or 60th (Fairfield). It appears that California cities of this size do NOT generally have articles about their fire department. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here's another misunderstanding on your part: newspapers are reliable sources. Not necessarily. The criterion at WP:RS is "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Major metropolitan newspapers generally meet that standard (with the obvious exception of tabloids). But many "newspapers" do not meet the standard of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Those that do not include most hyperlocal papers, most free weekly or monthly publications, and most online publications (with some notable exceptions). The citations that you have found all fall in those latter groups. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is very valid and I will express my opinion and point out what is generally notable and included per consensus here thank you very much. Nearly all of them have and If I wrote more of them with the right sources they would pass again. infrastructure is important and there is clearly a lot of coverage here. You just find it personally boring and don't think the Daily Planet or Richmond Confidential are good enough. This topic is clearly notable it was just in bad shape when this article was nominated by honestly someone that is too lazy to seek out sources or try and improve things.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you mistake my AfD nomination for laziness. The article was poorly titled (as Richmond, to many readers, will not immediately resolve to this particular ___location) and, more importantly, completely unsourced. Since it was unsourced, it completely failed the general notability guidelines. The added sources do not particularly help the argument, as they discuss events, not the fire company. Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should make BEFORE attempts, that is what I meant by lazy, it was not hard to find sources and it is a lot easier to try and make some/any improvements, I feel you might just be sore that I have sourced the article and would still vote delete if it was on the cover of the ny times for a week straight. Really? The Richmond Fire Department is poorly titled, hmm well maybe you should petition the city to change its name or change it from fire department to blaze abatement unit of the city of Richmond lol. The article is not unsourced, not completely nor partially not ever. Notability is not failed for lack of sources, stop ignoring all the policies (ahem NRVE). The events are the events of the fire department and what the fire department does at these events. Not the events on their own without explaining the fire department's role.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but none of those so-called references will cut it at all. Not only are they pretty much entirely local coverage, but most of it is just standard reports on normal day to day activity of the department, which is not notable in any way. How exactly is the fire department responding to regular fires notable at all? How is the fire department warning people about fire season notable? This is ordinary activity that does not establish why this particular fire department has any sort of indepenent notability. In addition, citing the exact same reference 12 times in the first two paragraphs doesn't actually increase the number of reliable sources, so there's really no point in doing that. On another note, I'm rather surprised that the reviewing admin relisted this AFD for another week. Aside from one very vocal editor, and one that voted keep without citing any actual valid Wikipedia policy, the consensus here was pretty clearly to either delte or merge. Ah, well. Rorshacma (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are not "so-called" newspapers are reliable sources, get it right. All of them are notable. It was overhauled and should be reviewed on its current state not the old one.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, every newspaper is not always a reliable source. Please refer to Reliable_sources#News_organizations, where it specifically states that "News reporting from less well established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.". As I mentioned, the sources you added at that time came from "The Richmond Confidential". An entirely local paper that services a single city. And per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". And that wasn't even my main point. My point is that these sources, regardless of how reliable they are, DON'T ESTABLISH NOTABILITY. They are reports on standard activity that is not notable or unusual or anything else that is encyclopedic. Are you seriously going to try to convince people that "The fire department told people in high risk areas to be careful of fires in 2010!" shows any sort of notability? That participating in a local parade has any sort of notability? Its not enough to prove that the fire department simply exists and that they do regular fire department activity. No one is in any doubt of that. The argument is that reports on routine activity is not enough to show why they are notable enough to exist as a separate article, and not just have its important information merged into the City's main article. Rorshacma (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the city. There is certainly no "automatic notability" for every fire department in the world. Being a "legal entity" does not confer notability, since each member of my family has a "legal entity" or two for business purposes. The references presented are routine and local, or passing mentions, and the relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG is not satisfied. Edison (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the ones in America yes they are all notable. They all have centuries or at least decades long newspaper history to them and are of a lasting historical usefulness and significance. Yes it does, every legal district, city, town, municipality, province township obslast, water district, school district, sanitary district, transit district, etc it notable. All news coverage is routine. Most news coverage is local and this is a local fire department so duh. They are not passing mentions there is comprehensive coverage of the departments planning, operations, and actions. Doesn't have to meet ORG, GNG is just fine.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of us here are saying "delete" and others "merge"; that could make it hard for the closing administrator to determine consensus, although there does appear to be a general feeling that this subject does not deserve a stand-alone article. I just added a sentence about the fire department to Richmond, California#Municipal services. With that done, are people OK with "delete" as the result of this discussion? My concern is that I don't want to leave a redirect from Richmond Fire Department since there are other, possibly more notable agencies named Richmond Fire Department. --MelanieN (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a delete or a merge without redirect. --Nouniquenames (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well in the meantime I will move it to Richmond Fire Department (California)LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Come on guys, let's be honest here. Just like public educational institutions and other major functions of local governments, a fire department clearly meets the requirements for general notability. Pretending that we need impeccable references from dozens of books or newspapers to verify the basic facts about this subject is poppycock. Steven Walling • talk 18:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a difference between verifiability and notability. No one here is doubting that any of these facts are true, its just that they just don't show any sort of notability. All of the actual pertinent information can easily be merged into the Richmond, California article's section on local government functions. The rest of the article is just random examples of regular day-to-day activities of one particular fire department, and no matter how much you verify that these really happened, they'll never actually be notable. Rorshacma (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How do we go from all high schools, of which there are one to many per ___location, are all notable to a major public institution of which there is one in a reasonably size city to not being notable? Notability can be built up with a few in depth coverage of a topic, or lots of less in depth coverage. I would say the subject clearly has lots and lots of less in depth coverage that all together cover to satisfy our notability requirement. KTC (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment more sources Three pages of new sources from the San Francisco Chronicle, there was a serious of car arsons a few years ago that generated much press for the department. It seems as if those voting delete or nominating don't care about BEFORE at all or make no effort whatsoever.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are still waiting to see all these sources you claim exist. And please grant good faith to those here who DID do a search (see my links in my first comment above) and found little or nothing. Stop accusing those who disagree with you of laziness and carelessness. It violates Wikipedia policy and reflects badly on you. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Motion to extend deletion debate while further sources are incorporated into article.
Seriously, you can stop asking for extensions. That's not how AFDs work. There is a seven day period once an article is nominated, and if the reviewing admin decides that no clear consensus has been reached, which has just occurred here a couple days ago, that is extended for another seven days, and so on. Asking for an extension not only doesn't actually do anything, it really isn't needed at this point since an actual normal extention was just granted a couple of days ago. Rorshacma (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia isn't running out of space. From their charitable causes of sending a fire truck to Nicaragua, to their actions saving lives and putting out fires, to other things about them, they get coverage. Dream Focus 10:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two Comments to LuciferWildCat. First of all, you have greatly expanded the article but you have not added any better sources. The sources are still just four cites from an online publication written by Cal students (the Richmond Confidential), and one cite from a free weekly local paper (the Berkeley Daily Planet). Your insistence that these "newspapers" are notable and reliable does not make them so per Wikipedia definition. In the discussion above you linked to a San Francisco Chronicle search; the Chronicle is a reliable source, but none of the search results seem to be about the department. Bottom line, the sources you have provided are simply not sufficient to amount to "significant coverage by multiple reliable sources," and despite ten days of frantic activity you have not been able to come up with any better ones. Furthermore, your repeated insistence that "all fire departments are notable" is disproven by my demonstrating above that other California cities of this size do NOT have articles. Second, I see that (as you always do) you listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list, and (as always happens) several people then showed up arguing for "keep" without citing Wikipedia policy, just inclusionist opinion. I trust the closing administrator (whom I pity) will take strength of argument into account in evaluating this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What people? Do you believe most of those stating keep are from the ARS? Anyone can include things in whatever wikiprojects are relevant. And whom are you referring to specifically? It gets coverage, so it passes WP:GNG. "Richmond Fire Department" and "California" gets 17 matches at Highbeam [40]and 122 results at Google news archive search. [41] I see mention of them collecting over a thousand toys to give to people, plus coverage of one of their fire chiefs who died, and other things, not just coverage of them putting out fires. Search through all of that, and you'll surely find something to convince you. I'm convinced already, so won't bother looking farther. Dream Focus 18:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you ask, Dream Focus, yes, you are one of the people I am talking about. You always seem to turn up when something has been tagged at ARS, and you always seem to !vote "keep". According to this tool, you !voted "keep" 97.8% of the time out of your last hundred !votes. I would be more accepting if I occasionally saw you make improvements to the article (which is what I do when I want to rescue an article), instead of simply arguing "keep". Difference of philosophy I guess. --MelanieN (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says I had 87 times I said keep and twice I said delete, with the other 11 times it not listing either of those. Articles like Curtis Magazines I said to keep and just rename it as a list article, and after it was deleted anyway, I had it userfied and then remade as such, List of magazines released by Marvel Comics in the 1970s preserving the bulk of the article which had valid content. Notice that most of the ones I say Keep in are kept. If I don't believe something should be kept, I simply don't comment at all, since nothing is ever gained by senseless destruction. Only articles that really need to be killed do I ever vote delete on, or at times even nominate for deletion myself. And I do add valid content to articles when I can find something I believe needs to be added that wasn't already. [42] [43] I didn't participate in this AFD when it was first tagged, but waited until I noticed work had been done on it, and was then convinced it should be kept. Not every article tagged for rescue do I choose to participate in, and I do look through Google news archive search, my highbeam account, and other sources before stating my opinion it should be kept. I am not a mindless inclusionist machine that just spouts out generic keep votes. Dream Focus 22:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, please assume good faith as you are basically accussing inappropriate canvassing by LuciferWildCat, and for that matter also accussing all of us who commented keep as vote stacking. Deletion sorting is a perfectly standard and accepted practice, and used to broaden participation and improve discussion. If you have a problem with any particular WikiProject or their participants, then take it through dispute resolution and raise it as an issue on its own. This discussion has been opened a week and half, and listed in 3 deletion sorting WikiProjects, that's plenty of time and places for editors to end up here. Personally, I haven't even heard of ARS before reading your accusation, I know about this discussion from when it was first nominated as I was the one who contested the PROD as potentially controversial. Just because you disagree with someone opinion doesn't mean they are any less valid than your own.

Secondly, your point that other California cities of this size fire departments do not have articles disprove LuciferWildCat's argument is simply logically false. Those articles doesn't exist could just mean that they haven't been written yet and not that they are unnotable subjects for inclusion. KTC (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has much potential especially since Richmond is industrial and gets lots of fire coverage. The trouble with merging/delete is that it will be very hard to re-start this article once there is a delete. Auchansa (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is covered entirely under WP:LOSE. --Nouniquenames (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, this is not WP:LOSE. Rather, there is some encyclopedic information about the RFD, it's just that this current article is poorly written. However, if there is an effort to write it well, it will face an uphill battle to even get the article. I've seen that happen to other articles that are notable and proper but deleted for a number of reasons. When the effort to restart the article takes place, it is very difficult to get it passed. A compromise solution is to write an essay WP:GIVEITACHANCENOW, which is "Give it a chance now that it is re-introduced, don't attack it. That's probably an even better solution. Auchansa (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has reasonably good potential. Cover the different stations, how the department covers industrial sites, such as the famous Chevron refinery, history of the department, etc. Too bad nobody has done it. The deciding administrator should rule a "keep" or a "delete, with encouragement in the future to develop this more due to comments about the potential of this article". A stark decision of "the decision is delete" would be the worse thing to do. Auchansa (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the San Francisco Chronicle articles are not irrelevent or unmentioning of the RFD in any way and whoever stated that was not paying any attention or did not read them. The chroniclings of the serial car fires in Richmond of the early 2000s stand out as particularly notable and have been reported widely, not just by the SF Chronicle. Also there is a lot of info behind paywalls for the General Chemical spill in the 1990s and also of several sulfur trioxide spills from the Chevron Refinery in the late 1990s and early 2000s and as this deals with one of the country's first and largest refineries and one of America's most polluted; and older industrial cities on the west coast it really merits some inclusion here. I disagree and believe it is well written alebit hastily as expansion has been underway rushedly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would add a few of those Chronicle articles to the page, we could evaluate them. But all you did was link to search results. I glanced at a few of those results and they were just mentions; they were not ABOUT the fire department. I did not look at every single article in the search and it would be unreasonable to expect me to. If you feel some of these articles have relevance, then cite them. At this point the article does not show significant coverage from reliable sources as required, and neither does this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't have to include them and yes you do have to read them and consider them, especially since I am pointing out one specifically. The notability does not unexist just because the citations are not inline or even in the article, their mere existence is sufficent. If you don't want to consider them, that's your problem.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have so far failed to convince anyone that there are actual Reliable Sources with Significant Coverage about this department. As long as you refuse to identify any specific references from reliable sources - as long as you keep saying "sources exist" without actually showing us any - don't expect to change any minds. --MelanieN (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luciferwildcat - just giving a list of possible sources is not sufficient. If you can't be bothered to actually look through them and find the ones which actually are of use (if there are in fact any), why should we do your homework for you. Like MelanieN, I looked through some of them, and found nothing suitable. As she says, if you want to find some specific ones which could be used as a reliable independent source which has significant coverage of RFD, I would be happy to look at them and consider them - but I am not going to do your work for you. If you think this article should be kept, you need to actually do a bit more work, rather than expecting us to do it for you. You might as well linked to a Google Search result and say "there are more than 6 million results, I think you should look through them for something suitable"! All the ones I looked at were minor/routine mentions of the Fire Dept, nothing that could be used here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the "car arsons" story in the "san francisco chronicle" don't you all --- understand?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Still no link, so I can only guess which articles you are talking about. If you are referring to this story or this one, the first contains one quote from a spokesman for the Richmond Fire Department, and the second merely says "...and the Richmond Fire Department is investigating at least two more" (incidents of car fires). This is exactly what Phantomsteve and I and others have described as passing or trivial coverage. We are still waiting for you to point us to articles with significant coverage.--MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria might be useful to go over for this, since it specifically states that "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" does not count towards notability, which that first link certainly falls under. Rorshacma (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aftereight#Discogrpahy. As content was merged, a redirect is appropriate. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of the Fittest EP

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

non-notable EP from a non-notable band. Album never charted. No singles charted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet notability guidelines.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Band was notable even before they became Capital Lights (I'm working on an Aftereight article in my userspace), and the EP's song "Worth As Much As A Counterfeit Dollar" was re-recorded for their This Is an Outrage! album, which did chart on Billboard.[44]--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:26, 18 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 19 June 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, Davewild (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Capital Lights. Non notable recording by band who may be notable (even if they recorded it under a different name it can still go in their article). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 27 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Aftereight#Discogrpahy. Feel free to delete it now.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stoq

AfDs for this article:

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

Still nothing to indicate WP:notability. Sources given are either directory entries or do not mention it. Previous AFD ended as no consensus. noq (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. I looked through the various Google searches and found nothing helpful. Msnicki (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources don't demonstrate the impact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This framework was supposedly re-written in February 2012 or 4 months ago. But it doesn't seem to have been a notable product since this article has been here since 2008 --Artene50 (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Kurniawan

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

Does not pass WP:CRIMINAL; crime does not seem extremely unusual, person is unknown for anything else (BLP1E). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - This, unlike "...on Twitter" articles, has some value. It teaches people a lesson about wine fraudulency and confidence tricks. Perhaps something can broaden up, like renaming this title and inserting analyses or cases. Likely, it is more about events than a person. --George Ho (talk) 05:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe worth a line or two at wine fraud, but this is a definite WP:BLP1E issue where the one event likely wouldn't stand on its own. --BDD (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then we have to make an argument for deleting articles like Bernard Madoff (he was relatively unknown outside of financial circles prior to the Ponzi scheme collapsing, after all). However, to draw out an analogy, both men committed their crime over a period of years, their frauds were lucrative (in 2 auctions, Kurniawan netted $34 million), and they've both had repercussions in their respective fields (Madoff has resulted in increased scrutiny of financial planners, while Kurniawan has resulted in increased interest in fine wine collectors in regards to provenance and correctness of labels, bottles, corks, and capsules. Wine auctions now specifically mention whether the wine has been inspected by a specialist; auction houses now generally keep such specialists on retainer.). Tthaas (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep under WP:GNG the subject has several independent sources describing his crimes. Subject was a major figure in the American wine auction world (enough that auctions of his wines merited note in wine press, such as Wine Spectator, and he was well-known enough in those circles that his collection was known as "the cellar," usually written as such). Fails to meet any other reason for Wikipedia:Deletion_policy to come into play -- no copyright issues, it's not advertising, there are multiple reliable sources cited, it meets WP:BLP for NPOV, etc. As for not passing WP:CRIMINAL, the alleged victims include Bill Koch (who is still embroiled in a lawsuit with Kurniawan over fake wine), who's important enough to merit his own article; that would qualify it under "victim of the crime is a renowned national figure." WP:BLP1E? There are multiple sources cited, he was never low-profile in the auction world (and, indeed, the story has been optioned for a movie, so he is unlikely to remain low-profile either. Yes, WP:Crystal as far as a future movie goes, but the fact that the story has been optioned in such a way is an indication of general intterest as well), and his role was significant and well-documented. Am I missing something else? Tthaas (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Well with Vanity Fair billing him as the perpetrator of potentially the "largest case of wine fraud in history" [45], I think the subject is notable, at least in the wine world anyway. I would like to see more coverage of his life before the scandal for BLP balance. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 02:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG with numerous, independent reliable sources which is only going to grow as more of the story gets out into the press. This scandal has rocked the wine world and sparked immense controversy as well as changes to the wine auction market. The credibility of formerly reputable auction houses like Christie's and Sotheby has been called into question as well as the reputation of many notable wine critics and writers such as Michael Broadbent, Allen Meadows and Jancis Robinson due to the far reaching taint of Kurniawan. The involvement and lawsuit of Bill Koch (businessman) adds even more notability as the The Billionaire's Vinegar is headed towards becoming a movie. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 03:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think Tthaas's arguments for why neither WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL require deletion in this case are sound and notability is not an issue here with sufficient coverage. The article can be improved but should not be deleted. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J. Keith Moyer

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

This former newspaper executive and editor has held several high positions in the industry, however these achievements do not apparently rise to the level of WP:GNG; note coverage like this and this are press release-type publications by the subject and related parties. At any rate, The subject's corporate and journalistic activities do not seem to approach WP:ANYBIO. Note the unsupported claim that he oversaw coverage that won the award. Not quite like receiving it. His current professorship does not satisfy WP:PROFESSOR. The BLP is almost entirely unsourced, and I'm not finding much to work with. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We run into the fact that there are not — but should be — special notability guidelines for journalists. Publisher of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune should, theoretically, be a sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography, in the same way that Mr. Moyer serving to one term in the Minnesota State Legislature or appearing in one game playing Right Field for the Minnesota Twins would ensure his automatic inclusion. Here's the crux of the problem: journalists don't write about rival journalists. Journalists writing about their fellow journalists in their own publications are deemed "not independent." Wikipedia requires several instances of independent published output of journalists about a topic to merit inclusion. Therefore, it is unnaturally hard to source out articles ABOUT journalists. It's annoying. Ignore All Rules, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — That's the point: nobody tends to write about journalists and publishers who are not notable in their own field. There needs to be some sort of even application, I am convinced, but there's a good way to do it (widely recognized journalists/editors/publishers) and many bad ways to do it, including the proposition above (inherent notability for any chief editor? publisher? that way too many simply non-notable people in dying fields like regional print media). Journalists writing about people within their own publication are not independent, that's pretty simple. The crux Carrite identifies is that it's hard for journalists to be notable outside of Wiki standards at all. Plus, I'm afraid Carrite has imagined that we must find journalists writing about each other. Many books exist on notable journalists, and journalistic prizes and awards do exist. Both WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO are readily possible for truly outstanding journalists, so inherent notability isn't the answer. WP:IAR is a last resort and there is no reason to skip to it, and this is not a forum for reformulating policy. There's nothing outstanding about this subject. IAR should be discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 18:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like saying "Only Oscar Winning actors are notable" or "Only Nobel Prize Winning economists are notable" — an artificially high standard. Being the publisher or editor of a major metropolitan daily newspaper SHOULD be sufficient career achievement and public profile to merit encyclopedic biography. IAR means "use common sense." Carrite (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hits NYT several times for various newspaper-related news stories. [46] inter alia. [47], [48] and [49] appear to me to show notability in his field. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — One's about the sale (WP:1E) of his notable newspaper. He might be an expert, but these are tiny, passing mentions (deepest: 2 paragraphs in 395 pages). Not every expert is notable; there's little other than the sale on which to base biographic content. Otherwise it's a collection of not-inherently-notable positions (WP:RESUME) rather than a well-sourced biography. JFHJr (㊟) 02:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Subject was the publisher of a major newspaper and has coverage in the New York Times. So, he has enough notability to merit a brief wikipedia article. --Artene50 (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need 'common sense' criteria for cases like this where standing policy is not yet adequate. I'd say this was notable enough.Squareanimal (talk) 12:44, 6 July 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 withdrawal. It looks like there's enough material available to write an article. I thank those who provided links to in-depth articles. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lancope

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

Despite initially promising results when searching on Google, Lancope does not appear notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Google Books hits discuss Lancope's StealthWatch products, but not the company itself (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#No inherited notability). Searching on Google News retrieved a colossal slog of press releases, which, as advertising, cannot count for notability. Other than that, there was a legitimate interview with David Cocchiara, a man who works for the company, but still no independent discussion of the company itself. I ask others to consider this one carefully, as I'm only human, and obviously didn't want to trudge through 600+ articles if they all appeared to be press releases. It's entirely possible that I've missed something.

As for the current state of the article itself, it's essentially an advertisement (I would have speedied under criterion G11, but it's at least somewhat informational and thus fails to meet that criterion). Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have more than just press release mentions, as seen here: http://www.lancope.com/news-events/in-the-news/

2:16 EST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anwhitby (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've sifted through quite a few of those and am still unsure about notability. We need to see significant discussion of Lancope itself, not just passing mentions or discussion of its products. Could you point to any particular articles that give significant coverage of Lancope? As a side note, based on some of the articles I've seen, the StealthWatch system may merit its own article, regardless of the fate of the Lancope article. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:17, 26 June 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about these articles: 10 Questions for Lancope CFO and COO David Cocchiara http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/256743/10_questions_for_lancope_cfo_and_coo_david_cocchiara.html Identifying Advanced Persistent Threats Using Netflow – Lancope StealthWatch Overview http://www.thesecurityblogger.com/?p=1130 Lancope Named a TAG Top 40 Innovative Technology Company http://tagthink.com/5-connecting-technology-professionals-press-releases/1224-lancope-named-a-tag-top-40-innovative-technology-company.html Lancope's Potts: The Flood of Data is 'Besieging' Companies Today http://it.tmcnet.com/topics/it/articles/188009-lancopes-potts-flood-data-besieging-companies-today.htm Lancope soups up its StealthWatch product, adding capabilities and more muscle http://www.lancope.com/files/Lancope_Soups-Up_StealthWatch04-19-2011.pdf Corporate network visibility key to emerging security risks, says Lancope http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280095036/Corporate-network-visibility-key-to-emerging-security-risks-says-Lancope Ready for VoIP: Network Management Architectures: Lancope http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsp/article.php/3761076/Ready-for-VoIP-Network-Management-Architectures-Lancope.htm Monitoring Operational Activity - Lancope Correlates Security & Network Intelligence http://www.processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/p2949/11p49/11p49.asp Lancope adds net optimization to security appliance http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/accel/2006/0605netop1.html?page=1 Lancope boosts traffic-inspection capabilities http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/042505lancope.html StealthWatch detects hard to find intruders http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/products/2004-04-14-hacker-detector_x.htm Lancope: Offering protection from cyber attacks http://www.gra.org/stories/storydetail/tabid/622/xmid/101/default.aspx Lancope Customer Profiles Concord Hospital thrives on NetFlow http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/nsm/2011/030711nsm2.html AirTran: Virtualization requires network visibility http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032410-airtran-virtualization.html University rolls out network analysis tool to remove congestion http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/207071/university_rolls_network_analysis_tool_remove_congestion/ Stanford Medical School's Rx: Anomaly Detection http://www.darkreading.com/security/perimeter-security/211201060/index.html Gaining insight into security devices, SCADA networks - Monitoring security with StealthWatch from Lancope http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/nsm/2008/120808nsm1.html SUNY's Binghamton Monitors Network with Lancope's StealthWatch http://campustechnology.com/articles/2008/12/sunys-binghamton-monitors-network-with-lancopes-stealthwatch.aspx Home field advantage: The Detroit Tigers and Lancope http://www.scmagazine.com/home-field-advantage-the-detroit-tigers-and-lancope/article/35614/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.182.184.2 (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:

Lancope adds net optimization to security appliance Network World.
Lancope boosts traffic-inspection capabilities Network World.
Corporate network visibility key to emerging security risks, says Lancope Computer Weekly.
10 Questions for Lancope CFO and COO David Cocchiara | PCWorld Business Center PC World Magazine.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 5 July 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.