Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 July	6 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The result was keep / withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley

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

As was noted in the AfD for Randy Leach see here, there's no notability save her disappearance. Unfortunate as her disappearance was, this article seems to meet all three conditions of WP:BLP1E Vertium (talk to me) 22:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is not on Amy Lynn Bradley, the person, but on her disappearance, the event; an event which received national coverage and has periodic ongoing press updates. Therefore it should not fall under WP:BLP, but instead WP:EVENT, much like the Steve Bartman incident or the disapearances of Madeleine McCann, Rebecca Coriam, Kyron Horman, Edward and Austin Bryant, Susan Powell Suzy Lamplugh and a fair chunk of the recent entries on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously. The event of Amy's disappearance is notable through coverage on national TV through NBC, Dr. Phil and CNN - plus numerous mentions when the Natalee Holloway case is covered. --Yankees76 ^Talk 16:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - user Yankee pretty much covers it in his statement but I would like to add that the article passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case passes the test of extensive and sustained coverage. I have added to the article evidence that the case has been featured by America's Most Wanted and Vanished. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Given the additional information, I withdraw this AfD. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 23:02, 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 delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:NF j⚛e decker ^talk 02:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prey Love Eat

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

PROD-contested. Fails the notability guideline for films. A cursory search for sourcing turned up absolutely nothing that wasn't directly related to the movie itself. (Admittedly, it was difficult to adequately search due to the title's similarity to Eat, Pray, Love - which still dominated search results even after using boolean phrases to force an exact match.)

On the talk page, an editor commented that the film is being submitted to film festivals - perhaps this may make it notable at some later point, but it's not Wikipedia's job to speculate on that or wait until it's notable. In addition, IMDB is generally not considered a valid source for asserting notability, though it can sometimes be used to verify information in the article. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 21:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I had the same problem finding anything. However, I have faith in MQS and will gladly change my mind if he works his magic again. Note: I blocked the creator for username and promotion, sadly. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe incubate per failing WP:NF. No magic here... yet. I would almost have also included a failure of WP:NFF, but this film is slated to debut on July 8. I made the article prettier[1] in thinking in might be returned to its author as a work-in-progress to await the appearance af properly reliable sources after its debut, but its author User talk:FuzzontheLens has been soft-blocked for username violation, and the editor contesting its speedy, User:MLeavy, I suspect of being the film's writer/director Michael Leavy... and that continues concerns toward COI. The kindest thing would be to incubate it, but barring that, the deletion can always be reversed if or when decent sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always incubate it with the other five thousand articles in your user space. ;) Drmies (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or email it back to its author and he can play with it off project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing in the way of news or coverage of this short, and probably won't unless it plays at a festival or something. pro.imdb.com shows it as "In production", so I'm not even sure it's been "released". If the author wants, I suggest s/he should copy it back to his/her sandbox and hold onto it until it's notable. Vertium (talk to me) 00:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - showing it once in a local club doesn't qualify as a release in any serious form. Trying to get it shown elsewhere does not qualify for notability. No other sign of notability claimed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am hoping the author(s) understand the simply existing is not enough, and the film (no matter where it screens) needs to be the recipient of commentary and analysis in independent secondary sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON but I doubt it. I deleted some of the promotional stuff about the locations from the article. I found it hard to believe the article does not even mention the much better known movie Eat Pray Love, which its title is an obvious takeoff on, but whatever. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 13 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 notability via WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 02:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ocean Interdisciplinary Management Foundation

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

Fails WP:ORG. It has no sources. Searching Google News reveals no sources. Searching Google Books reveals mostly Wikipedia sourced books and what I believe are books with lists of foundations. I've left the article intact despite its absence of sources and poor wording. Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP's reasoning; can't find any sources either. Seems mainly nonsensical. Zujua (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I tried to read about them on what appears to be their web site, but I am completely mystified as to what it is they are supposed to do. I suspect that the person(s) writing this article, and material on the web site are not native English writers. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Have looked - and found their Facebook page and a few blogs that mention them, but nothing from a reliable source that indicates notability. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 23:37, 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 Speedy delete per G6. Giant Snowman 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Correia Garção (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page with a single entry that appears unrelated to the title. Proposed deletion removed by creator without explanation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G6. I've tagged it as such. France3470 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete Pedro Correia Garção (disambiguation)}, when i type pedro serra... Pedro Correia Garção appears. Don Pedro Serra from Petra, Majorca, Spain was also an important figure- a Spanish Officer sent by Spain to the Philippines in 1877 making big History in Surigao and Davao. Family Tree- Dacuycuys , my reference, was written by Historian and Judge Auxencio Cervantes Dacuycuy. --Yours Highness (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that is the case, then the wrong DAB page has been created. A DAB page for Pedro Serra (disambiguation) would be the proper route. However, the Don Pedro Serra page has been nominated for deletion; we should wait to see the outcome of that process before creating the proper DAB page. If a correct DAB page turns out to be the proper outcome, I will simply move the existing page to the new name, and correctly format the DAB page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the Don Pedro Serra page has been deleted, there doesn't seem to be a need for the DAB page after all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:06, 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) KTC (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Knowles

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

A non-notable music manager. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SplashScreen (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Really needs lots of citing. FarceFan (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It fails both WP: GNG, as the sources are unreliable and WP: BIO. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE: Topic notability is dependent on sources BEING available, not there use or not within an article. Statυs (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:BEFORE. Statυs (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few sources I found rather quickly [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Statυs (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with the very good sources provided by Status. I recommend (again) SplashScreen to read WP:BEFORE. AfD is only for articles that cannot be improved in any way and therefore un-fixable. But this is well expandable. Cheers! —Hahc 21 00:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close per sources provided above, this article meets WP:GNG. I suggest that the nominator reads WP:BEFORE, as they have nominated numerous notable articles for AfD recently. Till 04:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But what is it that these sources tell us about Mathew Knowles, besides "he managed his daughters through much of their careers"? Per WP:BIO1E, Knowles is not inherently notable just because of this. SplashScreen (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable for "only one event". He is notable for managing Destiny's Child (one of the best selling girl group's of all time), his 2 daughters and now launching a new girl group. Statυs (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His two daughters both being members (however temporarily) with Destiny's Child and a non-notable new girl group? Yeah, WP:BIO1E. SplashScreen (talk) 09:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he had a pretty big music company, in which he sold for $10 million dollars Statυs (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are not inherently notable because they have lots of money. SplashScreen (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that? I just made mention he made a big music company, that he sold for a lot of money. Statυs (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not in the business of creating articles for non-notable people who sell their non-notable businesses for non-notable amounts of money. SplashScreen (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more sources talking about his management [8] He quit his job to manage Destiny's Child [9], other DC members trying to fire him led them to be fired from the group [10], lawsuit against him by them [11]. Statυs (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Splash, If you have lots of money, you are notable. Search thru Wikipedia and all people with 100+ million in wealth have an article here. Just debunking your comment about "People are not inherently notable because they have lots of money", which is totally false per common sense and some guidelines I don't need to cite. Cheers! —Hahc 21 01:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It meets WP:GNG. It should just be expanded. My love is love (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient for the General notability guideline. --Fæ (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★

Keep as subject rockets across the verifiability and notability thresholds, per reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Williams, Brennan (July 6, 2012). "Mathew Knowles Talks New Destiny's Child Album, Blue Ivy, Reality Television". Huffington Post. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
"Mathew Knowles' Reality Show 'Breaking From Above' Premieres In America". Huffington Post. June 26, 2012. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
Fekadu, Mesfin (November 17, 2011). "Mathew Knowles is back with new girl group". Boston Globe. Boston, MA. Associated Press. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
"Mathew Knowles appointed to gospel board". Houston Business Journal. Houston, TX. February 17, 2011. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
Cox, Tony (November 27, 2006). "Mathew Knowles on Fatherhood and Beyonce". National Public Radio. Retrieved July 6, 2012.
Infantry, Ashante (March 20, 2005). "A parent who knows his Destiny; Crave stardom? Meet Mathew Knowles and get ready to work". Toronto Star. Toronto, ON. p. C09. Retrieved July 6, 2012.

Snow Keep – This person clearly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per multiple reasons above. Mabalu (talk) 11:00, 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. Rough consensus of editors felt that the available sources evidenced notability via WP:GNG j⚛e decker ^talk 02:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Knowles

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

Delete - A fashion designer who holds no notability outside of House of Deréon. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. SplashScreen (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no delete, re-direct maybe. After six years and with no problems since 2007, there's no reason to go that far with this. Also, Destiny's Child are re-grouping for a new album and tour, as mentioned in their article. Tina is a vital and intrical part of the behind-the-scenes aspects of Destiny's Child. With all the other family members having their own articles, it would be doing injustice to the mother wrongly in this manner. Please give this some thought, if you would. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Knowles is not notable simply because the rest of her family have Wikipedia articles (WP:ITSA) or because her article has been here for a long time. (WP:ARTICLEAGE). SplashScreen (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant media coverage in news links. Notable enough for her inclusion in a "living archive" to be newsworthy 1. Over 2,000 news archive hits, which in itself is not a guarantee of notability, but shows continued coverage since 2003. It is not unusual for fashion designers who have/had a high(ish) profile beyond the label they're associated with to have their own Wikipedia page (such as Gianni and Donatella Versace). The page has been around a long time. I do question the nominator's motivations as they have a track record of AFD'ing articles linked to Destiny's Child where notability is able to be (and has been) proved and asserted as per Wikipedia's policies and criteria. Mabalu (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep articles on the basis of there being WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, we keep them on the basis that they are subject to non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources. The name 'Tina Knowles' may well be mentioned in 2000+ articles but they may be a) about somebody else called Tina Knowles or b) random 'mentions-by-association' in tabloid articles, such as "Beyonce was seen shopping in New York today, accompanied by sister Solange and mother Tina". The latter is almost exclusively the case, therefore Tina has no notability outside of her famous daughters and fails WP:INHERITED. The fact that the Versaces have articles is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the fact that the article has been here for a while fails WP:ARTICLEAGE. And if, through "a track record of AFD'ing articles linked to Destiny's Child" you refer to one nomination, then yes. I'm as guilty as sin. SplashScreen (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, a lot of her fame is because of who her daughter is, but plenty of people have famous children without being notable. She has individual notability as a successful (again, this is certainly because of who her daughter is, but that's no reason to denigrate her) fashion designer and because she has been extensively written about and at length in multiple articles which specifically focus on her beyond her brands and her role as Beyonce's Mummy (It is unrealistic to expect these never to be mentioned when talking about her), she more than passes Wikipedia notability guidelines. I note that Mathew Knowles AND BeyHive (more than "one nomination", by the way) are both being overwhelmingly demonstrated to pass WP:GNG and be keep-worthy. A glance through the Google News Results more than proves that this nomination falls in the same category. Some of the more detailed sources from the first couple of pages of results that show ongoing focus over the years on the subject beyond her brand are (along with the one mentioned earlier) 1, 2, 3. I did not see anything for "other people called Tina Knowles" and while "random mentions by association" are there (as they are for ANY famous person), there are plenty of sources which far exceed passing mentions/random namedrops. That is all I have to say about this. Mabalu (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the only claim to notability was her relationship to her more notable family members, than I would be the first to agree this should be deleted. However, looking for references, I'm finding a number of them that refer specifically to her in depth, in reference to her work as a fashion designer and to her clothing lines. The article could use some work, certainly, to put more focus on the information in these sources, but I see this as passing the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 19:51, 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 keep. No !votes for deletion except the nominator — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BeyHive

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

Delete - Whilst Beyonce may call her fans "the BeyHive", the term or concept has not received non-trivial coverage from multiple, verifiable, reliable or independent sources. SplashScreen (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I easily find good sources such as Vogue (Italy), Marie Claire (Australia) and Форум (Russia) explaining and using the term. I also find The Mirror (UK) using the headline "Buzz over Beyhive" on 9 December 2008 and ABC News (USA) on 18 May 2012 using the headline "Beyonce Beyhive Winners" in "Good Morning America". One might argue for a merge, but there is plenty here demonstrating non-trivial and international social impact to avoid deletion. --Fæ (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above by Fæ, and given that the article already holds a substantial amount of information already! The fanbase has derived it's own terminology and vocabulary at this point, all of which has been verified by Knowles herself. That, plus all the media coverage the term has gotten constitutes the article. Names for fanbases are a semi-new thing to celebrities and the popularization originates from Gaga, Bieber and Knowles. The article stands informative enough, as is. WikiUhOh (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the posts above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.170.196 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is this user's first edit. Statυs (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fæ. Statυs (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fæ's reasons. My love is love (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as of yet, User:Fæ does not have a rationale with which to agree, as they have yet to provide said sources so we can assess whether the mentions of "BeyHive" within them are trivial, notable etc. Until these sources actually appear (either here or on the article), their argument is in violation of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. SplashScreen (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said "easily", I meant on the first page of a GNews search, I didn't bother looking beyond that. As for the newspaper references, anyone can verify these if they have access to a news database such as LexisNexis and as I have given date of publication and headlines they are now also easy to find.
Most editors interpret BEFORE, where it states "take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources," as meaning that you should run a Google/GNews search or similar before raising an AFD. Our policies make it clear that an article's sources do not have to be complete or even "quality" in order to keep an article, there only needs to be a reasonable expectation that better sources will be added in the near future. Tripping over reasonable prospective sources in simple Google searches is treated as an excellent indicator that better sources are available. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

Vogue Italy - Describing her website, one sentence says she has a section of her site for "a group of fans called Beyhive" - A trivial mention.
Woman.ru - One sentence says that there is "a special unit for the fans, entitled Beyhive" on Beyonce's website. This publication is neither recognised on this or the Russian Wikipedia as notable - A trivial mention in an unreliable source.
Yahoo Australia - One sentence says "the multi-media site includes sections on..."Beyhive" (for the official fan collective)" - A trivial mention.
The Mirror - This tabloid article [12] is 3 sentences long and "Beyhive" is used as a pun (formulated by the Mirror) to reference Beyonce's hairstyle. This does not comment on the name she gives her fans. - Irrelevent.
GMA - This video [13] is about a non-notable internal competition on a US TV show called "Beyhive", in which people had to dress as Bees to win concert tickets. This source does not comment on the cultural standing of Beyonce calling her fans the BeyHive. Of all the sources, this is the most notable, but is nowhere near enough to support a whole article. A trivial and hardly relevent mention.

Clearly, none of these sources are enough to support an article and we can not just assume that better sources may come along. I suggest that, instead of telling other which policies to read, User:Fæ has a thorough look at WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:IS and WP:GNG before contributing to any more AfD discussions. SplashScreen (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remainder of discussion

Thanks for the analysis and your free advice as to what policies I need to read. You might try looking through other sources of page 1 of GNews matches, and maybe try page 2. Have you tried searching for sources yourself in accordance with BEFORE rather than raising an AFD and then attempting to shoot down every source that others are falling over as trivial and irrelevant? By the way, tangential matches are sufficient to justify an article if these amount to sufficient impact on society or the historic record. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I carried out a source search and they were all as vacuous and laughable as the ones provided in your post. Clearly, a competition on a tabloid news show and a section on a singer's website does not warrant "sufficient impact on society or the historic record". SplashScreen (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I took pains to show that this concept has been in use for over 3 years in significant publications, and has international impact, both society and historic impact should be considered and many readers will feel this has been sufficiently demonstrated to make an AFD seem rather tangential at this stage.

The three year time period does not count when the first trivial mention was in a totally different context, leaving all of the other trivial mentions occurring under a 12 month period. SplashScreen (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to vacuous and laughable, I can not see the point of continuing any further discussion with someone that has resorted to personal ridicule. My opinion stays "keep" in line with the majority here so far. Bye --Fæ (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seams as though SplashScreen has taken this AfD from a creative discussion to a personal attack on Fæ in a weird attempt to delete an article that only he feels should be deleted. WikiUhOh (talk) 18:00, 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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG, WP:PROF j⚛e decker ^talk 02:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarang Pitale

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

Vanity page almost certainly created by the subject of the article. Minimal indication of notability (but, not something which would generally be deleted under speedy delete.) JoelWhy?(talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to note that WP:COI suggests that we avoid using the word "vanity" as it is "accusatory and discouraging". Given the circumstances I find it easy to assume good faith on the part of the nominator and I hope this is taken as a respectful reminder of a small policy note with which s/he may not be familiar. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see nothing in the article or from above Google searches that indicates the subject meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACADEMIC at present. Might do one day, but not at the moment. Qwfp (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator and Qwfp that this individual doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF and/or its "Average professor" test. Perhaps at some future point, and there's no bar to recreation if and when. Ubelowme _U ^Me 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A total of three cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, lack of references -Anbu121 (talk me) 14:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:PROF criteria and also per WP:TOOSOON. The citation counts are too low for WP:PROF criterion C1, and the society membership listed in the article are open to all and therefore also don't convey notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above re WP:PROF Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:05, 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 no consensus. or, more specifically, no discussion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brant Daugherty

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

Nominate deletion. I actually like this guy, but his page is literally a stub-stub and has been for over a year. He posted his Wikipedia link on his Twitter and still nothing has been added - but random vandals. MrIndustry (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He seems to be a minor actor given the lack of major independent WP:RS coverage for him aside from his official web site. --Artene50 (talk) 18:53, 22 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, v/r - T P 18:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weak keep. He's been interviewed by Seventeen[14], named J-14's "Hot Guy of the Week"[15] (OMG!!!!!!!, according to one commenter), and pops up here and there.[16][17][18] Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 28 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) 19:06, 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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:BAND j⚛e decker ^talk 02:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kye Kye

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

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than self published web pages, the band only has two local radio interviews and no records which have surfaced as "notable" in mainstream media.Keystoner idin (speak) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've found only one reliable source which covers them, but this is also not substantial. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding enough significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 21:53, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Wells

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

Not notable: baseball player who has only played in minor leagues. Specs112 t c 12:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Easily fails WP:BASE/N Penale52 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable per WP:BASEBALL notability guidelines....William 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Non-notable minor league baseball player. Does not satisfy the specific notability guidelines of WP:BASE/N, and apparently fails the general guidelines of WP:GNG, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

!vote struck. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails on WP:BASE/N.--Chip123456 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page, such as it is, says he plays in the "Australian baseball league for the Sydney Blue Sox". If true, doesn't that mean he passes WP:BASE/N #2 as having appeared in a "top-level national league"? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASE/N due to his playing top level baseball in Australia. Spanneraol (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Muboshgu and Spanneraol, first, please provide an independent, reliable source for the subject having played for the Sydney Blue Sox per WP:GNG----unsupported assertions of notability do not cut it. Second, please also provide a basis for your assertion that the Australian Baseball League constitutes "a top-level national league"----I've never heard of Australian baseball, and I'm pretty sure that it is not played on remotely the same level as MLB, the Nippon League or even Taiwanese baseball. I'll go out on a limb and say the ABL is probably played at or below a skill-level comparable to American AAA minor league ball; the Wikipedia article specifically states that the ABL's counter-seasonal schedule permits players to split time in the American minors. If the ABL is a "top-level national league," then it appears to be such in the same sense as the European leagues for American football, or a hypothetical Mexican national hockey league being a top-level national league, too. If you have solid evidence to the contrary, I'm wiling to be educated and I'll change my delete !vote. Otherwise, it appears the subject is just another player who spent time in the American A and AA minor leagues and also played in an overseas "national" minor league. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the sources for him playing with the Blue Sox are already in the article. The Baseball Reference link has his stats from the league and the Baseball Digest article is actually a feature article about him playing there. The ABL is definitely the top league in Australia and while the quality of play there is certainly not at the same level as MLB.. it is the top national league and thus qualifies under our existing guidelines. The players there tend to be Australian ballplayers rather than American exports slumming as the Football leagues you mention above. Spanneraol (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASE/N cites several specific examples of top skill-level baseball leagues, and then concludes with "or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." I don't think your interpretation of the quoted language is the intended or correct one. I believe it was intended to apply to the independent predecessors of MLB and the like. Otherwise, every one-game player from a hypothetical Liberian national baseball league is entitled to a presumption of notability because he played in the top league in Liberia. I recently had this same argument with another editor who was arguing for the notability of someone who played on an Austrian American rules football team, because he was asserting it was the top "national" American football league in Austria. That's a virtually meaningless notability standard. If that's the interpretation for sports bio AfD discussions, then we really need to revisit the intended meaning and phrasing of "or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)" language in a Wikipedia-wide RfC. In this case, you've effectively promoted a Double-A minor leaguer to the one-game MLB presumption of notability. I don't believe that's a desirable policy outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since i was involved with the initial discussions that led to that description I can say it was the intended one and is how we've handled these cases in the past. The difference between the Australian league and some hypothetical Liberan league is finding references that refer to the league and players. The Australian press does cover this league and It gets more coverage than some other leagues do. Spanneraol (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spanner, can you link me to the original SNG talk page discussion that supports this as the intended interpretation? If so, I will change my vote for this particular case based on the existing SNG standard. That having been said, if that is the intended result, I seriously think this language needs to be revisited in an RfC that draws project-wide participation (and certainly from outside the regular baseball and other sports WikiProjects editors). We are effectively creating new and lesser SNG standards of notability for athletes below the top skill level in their respective sports, divorced from the requirements of GNG that all articles are supposed to satisfy. That's not good, and I say that as a 3-year editor who works mostly on sports articles. I won't fight this argument at the AfD level over a single article, but I will open the discussion at the Wikipedia-wide policy level. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already is standard in pretty much all sports that have professional leagues that the top league in a given country meets WP:NSPORTS. You just need to look at the various sports and see that almost all of them include language indicating that the players of a top league in a country meet the nsports standards. A wiki-wide RfC was held on the creation of NSPORTS so it has had project-wide participation. The reasoning behind it of course is not skill level but coverage level. A player who isn't good enough to be in the major leagues in the US might be one of the best players in Australia and thus be covered in the Australian papers as such. I am not as familiar with baseball in this regard as I am with ice hockey. But in ice hockey players who would gain little attention in North America are often regarded as super stars in Europe and get the coverage to match. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASE/N criterion #2 by virtue of playing in the Australian Baseball League. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the player meets WP:BASE/N. Played in a top level national league. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2012

(UTC)

Keep – As stated above, passes WP:BASE/N. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. EricEnfermero | Howdy! 15:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question is the Australian Baseball League a fully professional league, and not just a semi-professional summer/winter league that is the case with many of the "top" professional baseball leagues in Europe. Just asking as in the football/soccer guidelines playing in the top league of a country doesn't cut it if it's not a fully professional league. If that's the case there should be a discussion in the sports notability guidelines regarding their players. I don't see much in GNG at all here even in Australian sources. Secret ^account 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do wonder about that as well, especially as I seem to see minor leaguers in US leagues play in the ABL during the US offseason. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case it clearly doesn't meet WP:BASE/N as a winter league/semi-professional league isn't "top level baseball" required in our guidelines, and without anything else that makes it meet our original notability guidelines. Delete Secret ^account 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guideline is for a "top-level national league." If the criterion was simply top-level as in equivalent to the US Major Leagues, no other league in any country (with the possible though unlikely exception of Japan) would qualify. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FusionLeaf Studio

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

Declined PROD. All the references are primary sources, and I couldn't find anything to show that this is notable. Moswento ^talky 08:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no reliable sources online that cover this software, so it looks like it fails our notability guidelines. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 28 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) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source on the page is first party, and I was unable to locate any reliable secondary sources. Fails the notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 19:56, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#2. Jenks24 (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western Derby

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

Subject is non-notable, has no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:EVENT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reasoning: What little references exist are about individual matches, with nothing that passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NRIVALRY as a whole. As well as several non-independent AFL sources. This is a regular season fixture that just happens to have two teams from the same state. There is no significant coverage of the rivalary itself, and as such it fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NRIVALRY and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. WD is a lot more than just two teams from the same state. There is significant rivalry between the teams with the underdog frequently outperforming. It receives extensive additional reporting and is one of the most anticipated fixtures for locals. The fact it has a universally used name beyond the teams names is evidence of its significance. For references, the 1st random one I clicked on had "... the western derby melee has divided Western Australia and the “football landscape in WA has been changed forever”. However, if the sources are considered inadequate the article should be tagged for improvement, not for deletion. Moondyne (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose in view of the long term and extended experience of the above two editors in Australian topics (and their response) - the speedy close or withdrawal of this delete is more appropriate. AFD is not a ___location for grudge nominations Satu Suro 00:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article currently fails WP:NRIVALRY because it doesn't show how the rivalry is important. As it stands it appears just to be a series of match reports of interesting matches. Hack (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup templates exist for improvement requests. Bulk retaliation deletion nominations like this are disruptive. AFD is not for cleanup. The-Pope (talk) 01:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major Matt Mason USA

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Neither the page nor my Google searches bring up multiple, non-trivial published works - just a few listings, reviews, mentions of releases and websites directly related to the subject. Billboard.com says he's never charted. Whouk (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 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) 01:35, 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} 02:44, 28 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) 18:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails basic notability requirements.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added multiple sources just now. The subject meets WP:MUSIC criterion #1, or the general notability guideline, with coverage in such varied publications as Allmusic (a biography and a review), the Coventry Evening Telegraph, the South Bend Tribune, the Birmingham Post, the Evening Times, and the Evening Chronicle. The sources suggest he is a prominent figure in the anti-folk music genre. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per sources of excellent quality provided by Paul Erik. And more sources are available, such as reviews in Rockfeedback ([19]) and musicOMH ([20]). I don't think the subject's notability is now still questionable. Cavarrone (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above sources demonstrate that the subject passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 21:40, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#2. Jenks24 (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Showdown_(AFL)

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

Subject is non-notable, has no sources at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:EVENT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reasoning: This article has 0 references and has had no references since at least January 2011. This is a regular season fixture that just happens to have two teams from the same state. It fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per The Pope Satu Suro 01:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article as it stands does not show evidence that it meets WP:NRIVALRY or WP:GNG as it does not address the importance of the rivalry or show any independent coverage of the rivalry in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 01:21, 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 speedy keep. Jenks24 (talk) 06:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QClash

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

Subject is non-notable, has no independent sources, fails WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:EVENT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reasoning: This article has 9 references. 2 aren't references. The 7 remaining are from the AFL or the clubs involved and are not independent reliable sources. This is a regular season fixture that just happens to have two teams from the same state. It fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article currently fails WP:NRIVALRY as it does not demonstrate how the rivalry is important. It does not currently show evidence of meeting WP:GNG as almost all of the references are not independent. Hack (talk) 01:14, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#2. Jenks24 (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's Birthday clash

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

Subject is non-notable, has no independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reasoning: This article has 5 references. 1 is a stats page. 2 references are dead links that can't be verified. 1 is from the stadium where the match is played and is not independent. 1 is a summary of one entire round that this fixture was played in with no significant coverage of the actual event. There is not a single reliable, independent source for this event. As far as I can tell it is a regular season fixture that just happens to co-incide with a specific date that the AFL have decided to create a marketing gimmick around. It fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 01:11, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#2. Jenks24 (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamtime at the 'G

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

Subject is non-notable, has no significant coverage by independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. It is a regular fixture with a marketing gimmick that also fails WP:NRIVALRY. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reasoning: This article has 13 references. 10 are from the AFL or the clubs themselves and are marketing spam. They are not independent. One ABC article is stub-length and is about one player making their debut for their club in one of the matches that make up this non-notable event. The second ABC article is merely a report on one of the matches. One article by the Age is comprised of quotes of AFL players and coaches. It is neither independent, and is not significant coverage. The AFL are welcome to create a marketing gimmick around a certain AFL fixture, but a marketing gimmick is not worthy of a Wikipedia article.

It fails WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:EVENT and should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a receptacle for AFL marketing gimmicks and spam. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. POINTy nomination and nothing more. This is a major event in the AFL calendar. Try {{refimprove}} if you feel it lacks sources. Moondyne (talk) 01:21, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tramway Review

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

Currenlt only contains primary sources, and does not establish notability. No evidence of historical importance or being used as a reliable source. Contested PROD on the basis "Just because a subject is obscure or esoteric, doesn't mean it's not notable within it's field I feel that it should be put to a larger discussion" with no evidence of notability given. So now I have to enter a AFD request. Oranjblud (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is adequately established by reference to works such as The Golden Age of Tramways and Guide to current British journals. Warden (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A listing in a directory of journals does not establish notability.

That guide is not a commercial directory but was a bibliographic resource published by the Library Association, which was a professional body. I consider it quite satisfactory for our purpose. Warden (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the The Golden Age of Tramways I assume you mean this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6kUVAAAAIAAJ&lpg=PA299 ? I don't think a single reference is sufficient - it's not enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals, and wouldn't be considered sufficient evidence of notability in any other topic. Oranjblud (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can be argued as sufficient in this topic. It's a niche topic, you're not going to find major write-ups in the New York Times or Newsweek magazine. Notability is relative. Roodog2k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (media) is an essay and so has no standing as a notability guideline. The relevant policy here is WP:PRESERVE. If we felt that the current page was too slight then, per that policy, we should merge into some more general article such as we see here. Warden (talk) 13:42, 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. Roodog2k (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roodog2k's argument Satu Suro 12:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:34, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Railroads Illustrated

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

Not used as a reliable source, not historically important. No evidence of notability. Contested PROD with no additional information given for keeping Oranjblud (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability looks likely. CTC Board (the magazine under its previous name) should probably get merged to this article. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per above. I see that North8000 dePRODded CTC article, so I concur. Roodog2k (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of being semi-bold and doing the merge in the next 1-2 days. After that I'm off-wiki for about 7 days. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge Satu Suro 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did it. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as merged, which was the right answer from the beginning. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 7 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 keep per WP:SK#2. Jenks24 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Derby (AFL)

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

Subject is non-notable, has no significant coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Reason: By participating in the Derby (A-League AFD), I have a better understanding of the process for notable rivalry, and discovered this AFL 'derby' and found it to fail the same issues that caused the A-League page to be deleted.

By the consensus in the other AFD, for a rivalry to be notable it must follow WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. This article fails both. For an article to be notable it must have significant, reliable coverage from sources independent of the subject. This article has none and by prior consensus it must be deleted as well.

It currently has 7 references. 5 references are AFL.com marketing spam and are not reliable. The Herald Sun reference has nothing to do with the rivalry. The smh.com.au reference is comprised solely of AFL players and coaches talking about the so called rivalry, making it an unreliable and self-interested reference and thus can be discounted. Thus the article fails the basis notability guidelines by having no significant, reliable or independent coverage.

As per the wikipedia guidelines I looked for references about the rivalry itself, and what I found was that that the rivalry has not grabbed the attention of it's home city, has disappointing crowds, matches of poor quality, that the excitement for the new team is wearing off, that new team simply cannot compete in a realistic fashion with the other team, and that it is simply marketing hype at the current stage.[21] [22] [23] [24]

No rivalry exists, and nothing proves this rivalry is anything more than a regular match played between two teams who happen to exist in the same city. It doesn't deserve a specific article and the article as it stands is AFL marketing hype not suitable for Wikipedia.

Maybe in 5 years when one of the teams has a hope of winning a match this can return. But we must consider WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. A potential future rivalry is no reason to keep this article, for all we know the new team will fold due to lack of interest before a notable rivalry exists. There will be no more matches this season for the rivalry to gain any additional coverage so no more references will be made.

It is non-notable, and exists only as AFL marketing spam. There is no prospect of the rivalry becoming notable in the near future. The article must be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is a clearly notable event that has been WP:POINTily nominated along with a bunch of other AFL rivalry games in retaliation to a not yet played association football game being deleted - Sydney Derby (A-League)- The-Pope (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - The article doesn't currently show how it meets WP:NRIVALRY (let alone WP:GNG) - only two of the references are independent and only one of these addresses the rivalry. Hack (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Clearly a POINTy nomination, but I do have concern that that the rivalry is barely matured to be article-worthy just yet. Moondyne (talk) 01:17, 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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance (Firefly)

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

Deprodded without comment. No notability asserted out of universe. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Oh my god, it's grotesque! Oh, and there's something in a jar. Unless significant sources can be presented, it doesn't have any real world notability. It's certainly an interesting read, but it's unsourced, gives no real world context, and fails WP:GNG. It would probably be more appropriate here (although they're already essentially the same content, so unless I'm missing something, there's not even really anything to "rescue" from this article). - Sudo Ghost 16:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While the sources that I found and the ones that were inititally in the article were not adequate (to me), it seems more have been added since then, and after looking through them, I think it is notable enough for a standalone article (although stronger sources certainly wouldn't hurt). - Sudo Ghost 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is discussed in detail in sources such as this, that and more. It therefore passes the WP:GNG and the complaints of the nomination are just a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't don't seem to be significant coverage, the first two have minimal mentions of the Alliance and only within in the context of the plot at a whole; this would support information in the main Firefly (TV series) article but doesn't seem to warrant a separate article. There's very little in those sources to draw from; they would made good sources for supporting a brief summary in the main article, but not much else. - Sudo Ghost 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources fully meet the guidance of WP:SIGCOV. The content obviously relates to other aspects of the show too but also draws parallels with real-world entities such as the real USA. As a separate article, the topic is comparable with Galactic Empire (Star Wars), Terran Federation (Blake's 7), United Federation of Planets, Instrumentality of Mankind and numerous other SF galactic empires. These are all separate articles and so there is nothing especially wrong about this topic being treated in this way too. Warden (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is comparable, but the sources are not. Nobody is saying it's not a valid topic and the fact that there are similar articles doesn't mean that this one should exist on that merit alone. The coverage in those sources are not significant enough to warrant a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 18:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in this case are superior to those other cases. That's because there is an extensive critical literature which we can draw from. Warden (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:OTHERSTUFF to show why these sources are better than other articles doesn't factor into an article being kept when the article fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources are either independent and not significant coverage, or significant coverage and non-independent. Sources have to be significant coverage, independent, reliable, and third-party, not "best 3 out of 4". - Sudo Ghost 18:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is just a guideline which is supposed to summarise actual practise. Our actual practise is clearly to maintain articles at this level because we don't just have the four examples I listed, we have dozens of them. Likewise, the sources listed already are quite adequate but that doesn't mean that's all. As another example, the book Investigating Firefly and Serenity contains an entire chapter about this topic: "The Alliance Isn't Some Evil Empire". Or we might look at The Alliance's War on Science in Serenity Found. Or Cultural Geography in Outer Space: East Meets West in Firefly and Serenity, and so on. And even if all those sources didn't support a great deal of content then all we'd do is just merge back up into some more general article like Firefly (TV series), Firefly media franchise or galactic empire. There isn't any kind of case for deletion. Warden (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above. - Sudo Ghost 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because what the article is is someone who watches the show telling us about it. Borock (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have read the article which makes multiple references to Joss Whedon's views and creative intentions. This is not material which is derived simply from watching the show but instead corresponds to the material found in the numerous sources such as the ones I cite above. Warden (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added in one reference to a book. To understand this notable series you need to understand all the important aspects of it. And you can find ample coverage of it. Dream Focus 20:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...WP:ITSIMPORTANT then? The primary article for Firefly is more than capable of describing this aspect; the lack of significant reliable sources shows it's not as critical as all that. A brief non-significant and non-independent mention in a book does not warrant a separate article. - Sudo Ghost 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and WP:Original research based on observation of the plot. For this kind of fictional element, I doubt there's much real-world information to start with to sustain the in-universe info for a spinout article (this organisation can't be produced, designed, or received, and the creator's inspiration for this certainly fits in the main article without this extra article). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Colonel and Dream. Several sources with out of universe analyses have been added. Even the in-universe information is of considerable encyclopaedic and cultural value. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep oh look! It's the same set of voices as the Browncoat and Reaver (Firefly) AfD debates. On both sides, pretty much. And just like those debates, this one is characterized by those arguing for keeping the article having plenty of adequate sources to meet the GNG. BUT, even if it weren't so, the content could clearly be merged to another Firefly or Serenity article, per WP:ATD: just because the article was not adequately sourced when the AfD was started does not mean that any of this content is un-sourceable. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rant about editors (an inaccurate one at that), not a keep rationale. WP:GNG requies significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Sudo Ghost 03:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to be less subtle? OK: it meets the GNG through the non-trivial independent reliable sources listed above. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hastily gathering any source that happens to use the word "Alliance" in it is not significant coverage, and interviews are not independent sources. None of those sources show notability, but rather reinforce the fact that it belongs in the main article, not as a standalone. Verifiabile does not mean notable. - Sudo Ghost 18:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC) See my reply above) - Sudo Ghost 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the Alliance isn't the main topic of the sources, I think they provide more than trivial mentions, which satisfies the "significant coverage" criterion in the WP:GNG. I agree that the article is written in primarily an in-universe style, but it should be expanded or re-written to emphasize the real-world perspective, not deleted. Braincricket (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per Warden. CallawayRox (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden & Dream. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:12, 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 retracted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier de La Chevalerie

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

Likely hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith de La Chevalerie and parallel deletion discussion on fr-wp. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This person definitely existed and was Chief of Staff of Charles de Gaulle, amongst other things. See Google books and charles-de-gaulle.org. The other article on his sister Edith de La Chevalerie is probably not a hoax but is completely unverifiable. Voceditenore (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Okay, retracted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 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} 20:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pentrex

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

Reason - not notable. - contested PROD but not solid evidence of why prod was contested actually provided. Article currently contains a single review by Wisconsin Bookwatch as the only coverage. Other references are self-sources, or from sources connected with the title. Found no evidence for notability Oranjblud (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although not currently published, notability is not temporary. Having said that, this did pass Notability guidelines for media. I say it's a weak keep because it may be better to merge. But I am against outright deletion. Nom has also PRODded and put to AfD basically every article on railfan magazines, which I don't understand. Smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is "this did pass Notability guidelines for media" - it didn't - if it did please WP:VERIFY what you claim.Oranjblud (talk) 18:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. 1) [The medium] have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history. This is one of the criteria. Notability is not temporary. Many of these magazines had been around for years before going either out-of-business or sold;. 2) Are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets. This is one I am unsure about. I'm not a railfan, and it's niche subject matter. But, I wouldn't say it's trivial. But, it is a recognized hobby, following around trains and photographing them. I'm only suggesting that these deletions be discussed to reach a concensus, rather than being unilaterally deleted based on one persons viewpoint.Roodog2k (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can claim 'historic' that for anything over ten years old - the guidelines ask for verifiable sources that show it "served some historic purpose". Again ,what you consider trivia/not trivia is subjective - moreover it doesn't help the article - the only thing that helps/improves the article is content/verifyable sources. Again WP:VERIFY - specifically see Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals "Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:" - if reliable sources cannot be found the obvious assumption to make is that it is not objectively notable.Oranjblud (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google scholar search, found a handful of references (about 20) that reference this. When you PRODded the article and nominated it for deletion, did you WP:BEFORE? Roodog2k (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely - 42 articles were PRODded in less than one hour. 85 seconds per article isn't enough. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POINTY nomination. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the lack of a link to the Highbeam article was put forth as a reason to delete the article, let me give it here: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-164830594.html (the full text is however also available online for free elsewhere, so I decided to link that instead in the reference). The Midwest Book Review seems to be a organization which does not accept paid reviews, so that publication can be regarded as an independent source. Also, in the following year, another of its publications stated that "Pentrex is the leading producer of railroading DVDs". Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:47, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Kerdiles

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Played in a world championships and won it and is in the NCAA which according to WP:HOCKEY is within the groups taskforce so must be notable Seasider91 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:NHOCKEY which is the notability required of a player. You will see he had to play in the senior world championships to be considered notable. He played in the under 17 and under 18 world championships. As for the NCAA it specifically mentions that just playing in the NCAA is not sufficient for notability. -DJSasso (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. The U-17 and U-18 championships aren't even the highest level tournament for junior players, let alone highest in hockey. It appears the article was created on the basis of the player being a top prospect for the 2012 draft, but that reading of the crystal ball did not come to pass. Reso lute 16:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of two hockey-related deleted prods very quietly recreated, and I can't imagine why; what notability criteria, the GNG included, did the admin in question fancy this subject meets? Ravenswing 19:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. Unless there is an overriding reason not to restore (i.e.: copyvio), any contested PROD is restored on request. The restoring admin made no value judgement on notability in doing so. Reso lute 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he does. Patken4 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought I was going to !vote delete, but I found more coverage than I expected: [25], [26], [27] and an ESPN story I can't access now. It may not be quite enough to meet GNG, but enough to put me on the fence. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator - Please consider Bundling AfD's as you nominated four articles on Ice Hockey players within 4 minutes, to make it easier for those participating in the discussion it may be helpful to bundle all of them together into a single nomination. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It generally makes it easier on those participating to have them separate. Especially in cases like this where they were disputed prods. -DJSasso (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of AfDs are disputed PRODs. Most of your AfDs have got plenty of input so far but in some cases where people list separately where they could have been bundled, one AfD could receive alot of input whereas another receives little & is therefore relisted unnecessarily so. Anyway I was just saying to consider it, not implying you must. Regards. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I have found bundled Afds often result in no consensus far more often than individual listings because people get caught up in the fact that not every subject listed has circumstances that are exactly the same. I only bundle when it is clear cut that the outcome for all of them must be the same. This is rarely the case with human subjects, especially athletes. So in general I find I get better input when they are separate than together. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fare enough just a matter of opinion. Association football players are often bundled together without a problem anyway thanks for the response, I think we'll leave it at that no need to distract from the real topic under discussion. Happy editing ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the subjects of these nominations has a different level of coverage and other different circumstances in terms of awards or experience, which in some cases could make a difference in whether the article is kept or deleted. So nominating separately was the most appropriate approach. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:41, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniil Zharkov

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently the Russian Minor hockey league is fully professional so therefore this player has played professional Ice hockeySeasider91 (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian minor hockey league is not fully professional. And even if it was per WP:NHOCKEY he would have to play 100 games in it to meet the requirement of a minor hockey league. -DJSasso (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NHOCKEY. I would also note that the Minor Hockey League is a junior league, not a professional one. You are confusing it with the Russian Minor League. Reso lute 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he does. Patken4 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY and I am not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I would be happy to change my !vote if someone can present (possibly non-English) sources. Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colton Sissons

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays in Major junior league and plenty of 3rd party coverage Seasider91 (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NHOCKEY to quote "Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements". Only routine trivial coverage is available. -DJSasso (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NHOCKEY. Article creation appeared to be a result of his being considered a top prospect for the 2012 draft. But, as he was not selected in the first round and there is no indication of in depth coverage sufficient to meet GNG. Reso lute 16:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he does. Patken4 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - I haven't searched very hard for sources, but sources are harder to come by than expected. The best I found are [28] and [29], which is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 21:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article can always be recreated if and when he makes it to the NHL, but merely being eligible for the NHL draft while playing at the major junior level is not a sufficient claim of notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 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 keep. An athlete does not need to meet a sports-specific guideline if he can simply meet GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Thrower

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

Non-notable junior hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Play's in major competition Seasider91 (talk) 15:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What major competition that meets WP:NHOCKEY would that be? He hasn't played a game in the NHL. Hasn't played 100 games in a minor professional league. He is a junior player who doesn't yet meet the notability requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Appears that article was created in anticipation of his being a first round selection in the 2012 draft, but that never happened. Reso lute 16:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of two hockey-related deleted prods very quietly recreated, and I can't imagine why; what notability criteria, the GNG included, did the admin in question fancy this subject meets? Ravenswing 19:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prods are recreated immediately upon being contested unless there is a copyvio or blp vio so that isn't such a big deal. However, it would have been nice of the restorer to have let the person who did the prod know it was restored but it isn't required. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he does. Patken4 (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps because he was expected by some at least to be a 1st round pick, he has racked up significant coverage, enough in my opinion to meet WP:GNG, e.g., The Hockey News, NHL.com, Vancouver Sun (and others), Squamish Chief (ok, that's pretty local so doesn't count for a lot), Yahoo!, Canoe, a more minor item from Hockey News. Some of this coverage is from the draft, but more than many draftees get, while much of the coverage precedes the draft. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG per: [30], [31], [32]. As such, this person warrants a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ample of reliable sources are available, covering the subject. Easily passes WP:GNG. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article can always be recreated if and when he makes it to the NHL, but merely being eligible for the NHL draft while playing at the major junior level is not a sufficient claim of notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting keeping just because he was eligible for the NHL draft. The reasons for keeping have been based on having significant coverage in independent sources - more than a run-of-the-mill draft eligible player - and thus meeting WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 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. Sandstein 16:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edith de La Chevalerie

Avlor Landić de Hazelrof (AfD discussion) led me to fr:Discussion:Avlor Landić de Hazelrof/Suppression which led to fr:Discussion:Édith de La Chevalerie/Suppression which led to this. BLP proposed deletion was contested on the grounds that the article has sources. It actually doesn't. It has citations. I can find no evidence that the first book cited has anything to do with this person. The second citation appears to be complete fakery. I cannot even find a catalogue listing for such an author. As pointed out on the French Wikipedia, this, which might look like an alternative source at first glance, can only possibly be fiction, as people have pointed out in its comments. And no, I haven't turned up anything myself. This article is unverifiable, and part of a multiple-wiki pattern of hoaxery. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that I've also nominated Xavier de La Chevalerie, by the same contributor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- fr:Discussion:Xavier de La Chevalerie/Suppression and what I found whilst researching this are why I didn't nominate that article for deletion as well. I found that person documented. I could probably source two, possibly three, paragraphs there. Although I don't trust the content there that I cannot source. As the French Wikipedians have noted, fact and fiction have been mixed in this group of articles, in particular in that one. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have completely re-written the Xavier de La Chevalerie article 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) 11:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't even need the inspiration of the merciless wielding of the sword of verifiability that is going on over at the French Wikipedia, either. You've saved me some work. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on grounds of un-verifiablity and non-notability. Note that the person claimed to be her brother, Xavier de La Chevalerie, definitely was a real person and was Chief of Staff of Charles de Gaulle, amongst other things. See Google books and charles-de-gaulle.org. However, the only source for this one is a somewhat embellished memoire on a geneology site by one of her family members. Even if the gist of the story is true, her only claim to fame is that she was a passenger on a ship sunk during World War II and died at the age of 22 before she could do anything of note. A personal tragedy but not a notable one. Voceditenore (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since Xavier de La Chevalerie is mentioned here, it is noteworthy to mention that Xavier de La Chevalerie was nominated for deletion by Fut.Perf., the same administrator who also closed that discussion within few hours of his nomination (by retracting)[33]. See also Xavier's talk page : "This article's AfD". Tamsier (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there appears to be insufficient reliable sources where the subject has received significant coverage for the subject to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't turn up anything reliable either. Mcewan (talk) 16:13, 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 Nicki Minaj discography (non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj mixtapes

Sucka Free (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Playtime Is Over (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Delete - Non-notable music releases that fail WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG because of a lack of verifiable, reliable or independent sources. SplashScreen (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Both are from early in her career and didn't get much detailed press coverage. There's only passing mentions for Playtime (e.g. [34] and more general bios); there's a bit more coverage for Sucka Free e.g. [35] but still not really enough online for an independent article. However, there are various books about Minaj of varying quality, of which this is the most reliable-looking so there may be more content elsewhere. But merge/redirect is the usual action for non-notable recordings by notable artists. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Cola's reasoning. Also: is this actually a "[[:mixtape" as that term is commonly understood? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:57, 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. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Katsetis

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

Recreated article after expired PROD. Concern was "Non-notable youth player who has never appeared in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.". Since the original article was deleted (September 2011) nothing changed – the concern is still valid. He has not debuted in the Greek Superleague (or any other fully professional league) and coverage on him is routine. – Kosm1 fent 11:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 11:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league and has not received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete as above. Heading to WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 13:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 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, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 08:58, 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 Lady Gaga. Many of the "keep" !votes are weak, and those that actually make a point have not provided sources that 1) are independent; 2) offer significant coverage; and 3) focus on the foundation itself as opposed to just "some project by Lady Gaga." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born This Way Foundation

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}}.

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Swifty (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

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

Delete - fails WP:CORP. This article only contains information about one launch event for the said foundation, and not of anything that it has substantially done; WP:CORP states that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability". Of the article's sources, all are in relation to the activities of Lady Gaga and focus solely on the launch; this fails WP:ORGSIG and WP:CORPDEPTH as one WP:EVENT with little WP:EFFECT. As there is currently no evidence (from from verifiable, reliable or independent sources) that the organisation will partake in any notable events in the future, this article also breaks WP:CRYSTAL. Merge !votes are irrelevant as the information is already detailed here. SplashScreen (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the level of international press interest, and the recent launch of Born Brave groups demonstrating that this is more than one event or a PR stunt without social impact. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete, that is, a redirect to the appropriate subhead in Lady Gaga's entry seems right at this stage, though a little merge work is in order despite what SplashScreen says. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep due to notability, especially in the worldwide media. This article can only grow, everything for it is easily verifiable and it's just so notable worldwide it has to be kept. Thanks Jenova20 14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have another rationale besides "It's notable (WP:ASSERTN) worldwide (WP:LOCALFAME, WP:FARAWAY and WP:BIG) because the article can grow (WP:CRYSTAL)"? SplashScreen (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than it being created by Lady Gaga, consistently voted one of the most powerful women in the world by influence, opened by many notable celebrities and gaining multiple press releases in the worldwide media? I fail to see WP:CRYSTAL standing up to scrutiny there unless that was at my comment? Thanks Jenova20 15:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And notability is not inherited. Not everything Lady Gaga does is notable just because its Lady Gaga that does it. SplashScreen (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't involve just Lady Gaga though, and their work is ongoing and still gaining media attention. I have no doubt this article will keep growing at all, not even 1% doubt Splashscreen. Thanks and have a nice day/evening Jenova20 16:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But your doubts, or lack thereof, mean absolutely nothing because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We are not in the business of keeping pages here in the vein hope that one day, something might just become notable. SplashScreen (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However we do keep articles where there is a realistic expectation of improvement. The original nomination claims that the "article only contains information about one launch event for the said foundation", this is now untrue as today I extended the article with a simple Google News search to show that there have been events in recent months with international interest. The nomination states "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" and yet the international sources I have added are specific, with articles about the foundation rather than incidental coverage in articles about Lady Gaga. If I can address these issues on the same day as this nomination is created, most readers will probably start to think that it is realistic to expect further improvements to sourcing and content in the near future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These "improvements" just aren't good enough. The sentence about the BTWF partnering up with Viacom is sourced by the foundation and Viacom themselves - no coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources. The sentence on the "poster campaign" is, again, solely sourced by the BTWF - no coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources. The three pillars of the foundation are copied and pasted from the BTWF website - no coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources. This article fails WP:CORP and should be deleted. SplashScreen (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also added information about a poster campaign they did a while back, which i found easily. The calls for this article to be deleted by WP:CRYSTAL were done with no research into how notable the topic is. Even Google results list shitloads that could be used to update the article. Thanks Jenova20 17:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your edits indicate that the "poster campaign" has not received coverage from multiple verifiable, reliable or independent sources needed to pass the WP:GNG and WP:CORP - a trivial mention in one article does not count. See also WP:GOOGLEHITS. SplashScreen (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you still read the article and claim it's not notable after recent additions? It is deplorable to try and delete an article with the notability card without even looking into what information is available on the subject Splashscreen and to stick to that argument rather than try and update the article. Quoting policies earns no respect either since you're trying to twist what i say. Google hits show lots of information that can be used to update the article. I never once said Google hits alone showed notability and also editing your comments after i have replied to them is an unfair way to argue. It shows you have no intent on listening to an argument and you have motivation to have the article deleted against all opposition, however realistic their argument Jenova20 19:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have WP:PLEASEDONT. And I can't recall purposely editing my comments after you have responded to them - could you provide me with a diff link? SplashScreen (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here if you wanted to show your argument has merit you have failed Splashscreen and i have good reason to bring this up with my mentor to see his opinion. Jenova20 19:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken; that was my reply to User:Fæ, as indicated in the formatting. Now, where did I change my comments to you after you had responded to it? SplashScreen (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (roughly per Bmclaughlin9). As an aside: save for the largest foundations (I've been thinking about creating an article on the Reiner Foundation) it can be hard to get much in the way of in-depth third party coverage that's more meaningful than the creation announcements we have. At present there's so little to say that I feel the material would benefit from unified coverage. I don't think it's a certainty that there will be a lot more coverage going forward, although it is my guess that there will be. In my view, a separate article will become viable at some point if and when that happens. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Fæ and WP:BEFORE. The nominator really must start looking at the alternatives (which are required to be done) before putting up articles for deletion. Statυs (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE is not a rationale to keep or delete an article. SplashScreen (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. It's what needs to be done before someone can even nominate an article for deletion. Therefore, this, and almost all of your nominations are invalid. Statυs (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you imagine this to be the case, I imagine the correct procedure is to alert some administrators and suggest that this, and all my other AfD nominations, be speedily closed. I guarantee that this will not happen. SplashScreen (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Fæ, Jenova20 and Status. The organization has gained worldwide attention and will continue to gain news coverage in everything it does due to the nature of the organization and Lady Gaga being the founder. The article can and will be improved and it doesn't qualify for deletion given those reasons. There are clear alternatives to deleting, maybe redirecting and merging to Lady Gaga#Born This Way Foundation or allowing the article to be improved which is preferrable. – ツ Teammm ^{(talk · email)} 23:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation is not inherently notable simple because Lady Gaga is the head honcho. The notion that it "will continue to gain news coverage in everything it does" is pure WP:SPECULATION. Asking for more time to work on the article is pure WP:MERCY. Give me strength... SplashScreen (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing it will not gain more attention is also speculation and unsourced since there is much to use to improve the article. I would argue against a merge if possible as the Lady Gaga articles is already huge and this article has a fair bit to be addded anyway. Asking for more time to work on the article is also more preferrable than trying to delete it without doing a proper check on notability as you should have done before. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova, you still haven't backed up your earlier allegation that I'd been editing comments after you'd replied to them? SplashScreen (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superstrong keep. Viacom was announced as the BTW Foundation's lead media partner back in May,[36][37] and most recently the foundation has announced what its plans are for this summer.[38][39]. Nora lives (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops! I see the article now includes this information already. Nora lives (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep keep per jenova Pass a Method talk 05:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I believe that people should give the page a chance. It does have information and not all pages have to have a major amount of information to be creditable. If there is sources and a good deal that make the page a Start-class then it should be left alone and allowed to grow. Swifty*^talk 05:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this user was directed to this page through WP:CANVASS [40]. SplashScreen (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't invited to this page, i never once asked him or intended for him to vote, and as Swifty's page shows i asked him to help do up the article. ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Jenova20, this seems fine to me and in accordance with CANVASS which includes "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who ... are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed." I don't see anything here for a closing admin to be worried about. --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... I didn't even notice that. LMFAO! Statυs (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jenovo. A lot of work is done on the article and there are enough sources to establish notability. →TSU ^tp* 06:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As has been mentioned, this is not a competition of who can get WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. SplashScreen (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at what you just linked to? Firstly, the above user didn't list any sources. And secondly, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES shows linking to Google Books searches. Statυs (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never insinuated that the user themselves had listed sources, but they supporting to keep the article on the facile basis that there are "lots of sources" in existence - the argument is one of the same. And what that page links to in its random examples is irrelevant. You need read beyond the layman's terms and look at the substance of the substance - "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions". SplashScreen (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you clearly didn't read the link you pointed to. It is not "one of the same". He stated the article has been expanded. That is no way in violation of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, which is alternatively known as WP:SOURCESEARCH (showing a search of references). Statυs (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"there are enough sources" was an argument backed up by the addition of feeble sources into the main article. WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says "Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions". SplashScreen (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me towards the sources in the article that contain only "trivial mentions". Maybe my eyes are deceiving me, but every title of the references in the article seem to have the foundation's name in it. Statυs (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having or not having something's name in the article's title is not indicative of whether or not it contains trivial mentions. SplashScreen (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SplashScreen, please do not feel obliged to reply to every opinion to keep on this page. If you wish to accuse other editors of canvassing, I suggest you ask for help on a suitable noticeboard, however please carefully read Canvassing which includes the statement "The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion" under "Appropriate notification" and I suggest you take even more care in considering Refactoring talk pages before striking the comments of other contributors to this discussion. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fæ. If you have an issue with conversations occurring on AfD pages (which is what AfD is for, funnily enough), I suggest you remove your above comment and read WP:IRONY. SplashScreen (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my long term work with Wikimedia, you might expect me to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and almost all of the essays that people are fond of quoting shortcuts to. It is quite normal to have the process of the AFD discussed to some extent in the AFD (hence people will make reference to AFD process such as Nominating an article(s) for deletion, as they have above). I agree that your conduct is another matter, so I shall stick to raising it as an issue elsewhere as you are suggesting and I encourage other contributors here to do similar rather than taking this AFD further off topic. As for my comment, it seems valid, so I'm not in a rush to remove it. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lady Gaga. I think this will most likely be suitable for an independent article eventually, but for now the coverage is primarily limited to the launch of the group and little more. Deleting it seems a tad overzealous.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant discussion in reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated before the article can only grow, it has reliable sources and Gaga's article is already big enough there's no need to merge it and make it bigger. Tay ^(uhoh) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as noted by nominator this organization does not have significant coverage and fails WP:CORP. Claims by "Keep" voters that "the article can only grow" and "will continue to gain news coverage" are not valid rationales for keeping the article. We need the coverage today. Not tomorrow, not next week. Should more coverage materialize the article can be recreated. But for now: let's delete this and get it off the server. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gaga's page -- I don't see enough independent sourcing at this point. Shouldn't delete it outright, though, because it's quite likely to improve in notability with time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Lionel's comment is considerably similar to the reasoning at WP:TOOSOON. We are spilling too many notability guidelines out in this discussion. If its too soon for an article to be considered because of the lack of secondary sources, and the knowledge that reliable coverage can become available in the future, then simply merge it with Lady Gaga until it is necessary to create an article out of it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is fine, there's already adequate information to show that in the article. Secondly a merge to the Lady Gaga article would be coatrackish since we'd lose a lot of the information in the article and then there'd be no point in having merged it. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^(email) 22:35, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Vaudevillains

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

Doesn't meet WP:N, external sources are either Myspace links or broken, GoogleNews isn't coming up with anything significant. Ænea ♫ ^♪ 01:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 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} 02:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see a criterion of WP:MUSIC that's met by this group; no reliable sources and although notability is thoroughly asserted, none seems present in Wikipedian terms. Ubelowme (talk) 14:34, 28 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)} 10:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 16:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue automation

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

Neologism with no claim to notability, possibly promotional intent (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Valid references are cited. Article supports much more than a trivial mention as per WP:GNG. JamesVanc (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — JamesVanc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - the references do not appear to be reliable sources. Surely there could be better citations if it were notable. The "becoming" mention in the lead is akin to the up and coming. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (if some changes are made) – I was asked by someone who wants to delete this article to review its validity. I am in the marketing automation space and can confirm that revenue automation is very much talked about in the space. My only suggestion is the article should have more substance. I suggest outlining the steps to get a better understanding of the actual methodology. I also agree with Bearian’s “becoming” comment. The article, if updated and elaborated upon, is useful particularly to those people researching methodologies related to marketing automation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieredd (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Jamieredd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Then you'll be able to cite those sources that you say discuss this subject in depth. Everything else that you've said has no bearing upon deletion policy. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 5 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)} 10:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is gibberish. After reading this article, I have no idea what revenue automation means. It is apparently some sort of marketing jargon and/or promotional language. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the two keep commenters above are new accounts, created for purposes of this article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Personal attacks RE: WP:PA are not acceptable. Comments should be made on the article. One's ability to comprehend an article is a moot point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My request for sources a few days ago was met with nothing, and the common diversionary smokescreen about nonexistent personal attacks that is always a bad sign was employed, so I went looking. It turns out that this article is yet another advertisement in disguise. My searches for sources didn't turn up anything that can be relied upon documenting a concept by this name. Reading the first source cited in the article, I find that it's actually about marketing automation. But — Aha! — it mentions a company whose name is Revenue Automation. And that company's director of marketing is the author of the other source cited in the article. So we have one purported source that (when one actually reads it) isn't about the subject, and another source that isn't independent of the subject, and a subject that's a company name disguised as a supposedly novel idea. This is an encyclopaedia, not an advertising billboard. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reading the above, I immediately wanted to change my initial position regarding the article. I then went to confirm if the above was true but found the first source references Revenue Automation as a methodology in paragraph three, and after a quick search online I found that the company Revenue Automation launched a methodology called Revenue Automation http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/3/prweb9290834.htm (Title: Revenue Automation Defined to Enhance Marketing Automation Initiatives). Therefore the first source is about Revenue Automation and the fact a company launched a methodology mirroring its own name is not relevant. Where is the author of this article? Out of curiosity, can they contribute to this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The author of this article is User:Whitekayak (contributions). The history of this contributor looks very suspicious and leads me to wonder if this may be a hijacked account. The author originally contributed for only about three weeks in 2008 and then stopped contributing. During that time he/she contributed mostly articles about Canada, Ottawa, and Quebec. Suddenly, in May 2012, the user reappeared and began contributing articles exclusively concerned with marketing and advertising, a definite break in editing style. Not impossible, but seems unlikely. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Does the author automatically get notified when any of us make comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.24.239 (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the author does not get notification of comments. The nominator should notify the author when the article is nominated for AFD, which was done. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The first source is about marketing automation. It says so, 15 times in a mere 5 paragraphs. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No – wrong again. The first source is about Revenue Automation and B2C Marketing Automation. You can find it in the title of the article itself: “Revenue Automation and B2C Marketing Automation: the Death of Email Marketing.” A title is a great way to find out what an article is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Company name and marketing automation. Yes, even the title tells us that the source is about marketing automation, although I contend that the great way to find out what sources about is to read them. 15 times, 5 paragraphs. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reading it is a great idea. The article is talking about marketing automation (mentioned many times) and a methodology called Revenue Automation: "We’re following an emerging marketing methodology called Revenue Automation forged by a B2C marketing automation agency in Canada." (Third paragraph: http://blog.demandmetric.com/2012/06/26/revenue-automation-and-b2c-marketing-automation-the-death-of-email-marketing/). Reading is so much fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesVanc (talk • contribs) 19:18, 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. per WP:SNOW. Author has been spamming hoaxes. —SpacemanSpiff 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endrendrum Kaadhal

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

WP:CRYSTAL applies. Future film being promoted by one of its cast. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – Imaginative film. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, once there is something concrete about the movie the article may be justified. Note - article has previously been deleted CSD#A1. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Editor 2050 (talk) 12:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this speedily deleted. This whole process has just given this idiotic editor to turn up with an IP address and increase his five minutes of fame by adding more nonsense to an already fake article. Editor 2050 (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of references -Anbu121 (talk me) 09:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, and for the fact the content is simply, original research. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 08:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. original research. Some bored editor just using his imagination. Johannes003 (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, probably a real movie being promoted by some kid who has got himself a small part in it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you know about Tamil cinema, but not in 100 years such a film would ever materialize! This is not a real film and you will never be able to find even a single source mentioning about this film, simply because it does not exist. The entire article is pure fantasy, fake! You can believe me and all other editors who have commented previously. Moreover, it's not the first time this certain editor is doing this, he has created numerous of such articles for his imaginative films. And all have been successfully deleted, of course. Johannes003 (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking verifiability and thus WP:NF. Not wishing to presume bad faith, perhaps the overzealous author was mistaken and intended it be an article for Endrendrum Punnagai (2012).[41] or perhaps he erred and intended it to be an article for the existing 1999 film Endrendrum Kaadhal by Manoj Bhatnagar?[42] And we do understand that Englifications of Tamil words often give us many mis-spellings. Let issues of sourcing be addressed before any return is considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:36, 7 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. G5'd The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 400 of Iran's al-Quds Force

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

Article on an alleged organization engaged in state terrorism, sourced only to a single sensationalist news report from March of this year, citing allegations from anonymous intelligence sources. These claims seem to have not been taken up by any other serious news outlet. Can't find any other coverage of the story. Nevertheless, the existence of this organization is being claimed as a fact in our article. This would fall under "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and it certainly fails that criterion.

Procedural note: it has been clearly established that the creator of the article has subsequently been socking massively, and most of the accounts involved in writing this article have been socks. What's not quite clear at present is whether the initial sockmaster was himself a sock of another long-banned user (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amir.Hossein.7055), and hence already violating a ban at the time he first created this. If that connection is confirmed, the article will be G5'd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The single reference claims to have received all his information from "Several international intelligence sources" who are never identified. A Google search of Unit 400 al-Quds Force returns only this story and mirrors of this article. If this was an actual special forces/intelligence unit (or a credible rumour of such a unit), I'd expect to see lots of follow-up reporting from other media outlets as well as papers from academics who specialise on Middle Eastern security issues. As such I don't think that WP:V or WP:N is met here. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with both reasonings given before me, lack of sources for redflag statements, article created and edited mostly by an abusive editor with a very clear agenda. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 11:01, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just Basic

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

No reliable source available to prove notability. It is just a 'yet another basic'. Just BASIC is just a 'yet another basic'. It lacks reliable sources to prove notability. All what I found was it was based upon a free conforums hosting forum- http://justbasic.conforums.com and a free wikispace wiki http://justbasic.wikispaces.com/ . But no reliable sources were present to prove its notability. I also checked the language. It have no stuff to ever become notable. It was last updated in 2004, is very slow, have very limited features, etc... But keeping that aside... It is not a notable programming language and should be deleted. Leodescal (talk) 08:31, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 08:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found the language's website, a user-content generated wiki, some videos, some pictures on Flickr. and a brief "download this" link on CNET. None of which, unfortunately are reliable sources to establish notability. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As stated earlier, it is an just for advertisement of Just Basic and try to look grander by a very unknown '1 man' company. It don't have any reliable sources to prove notability. -Leodescal (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Just BASIC is really a "freeware" version of Liberty BASIC. So rather than complete deletion, I think a merge would be a better option. 101.98.148.34 (talk) 18:45, 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 keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyllenhaal family

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

This article cites no sources, constituting OR. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The term "original research" is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Did you take a look to see if there were any sources about this information? The external links may be what is used in the article (confusing it with references), but I can't read Swedish, so I wouldn't know. Statυs (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what original research is, but thanks. I too don't speak Swedish, so I don't know if the external links back up the article. Sorry about that sounding sarcastic (long day), TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The externals links seem to date back to when the article was first created. The information began to be added in May 2010. Can't really confirm if it was added from the external links or not. How about making a request to find someone who speaks Swedish to find out? Statυs (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Do you happen to know a user who can understand the language? TRLIJC19 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. How about making a request on Wikipedia talk:Swedish Wikipedians' notice board (Just went on a search and found this). Statυs (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can do Swedish.

Ref 1) www.gyllenhaal.org is in English so reading shouldn't be a problem, but it seems to be a family-edited source so not independent. However it could be used with care for non-contentious facts.

Ref 2) the Nordisk familjebok is a reliable encyclopedia (good RS) so we can use any facts from there; it lists (as any English reader can see) Leonard G, entomolog(ist), Karl Henrik G, nobleman and civil servant; Lars Herman G, nobleman and minister of justice. And obviously there are facts and dates for each of these. Please let me know what exactly you'd like me to do with the data, it could take a few hours of work.

Ref 3) similarly the Svenskt biografiskt handlexicon is a reliable source (like DNB). As people can see, it covers Leonard G and Carl Henrik G again - it seems that Carl = Karl by the way. Again, if you want me to trawl through these sources, I'll do so but precise direction for the work would be appreciated.

These two sources are certainly enough to establish that the Gyllenhaal family is notable, indeed distinguished, with at least LG and CHG included. And the recent family members Maggie and Jake are undoubtedly notable, there are many RS available for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Matilda Gyllenhaal has an entry in both NF and SBH, and Lars Herman is also listed in NF - ([43] and [44]). --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~in some form, whether as articles on~~given the number of the notable individuals in this notable ~~or as a~~ family, per the above notes, and the additional facts from bonadea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your response. Specifically, can you find any information that is in the references that is stated in the article? We are not sure if someone who can read Swedish took the information from there and placed it in the article. Statυs (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the NF and SBH articles now, and they provide good (and quite similar) coverage of the G family, both describing the family father Nils Gunnarsson Haal and members Leonard, Carl Henrik, Lars Herman and Mat(h)ilda. The material on all later members obviously doesn't come from these venerable sources. I've added citations in the article for these facts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since it appears not to be OR, the only question is notability, and inclusion in two respected encyclopedias is enough to satisfy that requirement. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to articles about individual family members, both Nordisk familjebok and SBH have brief introductory articles about the family itself. In addition to the above-mentioned notable members of the family, Johan Abraham Gyllenhaal has an article in Nationalencyklopedin, which is also a RS. --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:50, 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. Consensus is to retain this as a subarticle about the Firefly (TV series) fandom. A strong minority is in favor of a merger with the "fandom" section of the main article; this can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 09:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Browncoat

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

Dicdef. The fictional meaning is entirely in-universe; the fandom meaning has only two sources that merely name-drop the term, and the rest is primary sources. Delete or merge to Firefly article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article meets WP:V, WP:N. TBran dl ey 06:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you wanna clarify that, or just pour more alphabet soup on me? How does it meet the notability guidelines? How is it verifiable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Note the closing of the earlier AfD, which noted that sufficient RS'es exist. Guess what? They still do. Inexcusable nomination from an editor who should know better, who has been previously counseled on such issues. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What AFD are you reading? The one I saw was just the opposite. Guest9999 pointed out that whatever few sources were dug up were not reliable, just one-off name-drops in the context of something else — for instance, naming them as one of many fandoms present at a con. The other !votes in the AFD were WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE, with no one else even acknowledging the sourcing or lack thereof except for the nominator. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... who uses it? Wired, Wired again, Wired a third time 2 days ago (see WP:WIRED for my thoughts on that), The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (barely a week old...), Huffington Post (again, a bit over a week ago), CNN, USA Today, LA Times... and that's just Google News. Moving on to Google Scholar we have MA thesis, a paper from Australia, an honors college thesis, another student thesis... and the list goes on. Oh, and books? Cult Pop Culture: How the Fringe Became Mainstream, Joss Whedon: Conversations, Serenity Found, and the list goes on and on and on. So yes, you've completely failed to do any research, or have done it so badly that it becomes a WP:COMPETENCE fail, despite being counseled nicely in the recently-closed RfC/U to be more careful with your repeat nominations of previously-kept topics. I'll give you 24 hours to review these links and withdraw your nomination with an apology for your carelessness. Failing that, I really do think it's time for you to be topic banned from AfD. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is obviously a spinoff from the main article Firefly (TV series). If we wanted to consolidate this material then merger would be the way to go, per WP:PRESERVE, and the nomination itself talks of merger. AFD is therefore inappropriate. Note also WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". Warden (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom. So, "Browncoat" is simply a synonym for "Firefly fan", and what the fans did can be summarized neatly in the main article. The in-universe term doesn't help here either; it doesn't matter in the real world. Not enough for a stand-alone article per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom. As an in-universe term it should be a redirect anyway, and as a collective term for the fanbase it would be better placed in the existing article. Fan activities in relation to a franchise are inherently dependent on that franchise. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The fanbase is strong enough that its activity caused a film to be made based on the original series (by a different company), it runs conventions, and the fanbase (Browncoats) has been responsible for an annual charity showing at cities around the world. A feature-length documentary has been made about the fanbase focusing on activities not related to the original television series. Shsilver (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article itself points out, this is more than an in-universe term: it's also used outside the series to distinguish the fanbase, much like Trekkie isn't an in-universe term just because it's derived from the title of the series/films. Maybe the article ought to concentrate on the fans, and mention the other meaning simply as etymology. /Julle (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom - As per Sgeureka/Yunshui views above. Not enough for a stand alone.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs expansion and overhaul. "is a term with two meanings" is a poor opening, as the in-universe use is never going to be a standalone article, but there's plenty of coverage in WP:RS of Firefly fandom to support its own article. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone clamoring for sources — are you going to add them? I'd appreciate that. Otherwise we're right back where we started. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Browncoat. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a process note: WP:V only requires sources to be identified (they have been, above) but not in place. Yes, they should be added, but assuming this is kept, taking it to AFD again because the ID'd sources were not otherwise added would be wrong. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I change to merge, per Logical Fuzz's reasoning above. TBran dl ey 18:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Then possibly merge to Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom. The nomination appears to have the error of being based upon the state of the article rather than the availability of sources. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. The sources cited above by user:Jclemens strongly suggests topic notability, and the information should be PRESERVED rather than blanket-deleted. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Jclemens and Warden and ban Ten Pound Hammer from AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - this is even sillier than it was the first time (and yes, I'm still a Browncoat and disclosing it upfront). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the sources dug up in the last AFD that no one seems to want to add to the article? How much longer do you need?! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jclemens. Ample coverage has been found. Please stop pointless AFD nominations all the time. Look at the overwhelming keep consensus from the previous AFD, sources found and enough to prove it was Notable. [45] Dream Focus 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge if needed to Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom - Sorry, but apart form the SF Chronicle article, I see name-drops of the "the fans call themselves Brownshirts, named after the bla bla..." variety only. Just read through the article at present; very short sections, sparse sentences, almost every one of which is individually cited; that is the hallmark of trying to squeeze too much notability blood from too little stone. This can be summed up i na quick paragraph at the merget target noted above. Nerd chic is all the rage these days (thank you Zooey Deschanel), but there's just not enough out there to put this into Trekkie or Juggalo territory. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Firefly (TV series)#Fandom. One reliable source does not put this on the same footing as Trekkie (sorry, Trekker). Nothing much to merge. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per close of previous AFD. The sources are still valid and the term remains in common use for the fans of the show and the film. DiverScout (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable term with adequate sources describing the "out of universe" context of the term. Article passes WP:GNG. - Sudo Ghost 03:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a dictdef. Maybe the lead should be changed so we use the word rather than mention it: "A Browncoat is a Firefly fan" rather than "'Browncoat' is a word which refers to a Firefly fan". Anyway, I think there's enough significant coverage in reliable sources to support an article on Firefly fandom. Meets WP:GNG. The article needs work, but that's no reason to delete it. Maybe content should be merged from Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom to here. Braincricket (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Firefly (TV_series)#Fandom. Notability within the franchise, but currently not notable on its own. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reaver (Firefly)

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources are primary. No out-of-universe notability established, no secondary sources found. Previous AFD from 2009 withdrawn due to what appear to be unreliable sources and WP:ILIKEIT !votes. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both Firefly (TV series) and Serenity (film) are notable and have reasonably long articles. Since Reavers play an important part in both the TV series and film, it makes sense to move this content to its own page rather than duplicating it in the two already lengthy articles. CodeTheorist (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which does nothing about its notability. "The page is too big" is not an excuse to split off an article if the split-off content is entirely in-universe, unsourced cruft. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much like your misguided nomination of Browncoat, this is a flawed nomination which does not appear to have resulted from any effort to ascertain the notability of the topic. Unlike Browncoat, the Reavers are not as ingrained into the pop-culture dictionary, but they are certainly quite analyzed by those who look at such things: The Psychology of Joss Whedon, a paper at Slayage, The Existential Joss Whedon, and Finding Serenity (The last is snippet view only, but I have the book in case you want me to quote it at more length) So, once again, we have a fatally flawed nomination by an editor who has been gently chided by the community to be more careful with such things... and yet, appears to have not listened. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This fictional element is not notable independently from the show, so in order to make it a spinout topic for length, someone would have to gather, write and add the material to wikipedia. With Firefly no longer on the air, I doubt anyone's up to doing this. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please cite policy or guideline support for your assertion. "Independence" in discussions of notability generally refers to the sources being editorially independent, not the coverage of a fictional element being independent from the fictional work in which it appears. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batman's utility belt. Jclemens (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As advised per WP:N (guideline), "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Reavers (Firefly) is nearly 100% related (i.e. 0% independent) to Firefly, as it doesn't transcend it. There's also WP:NOTINHERITED (essay) highlighting why a wall of keep doesn't help here.– sgeureka ^t•c 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you admit that you're using "independent" in a manner completely independent from the requirement that sourcing be reliable, independent sources? That's fine. Just wouldn't want a keyword-scanning admin to mistake your novel interpretation, which seems to entirely coincidentally use the same words as an actually policy-supported deletion reason, for that policy-supported deletion reason. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requires merging, whether to the movie, the DVD series, or too a single page that covers both. "Reavers have not appeared in many mainstream TV shows, mostly because Firefly was taken off the air by FOX after only 14 episodes. It remains a popular show in SyFy reruns, on YouTube, and in sales of the DVD of the series and the movie Serenity. However, some small communities on the internet have used Reavers in their media." is blatant OR. The authors need to be directed to WP:WAF. Removing the OR, and requiring out-of-universe sourced material will dramatically reduce the content. No need to delete the history, but it is very likely that this will never be more than a redirect. The topic is no more than a literal tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's face it, although Firefly was great, it ran for just ~ 14 eps and had the Reavers in maybe 3 episodes; none of its fictional elements (including Reavers) transcends the show, therefore I doubt this topic passes WP:Notability in itself. As for a spinout article, this article has ONE sentence on production that maybe salvageable for the movie article, but the rest is WP:IN-UNIVERSE information, plot (WP:NOT#PLOT), and WP:Original research based on observation of the plot, so even with stubbification, there should be no stand-alone article per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your doubts seem to be based upon speculation rather than evidence. A brief search of the sources soon turns critical commentary about the role of the reavers as the Indians in the Space Western setting. Warden (talk) 10:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My doubts are based on the state of the article and common sense after 5 years' wiki-work on fiction articles. A fictional element that appears in two episodes of a short-lived TV show and a movie [46]? If that was commonly notable, we'd practicly never AfD a fictional element for nonnotability. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are also featured in their comics, as well as in the book Finding Serenity. Not sure if they are in the role playing game or not. Dream Focus 10:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination claims that all sources are primary and out-of universe. These claims seem to be false in that the article contains a section about the design of this character which is sourced to some discussion of the conception and development of this character by various parties. Note that this nomination is part of a little deletion spree in which three articles were nominated in as many minutes. Note also that there seems to have been no prior activity by the nominator for this topic - no editing, tagging or talk page discussion. One minute seems to be insufficient time for the nominator to read and accurately digest the contents of such an article, never mind all the steps advised by WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 09:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A real-world section consisting of one line (at the point of nomination, it was one sentence of 17 words from the creator as a primary source) hardly makes the nom's point moot. – sgeureka ^t•c
  - It demonstrates that the nomination is false and confirms that almost no time was spent upon it. It is our policy that repeat nominations may be disruptive and that editors may be blocked for this. Warden (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and integrate the scholarly sources cited by Jclemens. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Slayage paper and Finding Serenity provided by Jclemens are enough to pass WP:GNG as significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone clamoring for sources — are you going to add them? I'd appreciate that. Otherwise we're right back where we started. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added three for now, but perhaps someone else can pull more info from them or other sources. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. TBran dl ey 18:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Jclemens and Warden and ban Ten Pound Hammer from AFD. CallawayRox (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He is as ridiculous in his pointless AFD nominations as ever. Dream Focus 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage has been found of them. Dream Focus 19:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've almost AfDed this myself, as it is indeed unsourced except through in-world sources. This is also a long running dispute (ANI etc) between TPH and myself - he has deleted whole categories of notable UK fiction (Redwall, Judge Dredd, Mortal Engines) for being too in-universe in their sourcing. When asked why he didn't act similarly against DC or Marvel topics, he remained silent. So at one level I'm happy to see him going after US titles now as well.

That said though, I still disagree with his whole haste to delete articles on fairly major topics within popular and widely discussed and notable series. Yes, we need further sourcing and we should work towards that. Yet deleting an article like this over such a point flies right in the face of WP:PRESERVE. And yet again, it's TPH who's calling for it. This is why I'd not only keep this article, it's why I'd still like to see community censure and maybe even a topic ban of TPH being "as ridiculous in his pointless AFD nominations as ever". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep per the above. A highly noteable and important topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a very notable topic and has ample coverage, despite its issues. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is suitably referenced and describes a feature of both the Firefly series and central feature of the Serenity film. Copying this content into both articles would result in oversize pages and unnecessary duplication. DiverScout (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: I know it may seem like a lost cause, because of the sheer volume of "keep" !votes. But Wikipedia is not a democracy, and AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE. All but two of the keep comments here are "per above" and/or bald assertions that this is notable without any reliable evidence to WP:verify notability. If we want to evaluate whether this meets the general notability guideline, we need to dig deeper than the plot recaps and in-universe details, and examine what we ACTUALLY have in the way of sourced information:
- Verifying that Joss Whedon and Bernie Wrightson created them. (A fact that is easily covered in the main series article.)
- The analogy that if Firefly is a Western, Reavers are "Injuns".
- A bunch of in-universe detail and plot recap. (Nothing to WP:verify notability.)
That's a real lack of significant coverage if I saw it. So... can we establish notability from any of the sources mentioned by User:Jclemens?
- Used a few times in a 200 page book, every time to recap the series plot.
- Used in a few essays, to recap the series plot. (Keeping in mind that google books has limited view.)
- Used once in a 200 page book to recap the series plot.
Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT#PLOT summaries. There has to be some information to WP:verify notability, a reliable third party who can explain why this is important, and not just a reliable third party who happened to mention them while recapping the plot. It's very telling that the reception section of this article only says "Reavers have not appeared in many mainstream TV shows, mostly because Firefly was taken off the air by FOX after only 14 episodes," which should speak volumes about the lack of notability of this phenomenon outside the series itself. The last thing I'll add is that we already have an excellent plot summary at Serenity (film), if anyone sees any value of sourcing the few statements about Reavers to the sources found by JClemens. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from the WP:GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Unless you're arguing that 1) three or more of the four sources I've already found are so trivial as to not support independent notability, and 2) you have searched for, and failed to find, other sources that would be non-trivial, independent reliable sources, your argument isn't particularly policy-based either--at least, any administrator who relied on it to close against numerical consensus would likely find himself hauled before DRV and chastised for supervoting when so many of your peers have found these sources sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right, that's exactly what I'm arguing. As you summarized from my position, the four sources you've found aren't sufficient to support notability, and I went to the trouble of probing further and encountered the same problems. There's lots of sources about the series itself that might offer a trivial mention of the Reavers. But very little to offer additional information about the Reavers specifically. The trivial mentions are always in the context of a plot summary (which is what Wikipedia is WP:NOT), and nothing to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So let me get this straight: in the world according to Shooterwalker, just because Wikipedia articles on fictional topics are not to be solely plot summaries (which is what WP:NOT#PLOT actually says), then WP:RSes which mention a topic in the context of their plot summary are inappropriate sources to use to reference fictional element articles on Wikipedia that are themselves not solely plot summaries? If so, that's both convoluted and wrong.
      Want another source? Here's a senior thesis from Liberty University of all places. How about a Syllabus covering Firefly/Serenity, BSG, and Lost, which includes an assignment specifically on Reavers? I can keep this up all day--the more you insist that you're looking for sources and not finding them, the more hollow your assertions ring--but I don't have to, because the consensus of Wikipedia editors expressed above is that what I've found already demonstrates notability sufficiently well. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I added the information about Reavers being compared to Indians in old westerns. It's not a lot of information in the article, but the source is quite a bit more in depth than that. The coverage the source provides is significant; in fact, the entire essay is about Reavers. I just added one sentence about it to satisfy the request to add the new sources into the article. There is quite a bit more than can be mined from that essay and added to the article. Same with the Finding Serenity source. I only added a little bit as a way to actually cite the source, but there's more where that came from. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not just me, JClemens. And it's actually quite simple. If you don't have any independent sources that cover any substantial out-of-universe information, then how are you supposed to write something that's more than just a plot summary (see also WP:NOT#PLOT)? How does recapping the plot do anything to WP:verify notability? The easiest way to tell if a fictional spinoff article is notable is to go to the reception section, and see what verified facts are there. Right now, there's nothing. To be fair, Torchiest has at least found the right type of source with the right type of information, but it's so trivial (one source makes the obvious analysis that "the Reaver mythology is different in the film versus the movie") that it does not meet the WP:GNG (see WP:TRIVIALMENTION). I've always found you to be pretty reasonable, JClemens, so if you want to keep saying that this topic is notable (and I making this request in the kindest and most matter of fact way possible) please WP:PROVEIT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, on that source, Finding Serenity, there is a lot more content. Jclemens has the book, and can pull more information from the source into the article. I only added that bit because it's the only part I felt I could add from the google books preview. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I did. At least, I provided enough sources that a clear consensus of the above editors (consensus needn't be unanimous, as we all know) agree that the article should be kept. Why should I do other WP:BEFORE work when I wasn't the one who nominated the article for deletion in the first place? Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree that you have a consensus. Someone nominated this for AFD, and I see a policy-based argument from sgeureka and myself. I see you and to some extent, Torchiest (and now Braincricket) offering a rationale, but a real lack of sources to support that rationale. But let's just say the pile-on votes count as a consensus. If that's true, then why are you wasting your time trying to convince me? Sincerely, the easiest way to resolve this would be to go through that book that apparently you only have access to, and write a little "reception" section cited to that book. I'm not convinced it's possible, considering what I've seen from the low quality of the other sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not seeing a coherent policy-based argument from Shooterwalker as, like the nominator, he can't even decide whether the topic should be deleted or merged. Shooterwalker's main contribution to the debate seems to be to assert that such articles require a reception section and that's not based upon any policy that I'm aware of. And sgeureka's position is based upon the current state of the article and so is directly contrary to our policy that articles may be imperfect.

As for sources, none of the nay-sayers seem to have done a damn thing to find any; they just rubbish anything and everything that's put before them per WP:IDHT. Now, I was well satisfied with what we could see online but recently popped in to the local Forbidden Planet to pick up the first issue of Hit-Girl. She's inspirational as her dad taught her to be "self-sufficient in an age when all the whiners were looking for a handout or someone else to blame." So, I checked out the cult TV shelves where there were several substantial books about Firefly. One of these is Investigating Firefly and Serenity. That contains an entire chapter about the reavers, entitled Reavers and Redskins: Creating the Frontier Savage. This is deep critical analysis of a sort which one rarely finds for fictional elements and its existence utterly destroys the case of the nay-sayers.

Now, what's interesting is that this doesn't turn up when one does a Google books search — presumably Google hasn't scanned this work. This demonstrates that such Google searches are not the last word and so leeway should be allowed for such topics so that proper research into books and journals can be done. There is never a case for deletion in such cases because we always have the option to merge into the parent topic - the main article about the overall work. AFD nominations for spinoffs of this kind should therefore be speedily closed so that ordinary research, editing and talk page discussion may be used over time, as we do for most other detailed topics.

Warden (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So as not to double count anything, I believe that the "Reavers and Redskins" chapter was what specifically mentioned Reavers in the syllabus I posted above. So, we have that chapter, and then an accredited, college-level English class referencing it, which would support the reliability of the source, but not count as two separate references towards notability, in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, please comment about the content, not other editors. Saying I haven't done a damn thing when I've reviewed plenty of sources on this topic, or accusing me of playing WP:IDHT when I'm having a perfectly reasonable discussion with JClemens. There's a long-standing policy at WP:NOT#PLOT asking that articles about fictional topics cover their reception and significance, and not just plot summaries. I've seen lots of sources that recap the plot. I haven't seen any sources that explain the reception of the Reavers. One source is at least of the right kind: I'm not sure that the "online international journal of Buffy studies" is particularly reliable, but for the sake of proving a point, let's pretend that it is. "Reavers and Redskins" makes a pretty obvious analysis that Serenity is a space western, and so Reavers are the "Injuns". Unfortunately, half the essay is about how Indians have been racially stereotyped in other fiction, and the psychological effect of a "schema". The rest is plot recap, intermixed with stating the same thesis over and over. I'd just like more, is all. We both agree: the sources aren't in the article. You're saying there's potential and given some time, it can be improved. I'm asking you guys to WP:PROVEIT. Not to bring it up to good article status. But just to write that little reception section. If this book that JClemens has is full of information, why is it so hard to just put it in? I'm not asking for anything that hasn't been used to save other articles from deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you expect editors who see that an article has notability to take a break from whatever other important Wikipedia work they're doing (Finalizing my support for the current slate of CU and OS candidates, in my case) to rush out and add stuff to the article? Sorry, but retention is based on the encyclopedic potential of articles, not their current state. Anyone can add anything if they want, and I would LOVE to have the time to add everything to everywhere I could. I don't. But that's OK, because finding that independent RS'es exist is sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to add to articles in such cases because TPH then preens himself in an obnoxious manner, effectively claiming the credit for the improvement even though he didn't do a stroke of work. If TPH wants sources adding or SW wants a reception section then they should do this work themselves per {{sofixit}} rather than abusing AFD to bully other editors into doing the work for them. Warden (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, this is the last time I'm going to ask you to comment on the content, not the contributor. I'm not trying to avoid work, I'm not trying to bully anyone, I'm not trying to take credit, and I'm not trying to abuse AFD. Stop bringing those accusations into it. The reason I can't "fix it" is because all the sources I've found are inadequate. JClemens has a offline source that he believes can fix it, but based on what I've seen in every other source, I just don't believe that sufficient coverage is lurking in the one place that I can't look. What adds to this belief, for me, is that people have known the article has existed in this defective state for several years, and no one does anything about it, even when legitimate issues are pointed out. Now, I believe in good faith that JClemens is busy, and there's way too much work to do on Wikipedia to put out every fire. But the longer the article sits in this state without these supposedly easy fixes, the less that people are going to believe in its WP:POTENTIAL to be fixed. Again, you can shout from the highest mountain that we have the WP:POTENTIAL to become astronauts, but after looking into it myself and finding zero action from anyone else, it's entirely reasonable to conclude that day will never come. Hence suggesting deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The independent sources provided by JClemens show that there's enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The coverage in the honors thesis, Slayage paper, book, syllabus, and (apparently) Finding Serenity are more than just throw-away mentions in plot summaries. The article's in-universe perspective and its need for expansion are not good reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is in a state of becoming, so tag it with {{in-universe}} and let's get on with it. Braincricket (talk) 14:08, 7 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 (non-admin close). GregJackP Boomer! 12:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Darbyshire

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

Not WP:NN¦notable, no GNews hits, motivational speaker autobio/COI, no GHits. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was speedied under G11 by another editor. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:17, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elaphone

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

I originally PRODed this article with : Unreferenced, and no WP:Reliable sources to be found that clearly assert notability for this recently created, yet-to-be established new musical instrument. Fails WP:GNG. The aticle was dePRODED by the creator without addressing the notabuility issue(s). A later editor did not notice the previous removed PROD and rePRODed it.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just not notable. This fails WP:GNG as there is no relevant coverage of the subject. Jsayre64 (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cory Little, you wouldn't go to your local library and write on the pages of encyclopaedias and other reference worlks there about something that you've just invented. Please don't do that with Wikipedia either. Get your inventions properly documented and recorded by the world in the proper ways. Uncle G (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax or something made up one day. Search of "elaphone -wikipedia" and "elaphone instrument -wiki" turns up 0 (i.e. zero) results. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:10, 7 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 Jesse Leach. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Empire Shall Fall still stands, no one has argued for keep, along with the weak consensus for merge/redirect here. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire Shall Fall

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated (here) three years ago with the consensus to merge to Jesse Leach. This result was entirely disregarded and the merge tag to do so was deleted without notifying the admin of that discussion (User:MBisanz). I asked him, and he suggested a new AfD, so here we go again... D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 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} 06:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jesse Leach per AfD#1. DRV might have been the place to post this request since the original AfD#1 still is valid, but closing admin declined to now act on it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jesse Leach, lacks independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 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) 04:06, 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 no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jérémie Zimmermann

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

An engineer and co-founder of the the internet advocate group La Quadrature du Net. There are no independent, reliable references about him in the article or to be found. Only able to find articles that contain a quote by him, of which three of them are used as references in the article. There are plenty of videos. As there are no refs that go into any detail beyond a quote, he fails GNG. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Redirect was refused. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps I don't know the GNG well enough, but there are three reliable references, including one from the New York Times, which include not only a quote but detail on who is and where he works. There also appear to be many French sources, though I don't understand them. Unless someone can show me a specific passage of GNG that can explain to me why this does not meet the criteria, my vote is Keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregcaletta (talk • contribs) 14:07 June 13, 2012 (UTC-6)
- Per WP:GNG. There needs to be "significant coverage" in the references that are about Zimmermann. Where, " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Your reference are about subjects other than Zimmermann. The references are only using quotes by Zimmerman. In no way is there "significant coverage" or "address Zimmermann directly in detail". Bgwhite (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll quote the passage directly "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source. I have placed those parts in bold because Zimmerman meets all three of those criteria. The last ten words I believe negate your main argument. The other point you are arguing on is "in detail" and "trivial mention", which I think is rather vague policy and could be argued either way for Zimmerman, but it is at least clear to me that all of the specific (and therefore useful) criteria (those in bold) have been met, which is enough for me. Gregcaletta (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what were these sources? Please point to them. So far, no-one has cited a single source in this discussion. You claim that you've been convinced that there are sources with in depth coverage of this person that can be used to create a proper biography. So presumably you've read the sources. It should be easy to cite what you found and read. Uncle G (talk) 09:44, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete. "appear to be many French sources" is not. Not enough evevn for French wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to La Quadrature du Net. Might as well keep it that way until he's known for something other than that and a random guest-spot. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:05, 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. Strongest arguments were from delete !voters. Sources shown were unreliable, not enough to establish verafiability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TravelFox

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP, namely significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. A Google news search for TravelFox shows only hits for a shoe company and an apparently unrelated Irish travel agent. The article itself currently has six sources. Number 1 is to a blog (saching.com) that does not pass WP:RS. Number 2 is to the Al Gomhuria newspaper. Unfortunately the link is only given to the front page of the newspaper’s website, not to the article itself. From the title, the article appears to announce the establishment of the company’s website. Number 3 is to the travel section of the Los Angeles Times. This newspaper’s website [47] has extensive archives, but does not list any article with the title given or any article containing the word TravelFox. It is possibly print-only, or there is a likely chance that the reference is incorrect. The article is used to source the statement that the company earns money from referrals. Number 4 appears to be a self-written posting to an online directory, and does not establish notability. Number 5 is from the company’s own website. Number 6 does not refer to TravelFox. I have deleted a few other questionable sources, for example an untitled article from “Business Weekly” on the grounds that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory says there is no publication with that name. Another source was an undated article, with a web link given that did not link to the article itself. Another deleted source was to a September 2011 episode of Business World News, the website [48] of which was last updated in 2008. The website acknowledges that Business World News is paid by companies to make promotional videos.

The bottom line is that there are only two potentially reliable sources. Although each is apparently a recent article, neither can be located on the Internet. Assuming that the references are correct and they both exist in print, still neither source appears to give in-depth coverage as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, neither of these sources seems to establish notability, e.g., being a travel search engine is not itself notable, and earning money from referrals is not itself notable. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's notability is based on the fact that it is one of the first Egyptian companies to survive the countries revolution of 2011 and this was referenced. It was removed by Logical Cowboy (talk) for the fact that he states "only given to the front page of the newspaper’s website", yet as stated in WP:NOENG "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation" and yet in my reference I did input the business article title (in English) "Business rise in Cairo, and beyond", and of course his original reason for removal was "no date given". The other notable thought is this website company is a first to use metasearch engines approach, and coming out from the Middle East more specifically. All other references have been removed based on the evidence according to Logical Cowboy (talk) that if it's not in Ulrich's Periodicals Directory than it must not exist at all. Under WP:PAYWALL implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries. I don't see how Ulrich's Periodicals Directory has any authoritative power to decide what's a source or what’s not. Finally it appears that Logical Cowboy (talk) has gone on some kind of vindictive run, after his first deletion attempt was unsuccessful . And has almost been WP:HOUNDING me on several locations [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] I've told him I will retrieve my logs for more sources to resolve anymore referencing issues. --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 06:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have provided a list of deleted sources, with reasons for deletion, here: Talk:TravelFox#Deletion_of_questionable_sources_per_WP:V Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the majority of Egyptian companies survived the revolution, so this does not justify an article, and the sources (with Logical Cowboy) don't either. Nothing personal, just not notable.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article was already declined by an Admin for speedy deletion. I remember a comment that I left on the talk page earlier as well. If the reason is that there are no reliable sources (or no sources at all), there are some out there like HERE and HERE. --Morning277 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note to the two editors who are edit warring over this article - When editing articles, make sure to Assume Good Faith. It looks like there has been so much discussion between you two that you could have both just moved on and started making valuable contributions to Wikipedia instead of wasting your time trying to get your points across to each other. Also, Rfd is NOT a medium to settle disputes between each other. Keep in mind that this is a process to discuss if an article should be kept or deleted, not a place to Illustrate A Point and disrupt Wikipedia. --Morning277 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dear Morning, thanks for your vote. With that said, the fact that this was declined for a speedy makes it perfectly appropriate for AfD. In fact, that's what the admin recommended. Your two sources are interesting but they are not WP:RS and do not establish notability per WP:CORP. Your other comments are off-base. Let's stick to the content of the article and leave out the personal drama. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with my comments, take it to my talk page. As again, Afd is not to be used for issues such as this. --Morning277 (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Actually, I did go to your talk page. Let's continue the conversation there if you like. AfD is the place for AfD. Everything in this AfD nomination is about the article and the rules of WP. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's investigation of the sources to find there's no substance to them. Surviving a revolution in itself has no relationship to notability, especially when it sounds like most companies did. (And I have no idea how a company can be one of the "first" to survive - it did or it didn't. "First" implies some didn't survive and then started surviving again. DreamGuy (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other notable view here is, this company is one of the first to use metasearch engines (for travel websites) and is one first internet based companies of this type to come out of that part of the world --‎Jetijonez ^Fire! 05:08, 25 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} 00:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. I searched independently and found no in-depth coverage of the company or web site. ‎Jetijonez, you wrote that TravelFox is notable because it is one of the first to use metasearch engines so I searched for "travel metasearch' and found dozens of sites; a couple listed TravelFox. You wrote that it "is one first internet based companies of this type to come out of that part of the world." Citation? Source? The article says "Currently Kayak.com is the only other site that offers similar services" but the cited Bloomberg Businessweek article doesn't support that claim. I'm certain that Wego.com and Momondo.com and a host of other metasearch travel companies would disagree. If TravelFox were truly notable, multiple reliable sources would be available to support claims made in the article. I must !vote for deletion. DocTree (talk) 04:08, 2 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) 04:04, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Entertainment

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

Fails to establish notability and lacks verifiable references (includes self-published sources and blogs). No results from Google Books nor Google News on the subject. Fails WP:Corp --IShadowed 03:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:RS. Already did my research when I first saw the new article. I may even have CSD'd or PRODed it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, article creator is affiliated with the subject. --Drm310 (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Search for the former name ("Arizona Pro DJs") and you will find many verifiable resources especially on Google News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.199.248 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News for 'Arizona Pro DJs' yields one, borderline reliable source. This hardly meets the criteria for the above guidelines. --IShadowed 01:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IP 71.37.199.248 has made a total of 8 edits to Wikipedia - all of them to Endless Entertainment or this AfD. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tonga National Tag Team

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. I am sure it is a well meaning article but it falls so far short in all respects. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does it need to be IMPROVED rather than deleted?? What does it fall so far short of in all respects? I have read the notable guidelines and the delection guidelines, and seems that it would be best to suggest improvement than deletion? ☻Ÿ 03:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

Merge to Tonga_national_rugby_union_team. Same argument I provided to the creator when it was deleted originally. Tag rugby is a variant of Rugby. As such, this information belongs as a subset of the country's national rugby team article. Consider Twenty20 cricket as the model: although Twenty20 has an article as a cricket variant, the national teams articles all describe their Twenty20 teams (see West_Indies_cricket_team, Australia_national_cricket_team) - they don't have separate articles. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, Bwilkins, you and others have helped me get it to where its at.(IT was terrible at first) Thank you!!... One of the issues I have about merging it to Rugby is that Tag rugby is a variant of Rugby league not rugby union. And even though Rugby league and Tag Rugby are variants of Rugby They are Notable sports on their own. There is an article of Tag rugby on here. The links and references I have provided in the article is to show how this sport Tag Rugby is a Notable sport, despite being a variant. More importantly I have included other wiki links that show articles of other Tag/Flag football/Rugby National teams.

The other important issue we must understand about Twenty20 a variant of cricket is that the infrastructure of that sport is totally different! Twenty20 and regular cricket co-exist with each other. The same Players contracted for Twenty20 also play regular cricket for their countries in between seasons. In most if not all occassions The national cricket team will also be the national Twenty20 team. Thats why there are no separate articles and is noted under the country's national cricket team page. Even though there is a world cup for Twenty20 now, the same national team is represented because this type of variant to that sport is different. For cricket there is 3 or 5 day tests, 50 overs, and now Twenty20 meaning just 20 overs. It is understandable that Twenty20 and Cricket are merged because it is the same game with the difference of only 20 overs rather than regular 50 overs. Twenty20 has become more popular because it is shorter,faster and big money but the sport is the same with the same players or/and national teams that play.

Can we please look at Rugby and its variant Rugby sevens. Now this variant is a better example of how it stands alone from its "Mother sport" Rugby union and is comparative to how Tag rugby is to Rugby league. Sevens rugby has its own national teams - Different Teams, different players, you actually have to change codes to play one or the other unlike Twenty20 cricket. You cant merge Rugby sevens with Rugby because they are their own bonfired sport with their own national teams New Zealand Sevens and All Blacks , Australia Sevens and Wallabies, Japan Sevens and many other countries. It is the same for Tag rugby. You cannot merge Tonga National Tag Team with Tonga national rugby union team or 'Ikale Tahi or even Tonga national rugby league team or Rugby league because they are all different notable sports with different codes despite the variants.

I cant say why there isint any articles on other national teams, maybe they just havnt been created? who knows? Im creating Nz and Australia tag Teams articles at the moment. (but as guided by some admins and users Im using my sandbox first) I dont have anything to do with the tongan team but I am a big sports fan in a wide range of sports and have very good knowledge of them either bacause I have played Internationally or I follow passionately for many years. I posted the Tonga Tag Team up first because they are the latest addition to the Tag world and there is not only a growing interest in joining this team from Tongans and of Tongan descent around the world but other nations competing against them has had very good competition fromTonga Tag. (Including beating Australia at the Pacific Cup 2012) I thought people googling Tonga Tag could find out more about Tonga's national Tag team in a factual and non biase way. It might not be of interest or impressive enough for some but thats not to say its not notable. ☻Ÿ 12:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipooti (talk • contribs)

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) 03:56, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi

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

Reason Agmat2 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Disinformation of the Institute hence Deleting[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 June 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't give much of a deletion rationale, but I don't think that that should be a reason for speedy keeping, because I can't find any verification that this is an accredited college or is otherwise notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because it is an unremarkable company, group or organisation. See CSD A7. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The official website of the Post graduate college is here, It claims to be recognized by Joint Committee of AICTE, UGC, DEC, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. And has an A+ rating in BSchool Survey - 2010. The sources prove existence and notability for keeping the article. --DBig Xray 22:57, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school or college whose existence is verified. In addition to the accreditation mentioned, it receives some mentions in news articles.[54] --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single reference confirms existence, nothing more. From that just another business school. Only coverage I found [55] was coverage incidental or secondary to the topic. Does not appear notable. If is notable needs some evidence.Oranjblud (talk) 01:02, 5 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) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, Oranjblud, according to Common Outcomes, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Secondary schools and beyond don't have to meet WP:ORG notability standards as long as their existence is confirmed. This is not an official policy, but it has become the usual result at AfD discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several references to the school to demonstrate existence (and I have added 2 of the first ones I found). It may not be the most well-known of schools, but it meets the criteria for inclusion, partly as an institution of higher education which exists, and secondly for having some references at reliable independent sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:31, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adelphikos

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

Non-notable single chapter club. No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG requirements. Having notable members is not enough: notability is not inherited from related notable subjects.GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 23 June 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 June 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 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* 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grove City College#Groups and organizations. I really tried to find sources for this 100-year-old fraternity but was unsuccessful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep based on the improvements to the article by PhantomSteve. It's still a stub, but a referenced stub; and I think the great age of the organization (by American standards) pushes it over the line to "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 15:47, 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) 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have found some sources (although I acknowledge they are not the best, and the biog one for the "notable alumni" is a self-written blog), which I think just meets the criteria for inclusion. Not very notable, but I feel notable enough for inclusion. It would be good if more (probably off-line) sources could be found PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:17, 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 merge to Rhetoric#Methods of analysis. All !votes indicate that this should not be a stand alone article. Merge offered as a possibility and accepted by 3 editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical strategies

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

No reliable sources. Tagged since March for original research and tone/style. Written as a how-to (e.g. "consider also the choice of words to use"). Appears to be a subtopic of rhetoric that would probably be better relegated to a section of that article. Some parts like the "Argumentation strategy" section might be mergeable, although it's based on a blog post. As a minor point, has some style issues that would require a lot of work to fix, like heavy overlinking. Dcoetzee 02:35, 27 June 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 June 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops I forgot. Sorry about that. Dcoetzee 20:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's possibly fixable, but right now it's a how-to guide. I am leaning to delete. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rhetoric#Methods_of_analysis which could use some input. Warden (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but actually looking at the sources provided, and seeing the fact that the large majority of this article has no sources, there seems to be a large amount of Original Research and Synth going on here. If people think that this term could be a valid search term, I think it would be fine to keep as a redirect, but I would be hesitant to actually merge any of this information as long as its validity is questionable. Rorshacma (talk) 18:09, 28 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) 03:47, 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. Not salted, no consensus for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The SCP Foundation

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

Non-notable web content. Reddit, Tumblr, KnowYourMeme, and self-published sources are inadequate as sources. Article (under its previous name, SCP Foundation) was deleted twice as {{db-a7}}, but it continues to be recreated—so now I'm bringing it here. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on this subject; yet if it has been deleted twice, can you not request it be blocked from creation? (Known as creation protection?) Ziiike (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is it's called Salting. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ziiike didn't ask what it's called. After all, xe has just said what it's called. What xe asked was why the nominator has come to AFD instead of requesting creation protection. The answer is, of course, that the page has already been created. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 5 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, BusterD (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no reliable sources -- scores of unreliable ones, but nothing to indicate that this has garnered any arm's-length third-party expert opinion denoting notability. I didn't even bother to address WP:FRINGE issues; there's nothing here but a bunch of people having fun speculating on a "paranormal" topic. If the article's history is as I see above, I would endorse salt applied to the various names and spellings. Ubelowme _U ^Me 15:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a contributor to the SCP Foundation website. I agree that it's not (yet) Notable. I oppose salting, though. Spikebrennan (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit. Admission: I am an admin at the SCP Foundation. I do think that the SCP Foundation has enough notability for inclusion, with mentions in noteworthy venues such as Rock, Paper, Shotgun, Know Your Meme, and i09. However, I don't believe the current article adequately demonstrates that notability, focusing too much on in-universe minutiae rather than explaining why the site is notable. I'd prefer to see the page overhauled to meet Wikipedia standards. I would do so myself, but I cannot be considered an objective editor. If it cannot be edited, I'd prefer to see the page deleted until such a time as a better page can be written. I oppose salting, as even if I'm wrong about the notability of the site, I believe it will gain more notability as time goes by. DrEverettMann (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Salting doesn't make it impossible to ever have such an article; it merely becomes more difficult than just starting one on the spur of the moment. An administrator has to approve the creation and I have never known such permission to be refused on any except the most solid grounds (usually extreme bad faith in the past, which is not the case here). Have no fear, if the organization is/becomes notable, an article will be welcome. Ubelowme _U ^Me 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 merge to World Konkani Centre. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Konkani Hall Of Fame

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

Could not find significant independent sources that assert notability of this monument. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep/Merge' I can find some information, but if kept this needs to be stubbed. A Wikipedia should not be their gallery of honorees. It's way too image heavy. Also needs to be rewritten to sound less like a brochure. If it's a copyvio, the source isn't turning up via google. So in essence I'm saying the topic is notable, I'm just not sure this is the article we need on the subect. If not kept, perhaps a merge back into World Konkani Centre which has a section on the HOF until it's ready to be spun out? StarM 02:00, 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} 20:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World Konkani Centre#World Konkani Hall Of Fame. The section in that article is sufficient. I can find very littl ein the way of soruces covering the hall of fame. Oddly enough, there is this article about Wikipedian that mention the contribution of all the images that we see in the article. Although not a reason for deletion, it does raise the issue of WP:COI. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/edit A list of hall of fame members is reasonable, as at least half the people here seem to be notable. I'm not sure if a gallery like this is explicitly prohibited by style guides, but a bare list is ok by list policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can somebody point me to the sources that establish notability? There is one listed in the article, and I'm not really seeing much else of substance. As for all the images, I'd say it is contrary to WP:NOTGALLERY. A list of inductees into a notable hall of fame is a valid element for the article, and a select few images for illustration would be appropriate but not this amount. For an example, consider List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Lightning (band)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The band is covered in Vernon Joynson's book Fuzz Acid and Flowers Revisited. While they only released two singles and one album (as Lightning) while together, there have been several compilations of their work released from the 1990s onwards.--Michig (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Scrapes by despite the lack of a Nuggets slot.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 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, BusterD (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, as well as a review in Allmusic. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:12, 13 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. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goshin-Ryu Kempo

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

This was a non-notable school with problematic history and claims. It was redirected to Kempo even though it has nothing to do with that article. I tried PRODing it but that is not allowed for Redirects. It was suggested to restore the Pre-redirect version (2007) and submit to AfD. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a recently founded martial art which has attracted little coverage. The only non-club references I found was in Sherdog (only 46 events). It meets none of the criteria in Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability#Arts and styles for notability. jmcw (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did not find significant independent reporting on this martial art, nor did I find anything to show it meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage of it pretty much anywhere, beyond a few small mentions. Silver seren^C 03:47, 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 withdrawal. After the work done by Michael Q. Schmidt, I wholeheartedly apologize for this one. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The Good Witch's Family

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

Does not appear to meet the general notability guideline. Google Books hits for "The Good Witch's Family" Hallmark all predate the film, the one Google News hit is coincidental, and Google News archives hits appear to be routine coverage. There's no evidence of any lasting notability whatsoever. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge after trim (which may end up just being a redirect) to The Good Witch#Sequel. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it remarkable that a Hallmark Channel film has not recieved any coverage or reviews, specially as it did win a Young Artist Awards nomination for Matthew Knight. Well... I just gave the thing a cleanup for format, but the plot section is hidiously overlong. Will be looking for RS in the morning.[56][57] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been waiting for someone to finally write the article for this move for a long time. I'm glad someone did. Thank you to whoever wrote the article, i have no idea how to write one so thanks for writing it. I saw is was going to be deleted. Please don't delete it, it's a great article with a lot of *very* good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tempymarie (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 July 2012

Please base your comments in this discussion on policies and guidelines rather than personal opinion. If you want for the article to be kept, you should find sources that show its notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the comment was not an !vote being made... a closer will weigh it for what it's worth. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[58]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[59]

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per work done on improving the article. Excessive plot has been reduced from 1345 words to 515.[60] Sources have been found and added and article is looking far better than when first nominated... just 21 minutes after being authored. While it might have been reasonable to allow its author a litle time to address issues after it was tagged for concerns by User:Blanchardb 10 minutes after its creation,[61] instead of nominating for deletion after only eleven more minutes,[62] that issue is moot. While this Hallmark Channel family film series will never have the dame extensive coverage as does the Harry Potter (film series)... so what? Even my minor work so far shows that issues are adressable. More to do? Certainly. But per WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT, such can be dealt with over time and through regular editing and do not require a deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:43, 7 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} 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New Electric Railway Journal

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

Reason - doesn't establish notability. I should comment on the references - it is well referenced - the majority are self references, or articles by Richard R. Kunz or Paul M. Weyrich, both closely involved with the magazine (ie founder, editor in chief). Other references are links to worldcat and internet archive. The only source that goes some way to establishing notability is that issues of the magazine was reviewed in Light Rail & Modern Tramway magazine. Seems to be somewhat overblown coverage overall eg Issues were 46–50 pages in length until 1994, thereafter 38–40 pages. The magazine used good-quality paper which suggests to me that there is really little to say. May or may not be notable, needs looking at. Oranjblud (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although not currently published, notability is not temporary. Having said that, this did pass Notability guidelines for media. I say it's a weak keep because it may be better to merge. But I am against outright deletion. Nom has also PRODded and put to AfD basically every article on railfan magazines, which I don't understand. Smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Roodog2k (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did it pass notability guidelines for media? Consider this - never was notable - still isn't notable - can you supply one dot of evidence that this isn't the case?Oranjblud (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's hard to see nominating every railroad trade reliable source as a good faith effort and at looks more like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT as indicated by Roodog2k]]. If we go by Wikipedia:Notability (media) it easily passes the "are frequently cited by other reliable sources" clause, [63] just as all of these periodicals the nom has nominate for Afd.--Oakshade (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As long as an article has enough independent references, the fact that a "majority" of its citations are self-references is not relevant to establishing notability, and in the case of this article, that situation is more a reflection of this article's being much more thorough than most Wikipedia articles about "niche" magazines – i.e. the fact that the article includes so many references in total. As long as the self-references are for NPOV content, they are fine. On the main question, notability: The article cites enough sources that are not affiliated with the subject (and specifically refer to the magazine) to establish notability. In addition, it is very significant that the American Public Transportation Association, whose membership is composed of virtually all public transit authorities in the U.S., has archived many articles from TNERJ on its website, where they remain available currently (2012) - a clear indication that the magazine's articles are seen by that body as still having value as a reference, even 14 years after the magazine ceased publication. Regarding the nominator's comment on one excerpt from the article: The mention of the number of pages in an average issue (which is just one phrase from a 6500-character article) is not "overblown coverage", but rather is basic descriptive information that should be included in every Wikipedia article about a magazine. SJ Morg (talk) 09:57, 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.