Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 June	27 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Mavericks

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

Unsourced article about student team. Not a major sport in the UK. Nothing to establish WP:notability. noq (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage in a reliable source i could find from Google searches is half a sentence in the University of Nottingham student magazine. That's not significant coverage, however, nor is it completely independent, so fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Qwfp (talk) 08:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a couple of odd historical exceptions, university sport in the UK is completely non-notable. It gets no mainstream press coverage at all and even at the universities themselves it is not on the radar of people not directly involved in the teams. This is especially true of a minor sport like ice hockey. I actually work at a UK university and have done for quite a few years, and I had no idea that we had an ice hockey team until I saw the template at the bottom of this article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant 3rd party source coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:58, 2 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 List of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOA-2010-BLG477L b

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

This article is unsourced. It may be a hoax. The notability of this extremely-distant planet has not been demonstrated. It doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia unless notability can be established and supported by a reliable published source. Dolphin (t) 23:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only mentions found are Twitter, Facebook and... Wikipedia. No evidence of any reliable coverage anywhere. DarkAudit (talk) 23:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 23:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect somewhere. It appears to be genuine, according to the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia,[1] but for some unknown reason, List of exoplanets redirects to List of multiplanetary systems, and this one's a loner. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing Not a hoax: found the paper this is based on (MOA 2010-BLG-477Lb: constraining the mass of a microlensing planet from microlensing parallax, orbital motion and detection of blended light) though it's on arXiv and hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal as of yet. Still fails Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Criteria. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd redirect or merge for the time being to List of extrasolar planets detected by microlensing probably Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Runningonbrains. I guess this is a merge rather than a redirect because I don't already see it on that list. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 2 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A House Interrupted

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

Non notable book ,for which worldCat reports only 20 library holdings. The Psychology Today ref. is a citation, not a review, Everything else is PR based and unreliable for notability DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't sure what was meant by "citation" above - If Psychology Today cited it as a source, that would be at least mildly impressive. But this is not in the magazine as far as I can tell, it's just a blog on the site, and it only mentions the book briefly as an aside. That's pretty much the definition of trivial coverage. The other references used for the article are either also trivial coverage, fail WP:RS rules, or both. A local listing that an author is doing a signing does nothing for establishing enough notability to be mentioned on Wikipedia, let alone have an article about the book. And there is no notability guideline hat gives anyone who makes an appearance on Dr. Drew or any other similar show worthy of an article here. DreamGuy (talk) 02:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reference on CNN appear to be indirect and a one event and the only other sources are not WP:RS. --Artene50 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DreamGuy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:58, 2 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Martin (journalist)

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

She did not win a NY Emmy. She was merely a junior member of a 23 person team that won one. [2]. There is no other indication of notability: the NJF fellowship is not significant to notability: it is attendance at a 4 day seminar . The references for it and the other material are press releases only. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale. Claiming that she is an Emmy winner is really misleading once you look at the into that DGG provided, and none of the other sources show any sort of notability. Most are either local coverage, or merely listings of events that she happened to appear at. Rorshacma (talk) 18:43, 3 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of London school bus routes

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

Fails WP:N, WP:PRIMARY, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. The article is purely a directory of primary source data and lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Charles (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's still informative, which is good. There are many subjects that can only be properly sourced with primary sources. I have also seen several transport-related articles with no or little good sources and yet no one touches them, so what is that bad about buses, but not trams and trains? Adam Mugliston Talk 21:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that primary sources can be appropriate depending on the context. The Tube Map, for example, is a primary source, produced by TfL for its own network, but its use is so widespread and popular consensus is so strong towards it being accurate, that it's considered not to have bias, which is one of the problems primary sources sometimes have. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral—I'm on the fence about this one. If kept, I would strongly suggest that this be collapsed into a table by losing all of the infoboxes and using those data points as cells in a table. Then include the comments as a column. Imzadi 1979 → 02:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A perfectly valid list, per WP:LIST. WP:NOTDIR is meant for indiscriminate "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". This list is very discriminate and it is in no manner a repository of a loosely associated topics." I fail to see how a school bus route list is considered a "travel guide." --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" is only paragraph 1 of WP:NOTDIR. Paragraphs 4 and 8 are more relevant for this article. A list of Tesco conveniance stores in London would be discriminate and probably more useful but not what Wikipedia is for and not encyclopedic.--Charles (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to List of bus routes in London. WP:NTS suggests that overall transport systems are notable (which TfL definitely is, and TfL buses probably are), whereas individual routes should just be listed under that. I can't think of a good reason why the school bus system is notable in its own right. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note: an earlier version of this list was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there is excessive detail here, there is value in keeping lists of bus routes as a valid alternative for those who would otherwise wish to create articles on an individual route. As for the school buses being separate this keeps the list a manageable size. Sussexonian (talk) 23:54, 2 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 close wrong forum. This qualify for WP:CSD#G7, otherwise WP:MFD is that way. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bsitu

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

just a test Bsitu (talk) 21:19, 26 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intuition (rapper)

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

Article subject does not meet criteria for WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Previously WP:PROD-BLP tagged, inadvertently WP:PRODed by reporting editor. Tgeairn (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found no significant coverage from independent and reliable sources with a Google News search and only one article from a Google News Archive search. The single article is used as a reference in the WP article and does represent independent and significant coverage from a reliable (but local) source. The second source listed in the WP article is from an LA Weekly blog and in my opinion, does represent independent and significant coverage from a reliable (but local) source. Alone, these article don't satisfy WP:GNG, in my opinion. The LA Weekly article mentions him publishing his second album under a label called Alpha Pup which is a notable label that lists him as a signee. As it's only his first album under a label at all he doesn't qualify for WP:MUSICBIO point 5. I can also find no evidence of charting and no evidence of being on any major tours. Ultimately, I think the subject of this article is about as close to being notable on WIkipedia as you can be without actually being notable. The only reason I !voted Weak delete is because, for me, it all hinges on those two sources being from local/regional sources and not nationally distributed news sources. In short, WP:NotJustYet. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails MusicBio. GregJackP Boomer! 21:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have more than a passing familiarity with Alaskan hip-hop, or what passes for such. There is only one artist with even faint recognition outside of Alaska, that being Josh Boots. Not only does he not have an article, but the one mention I could find on here (in Daniel Jones (musician)) doesn't provide enough detail to establish whether it refers to the same person. If Shaner is actually a Southern Californian who previously lived in Alaska, the article gives undue weight to his Alaska roots by virtue of the lack of any other biographical information (and those roots don't appear to be important locally; see below). The first impression I had from glancing at this article is that someone felt they could get away with "sneaking it in" and not face any scrutiny. Along those lines, there are articles for each of his releases, all of which say about as little as this article does. Should these be included in this AFD as well?RadioKAOS (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, something else...our area newspaper, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, is typically happy to run a story on a local person when they achieve success in the media or celebrity world, more often than not putting the story on the front page. Ben Grossmann is a prime example of such from earlier this year. The newspaper's archive search turns up no mention of Shaner's name.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that notability is not established. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Two new references were added today. [3][4] In my opinion, one isn't significant coverage but the other is. Both appear to be independent. I have no reason to believe that either are unreliable but they're not big names in music coverage. I'll wait to reconsider my !vote until I get more time to consider the sources. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing any deep reliable sources third party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom. Keystoner idin (speak) 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rel8shun - The Play

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

non-notable subject; fails WP:GNG. The only thing I can find that's even close to a reliable source is this, and I'm not sure I would call it either reliable or independent of the subject. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the above, the article doesn't even try to establish any notability. Clearly someone who doesn't understand that Wikipedia is not a place for free publicity. DreamGuy (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There's no notability for this play and there's no reliable and independent sources out there to show that this play meets any notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:04, 27 June 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. (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst Ludwig von Aster

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

Only one source; notability questionable. However, I don't think the problem was strong enough to garner a SD Cssiitcic (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep- The German article [5] shows sufficient sources, including a link to the two-page bio in the national encyclopedia currently cited in the article as the sole reference for this general, and others are available online citing recognition of naming Fort Asterstein after him. Dru of Id (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, blindingly obviously. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- ADB entry Agathoclea (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per military nobility guidelines, WP:MILPEOPLE: "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" Bgwhite (talk) 22:48, 27 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV Noise

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

They seem to be on a legitimate label, but no indication of their notability. The fact that the article says they are "upcoming" only serves to evidence that they are not currently notable. I'd be happy to change my vote, however, if sources are provided. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced promotional piece. Fails WP:NBAND. DreamGuy (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is like a promo as "upcoming". This doesn't look notable now. They can be in future but for now, it doesn't have enough WP:RS nor enough notable content. →TSU ^tp* 20:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at its presence, the subject fails WP:BAND because of its lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources to demonstrate notability. →B music ian 05:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When "upcoming" is used in the lede, we're not off to a good start. No evidence of WP:BAND notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:00, 2 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 Battle Fever J. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Society Egos

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

No notability outside of the Battle Fever J universe. Should be merged into the BFJ article. JoelWhy?(talk) 18:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should just be merged back into the Battle Fever J page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - And you know you don't have to file an AFD to merge something, right? DreamGuy (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYea, thanks. I should have just submitted this for a merge directly... JoelWhy?(talk) 11:47, 27 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Air Class Swearingen accident

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

Non-notable cargo plane incident. Missing aircraft happen regularly. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 18:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two likely fatalities and it involves a small aircraft. Suspect this probably wasn't even earth-shattering news in Uruguay, not to mention internationally. Michael5046 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a small aircraft (a 'large aircraft' is legally defined as any aircraft of 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg) MTOW of above, and the aircraft in question is 14,500 to 16,000 pounds (6,600 to 7,300 kg)) but the scope of the accident and its situation mitigate against notability to the point where deletion is appropriate. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 20:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It did make headlines for several days and there are still reports about it in the media, a big operation to locate it was launched including Navy and Air force, but I also think that it fails notability for a full article. It would be more appropriate to list it somewhere instead including some basic details. Hoverfish Talk 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Also the aircraft is thought to have fallen. Nothing has been found to prove it did. Hoverfish Talk 14:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact it vanished is a good clue though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 27 June 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. and move to Murder of Anuj Bidve. (non-admin closure) MacMed^talk _stalk 23:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Bidve

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

The man was murdered. So what? A lot of people are killed. This would be a BLP1E if he wasn't dead. If he never did anything notable while alive, why should he have an article because he copped it? This criminal-kills-man stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Rcsprinter (converse) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Murder of Anuj Bidve. The murder was widely reported when it happened and may have a long term effect on the reputation of Britain. I am not clear where the investigation of the murder has got to, but I suspect that there will be a trial in due course. Unfortunately the wheels of justice move slowly. Reporting restrictions mean that the press cannot say much at present. Keep for now. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the case has got to. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With a trial in progress, this is definitely not the point at which to decide what to do, one way or ther other. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Murder of Anuj Bidve. Very high profile case heavily covered in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to name I should have given it in the first place! Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If only every murdered person covered in the press is included in Wiki. This is not the case and therefore, this person is no different. Further, the initiator of this article was perhaps in a rush to create an article with no regard for the cause of justice, which I find grossly irresponsible considering the fact that the case is still ongoing. Even if this article should be here, it should not be now (too soon). Wikipedia is not here to contravene the natural cause of justice and editors should be very careful when creating these kinds of artilces. The name of the article is also wrong which further demonstrates the hastiness in which the editor wrote this article.Tamsier (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this case is different from "every murdered person covered in the press". It has received far more coverage in the national press in both the UK and India than an "average" killing, largely because this kind of seemingly random shooting is much rarer in the UK than in some other countries, and that coverage has continued. I would add that, at least until the trial is over, the title should be "Killing of Anuj Bidve" rather than "Murder of Anuj Bidve", because there is the possibility that the court will decide that this was manslaughter rather than murder. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what we're waiting for, really. The accused denies murder but admits manslaughter (what's the difference?) so "Killing of Anuj Bidve" would be the better title. Even though I'm actually vouching for this to be deleted. But yeah. Rcsprinter (deliver) 19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Tamsier, I really do not appreciate being called grossly irresponsible. There was no reason I could see not to create the article and some good reasons to create it (they aren't relevant to this AfD though). At that time I thought just the victim's name was appropriate, and Phil points out a good reason why murder would still be inappropriate. This was high-profile when I created it, certainly not an average killing, and we create this sort of article routinely long before a court case is settled or even begun. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Hi Dougweller, perhaps I should have been a bit more delicate and if I offended you, I'm sorry. Having sat in jury service I know the damage this can do. But I take your point and once again I apologise.Tamsier (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thank you, that was gracious. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and rename for consistency. Case - and victim - is highly notable. --Dweller (talk) 19:28, 2 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Mortgage Funding

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

WP:NOTABILITY -- about the longest gnews hit for "Capital Mortgage Funding" is a few sentence piece saying they were sold (ignore some pre-1996 reports on a company of the same name.) Ghits searched on "Capital Mortgage Funding" Southfield (to filter out other companies of same name) quickly fall into database listings. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An IP editor has now added two sources from a local business paper. Both are articles about the larger company that bought out CMF; one on the new headquarters has a two-sentence mention of CMF, the other has a couple paragraphs of someone from CMF talking about the purchasing company. Neither of those establish notability for CMF. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No deep coverage, fails WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notae Elegantissimae

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

Article about an alternative number system that claims to be "commonly used", and yet the only reference to the system is this page at archimedes-lab.org, the reliability of which cannot be ascertained (it appears to be a blog run by a couple of writers). All other sources on give in the article are mirrors, copies, or direct translations of the original archimedes-lab page. Outside of this original reference, there appears to be no usage (common or otherwise) of this numbering system. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article's subject is verifiable and at the same time it is not original research. And it is clearly notable because a Google search for "Notae Elegantissimae" produces thousands of relevant results. Since it is not a biography, the WP:BLP1E criterion does not apply here. And lastly the article has just been created. It would be better to improve the article (by finding and adding more sources) instead of deleting it. (And for this article, Google may not the best place to search for reliable sources. One should also look into books and libraries perhaps). Vintelok (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, a Google search for "Notae Elegantissimae" produces exactly 172 results, and the 20 or so that I actually checked were all mirrors or verbatim translations (including the identical graphics) of the original page from archimedes-lab. It would be difficult to improve this article based on the sources, since there are none. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* It would be difficult to improve this article based on the sources, since there are none!! If one can't find sources in Google, then one should look elsewhere: Books, Libraries, JSTOR, scientific papers etc. For the next few days, I will search for more sources. If even then more sources can't be found, then I will make that known here. Vintelok (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vintelok is free to look for those sources. Wikipedia guidelines put the burden on the author to verify their articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For the record:
  - Google scholar: 0 hits
  - JSTOR: 0 hits
  - Google books: 2 hits, both books written in Latin in which the phrase notae elegantissimae appears with its expected meaning of "most elegant notes".

Vintelok is free to find any other sources he might. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NFT. All the references appear to be both unreliable and copied from each other. Some of the claims in the article (particularly the one saying this is "commonly used" appear to be quite dubious. No reliable sources for this can be found; the two hits for this phrase in Google books appear to be unrelated, stemming from the fact that "notae elegantissimae" is a natural turn of phrase when writing in Latin. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.74.232 (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources appear to meet WP:RS, claims of popularity appear to be a hoax. DreamGuy (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. May be neologism.Bellstarr (talk) 21:22, 28 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

10 September (political group)

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

Is this even a real Political group? JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator asks a very valid question. "Is this even a real political group?" In response, I would ask, does the nominator read Turkish? Has the nominator engaged in a detailed search of online Turkish language sources that would allow the nominator to offer an informed opinion? I favor a relatively low threshold for acceptance of the notability of political organizations and parties worldwide; left, right and center. This encyclopedia ought to cover such groups comprehensively, unless it can be demonstrated that the articles are hoaxes, or are about truly insignificant groups. So I recommend keeping this article at least until fundamental questions are answered by someone conversant in Turkish. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:49, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Cullen328 may personally want low thresholds for notability on Wikipedia, we must at least use Wikipedia's rules for notability, and those at this time indicate this is not a notable topic. It is not up to us to demonstrate that this is a "truly insignificant" group, it is up to the article to demonstrate notability. It fails to do that, and if nobody bothers to fix it, assuming it svsncan be fixed, then it deserves to be deleted. If we don't know it's not a hoax, then it needs to go away immediately, not wait around for a Turkish speaker. He's got WP:V/[[WP:GNG/WP:OR completely backwards from how they actually work. DreamGuy (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing that is notable "deserves" to be deleted, even if people can't lift a finger to actually edit articles. We do know its not a hoax.[6]. The world gets the wikipedia it deserves.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any sourcing or any evidence of notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:49, 3 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Africa House

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

Non-notable book (the house to which the title refers is, of course, itself notable). PROD contested, but the two sources supplied -- an anonymous paragraph-long online review and an about.com link -- do not make this a notable book. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From Google news archive, I'm finding several independent published reviews of this work (examples: [7][8]) as well as other mentions. Hence I suspect it has sufficient notability. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:29, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be notable, but if it's judged non-notable, I'd suggest a merge with Stewart Gore-Browne, the subject of the book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found many more sources and while the PW, KR, and Booklist reviews are sort of short, the About.com source is by a staff member (as opposed to a random member of the site) and we have reviews by the Seattle Times, the New Statesman, and Independent. There's a ton of mentions in books as sources, although I generally try not to use that as a justification to keep because that's something that could be debated. It does appear that there has been a documentary based off of Lamb's book, although it doesn't appear to be overwhelmingly notable so I don't think that really counts towards the book passing WP:NBOOK. There's not an overabundance of sources that would make this overwhelmingly and completely notable, but I believe that there's just enough here to have this squeak by.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book reviews prove notability . PW reviews are always short, but it's very selective, and the presence of a review there has always been accepted here as one of the reviews contributing to the notability of a book. Booklist similarly. Kirkus Reviews similarly, for the period--I think its reliability for notability has sharply declined since its relaunch in 2009, and is is now essentially a PR site--see the article on it. Worldcat shows about 500 holdings in libraries, as would be expected for a book widely reviewed in the journals librarians use to decide if a book is worth buying. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 3 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. Other than the nomination itself, there were no explicit calls for deletion, but a couple of calls for it to be kept, both by established editors. It is to be recommended that suitable sourcing is found for the article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swedwatch

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

Not really sure about this one. I can find lots of passing mentions but nothing really that constitutes both a reliable source and non-trivial coverage about the organisation itself. Discuss. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reading the Swedish-language version of this article it seems apparent that this is a notable organization that has several other major organizations among its membership. It obviously needs to be expanded and referenced. __meco (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources? I had trouble finding suitable ones but I don't know if that's just me being a bonehead. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the article you're talking about, and if it's this that you're referring to, I have to disagree with you. The text of that article doesn't indicate notability anymore than the article here, and it, too, is completely unreferenced. Notability is based on in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources, not claims of importance on another WikiMedia project. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:58, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - expansion needed though.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no explanation is provided on how notability is met? LibStar (talk) 14:33, 3 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhfilm

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no reliable sources (only its own website and IMDB). Specs112 t c 15:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is surely notable. After performing a quick search, I see some good souurces: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, though some sources are not in English. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dipankan001. A national film studio with a long history, GNews, GBooks show many potential sources. More examples:[9][10] Note that the Russian and Spanish Wikipedia article has a lot more detail (and even a couple of sources) that could be helpful here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although sources (at least ones in English) are hard to find at first, it appears that this is a major film studio within Kazakhstan. Think of it as a Kazakh Universal if you like. Notability clearly established. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:45, 30 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Wizards

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

Does not pass the notability guidelines for websites. Sources do not discuss the subject in detail and most are not independent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable site. Few followers (barely 500 total) or subscribers and no notable content. Bagheera (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the references are primary. Completely fails WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:03, 2 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 Jimmy Eat World discography#Split singles. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Eat World / Emery 7" split

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. There's a little bit of coverage on blogs, etc., about it being rare, but that's about all I could find, nothing in major, secondary sources. Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS. No third party coverage in WP:RS's. If not for a random blog that happened to provide non-RS coverage on it, I'd think it's a hoax even, ~~as the article claims that Emery provided a song for this 6 years before they formed. (?)~~ Nevermind, re-read the article, it clarifies this release consists of a different Emery than Emery. Point still stands though - fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad. As short as the article is, it's oddly worded, and I had to reread it a few times to understand what it was saying. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Jimmy Eat World discography#Split singles. Add the track names there and this becomes redundant. --Michig (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jimmy Eat World discography. Y'know, I'm all for a crazy-low bar for popular culture stuff, but full pages for split-7s really is taking things to extremes... Carrite (talk) 17:26, 27 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 ban of Hungarian President from Slovakia

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

per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, lack of notability, lack of long-term consequences, already covered in Hungary–Slovakia relations article. Although there are only few things that I love more than Slovaks and Hungarian nationalistic morons having their internet battleground on the Wikipedia, this is just waste of bloody space. It was minor diplomatic incident, between two unimportant countries that half of the world can´t find on a map and rest don´t give a damn, which went fort and on for maybe a week and than was forgotten. Small summary in relation article like above is completely appropriate, if we want to create article for each incident like this, effectively creating largest newspaper archive on the world, Jimmy Wales will have to make another appeal for donation as he will need pretty large chunk of Sahara to place his servers EllsworthSK (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the subsection in Hungary-Slovakia relations, per WP:NOT, this article reads too much like a tabloid newspaper and long lists of newspaper quotes simply are not encyclopedic. These Slota-Solyom-Fico articles are all a massive walled garden with huge BLP concerns which would be better contained in one article on diplomatic relations and amongst the biographies in an acceptable manner. The tone of this nomination is woeful though, and I advise people in this AfD to please keep cool, one thing I dislike seeing on Wikipedia is people complaining that there's too much fighting between nationalists and then opening fire with rhetoric like this in a way which is clearly going to get people's tempers rising. That "half the world can't place Slovakia and Hungary on a map" is irrelevant, minor diplomatic scuffles between the US and Mexico would be equally non-notable for their own articles, and so is server space, the WMF already has a news source project where an article about this incident probably would have been welcome at the time. - filelake shoe  18:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I´ll take blame for the tone. However I quit editing articles which had anything to do with Slovakia, Hungary or both countries combined years ago and few days ago someone left a message on my talk if I could look on one of the issues (completely unimportant in my opinion) which deals with this stuff. Than I started going through other articles relevant to these fights and I figured out that I did a good thing when I decided not to deal with that stuff anymore, it kind of got on my nerves when I saw that these articles are even bigger battleground between two sides whose sole objective is to turn them into their own personal blogs than articles which deal with extremely controversial topics of civil wars in MENA and other regions that I have been focusing lately myself. Than again, I am grateful that you were able to disregard my tone and saw the point I tried to make. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful article, and very important political event in 2009, between the two countries' relationship. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Norden. Everyking (talk) 11:53, 3 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) 01:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CROSS GENE

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

dePRODed without addressing the issue. Concern was: Newly created up-coming band. Fails to meet criteria at WP:BAND. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no indication of importance whatsoever; this one's borderline-A7. I stop short of saying speedy delete (they do have a studio album), but this one seems pretty clear-cut. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group's mini-album has charted on the Gaon Chart at number eight on the domestic chart, and at number nine on the main albums chart. Passes point two of WP:BAND. — ξ ^xplicit 00:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: As of today, the album has peaked at number seven on the domestic chart, and at number eight on the main albums chart. I have also added additional sourced content. — ξ ^xplicit 01:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Korean charting means that this meets the criteria for WP:BAND PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vernes Selimović

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally as the article had previously been deleted by PROD. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence that this article would pass the general notability guideline. Jogurney (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY as the Bosnia-Hertzogovina league system isn't professionalSeasider91 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL --Artene50 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jantv

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:N, as there is no coverage in independent reliable sources about this television channell. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 09:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough reliable sources to at least confirm this station exists, and since WP:BROADCAST indicates most TV channels are inherently notable, I think that's probably enough for a keep. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:05, 26 June 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Port Darwin FC

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

Contested PROD, original rationale was "Non-notable club, doesn't play in notable league or national cup competition" - I see no evidence from reliable sources to counter that. Giant Snowman 08:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clubs that have competed in the Northern Territory Northern Zone Premier League appear to be treated as notable. However the Port Darwin FC players are certainly not notable. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Articles on a similar topic existing does not make one, or all of them, notable - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Giant Snowman 08:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we do have WP:OUTCOMES. ;-) KTC (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the other articles gone to AfD and been kept? Giant Snowman 08:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Padres FC and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Dragons SC. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Keep. They play in the top league of the Northern Territory, a regional competition that sits in the second-ish tier of Australian football. That league's results are listed at Soccerway alongside the other state and regional top leagues. There is no national cup competition in Australia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn if somebody wants to close this up. Giant Snowman 08:41, 26 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajagopal (professor)

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

According to SSRN, Professor Rajagopal has published 40 papers which have been cited a total of 40 times. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, but according to that group's web site, "Fellowship is open to anyone anywhere in the world who shares or demonstrates a commitment to positive social change in their professional, civic or personal life" and who pays the £155 Fellowship fee. Thus, the professor does not appear to be notable per WP:PROF.

I also notice one comment on the talk page suggesting that the article is promotional in nature, balanced by another insisting that the page is not intended as an advertisement.

Query at WikiProject Biography science & academia received no immediate comments about the professor's notability. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although promotionalism is no insuperable bar to an academic BLP a lack of citations is. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Don't see any obvious evidence of WP:PROF criteria here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Previously it was commented that this article looks like an advertisement and now a discussion has been floated to delete this article. I request all to look at from the perspective of academic contributions that this article generates. Professor Rajagopal is known in the field of innovaltive marketing and he has contributed a lot to the academics in his field. The new concepts developed and illustrated by him is being pursued for further research by the doctoral students of various business schools across the countries-notably in Mexico, USA, India, Sweeden,and Denmark. On the concepts generated by him also Bachelor's level theses were worked on by the students of Johnkoping University, Sweeden. What makes so agreessive in this article to be deleted from Wikipedeia? He is editor of three international journals of Inderscience (UK) and one of Emerald. I wonder why his credentials are considered as advertisement? From no angle I find this article a commercial objective.In the interest of the academic community I advise not to delete this article as it beholds academic value for research scholars. - Comment by Edo198 (talk · contribs) at 16:09, 26 June 2012‎ (UTC) moved here from article page by The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)— Edo198 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Weak keep~~Very weak keep This is not a very good article and despite the above post, extremely promotional. It is claimed that the subject is editor-in-chief of two journals. The website of the International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing only lists him as a member of the editorial board, however (perhaps the appointment is recent and the website not yet updated). The website of the International Journal of Business Competition and Growth does list him as EIC. Although this journal does not currently have an article here, it would meet WP:NJournals, albeit barely. I don't find any citations in the Web of Science and Google Scholar only gives citation rates of less than 10 per article. In all, I think the editorship makes this a narrow pass of WP:PROF#8. If this article is kept, somebody should take a machete to this article. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure what constitutes "a major well-established academic journal" for PROF#8, but International Journal of Business Competition and Growth has apparently published a total of six issues since its founding in 2011. It does not appear to be cataloged by EBSCO, ProQuest, Ingenta, Science Direct, or Web of Knowledge. Cnilep (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually, we accept a journal to be "a major well-established academic journal" if it meets our inclusion criteria. According to its homepage, the International Journal of Business Competition and Growth is indexed in EconLit and InfoTrac. Although I personally would probably !vote "delete" if this journal were brought to AfD, in my experience these listings would probably lead most other editors to go for "keep". I've modified my own !vote here to "very weak keep"... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 'known for' section in profile is too broad "Consumer behavior, Brand management, Sales management, International marketing". editor should refer to Sam Pitroda article to learn how to improve several sections.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:41, 1 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 Windows CE#Versions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windows CE 4.0

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

Short, unsourced, reads like a dictionary entry. Nouniquenames (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions as it was until 2 days ago when it was stubify and my revert was reverted. If someone can truely expand this to have some real content, then great. However as it stand, it have even less information than at Windows CE#Versions. KTC (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded it. WinEuro (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows CE#Versions per above. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm working on improving the Windows CE articles (1.0, 2.0, and 4.0). It's going to take some time, but I definitely think the content is there, especially for the 2.0 and 4.0. Also, remember that being too short is not a valid reason for deletion. For those that wish for this article to be deleted, it's important that you provide valid reasons for such an action. Millermk (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear in mind the status of the article when it was nominated for deletion, which had less information than was present in the redirect target of Windows CE. Merely being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale, but a stub "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". KTC (talk) 07:24, 27 June 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) 13:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Noor Gymkhana

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

Non-notable cricket teams. The teams don't play officially sanctioned Twenty20 cricket. A search for reliable independent sources turns up trumps. The team has no historical notability, neither does the league they play in. Fails WP:CLUB, WP:CRIN and all-told, WP:GNG. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the above reasons:

Delete not a notable team in a league that is not of notability in itself. Seasider91 (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 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} 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with only one reference, and little valuable information, this page adds little to Wikipedia.Squareanimal (talk) 10:20, 26 June 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 until such time that the album is released, or coverage of the album rises to the level required by the "Unreleased material" section of WP:NALBUMS. -Scottywong | spout _ 17:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have It All (Jesse McCartney album)

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

Album was originally set for release in December 2010. Everything about the album has most likely changed since then; as it is now June 2012. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No set release date. Statυs ≠ 23:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album was recorded so the music exists, we have a confirmed tracklisting and cover art, and we have sufficient detail about it for an article. Whether or not it gets released in the form described in the article doesn't matter - it's a notable unreleased album.--Michig (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe is a notable unreleased album, but when were the cover and the traclisting released? If they are in the course from December 2010-2012 they will certainly change. Plus there is not a confirmed date meaning it can be further re-schedule for 2013. Delete for the time and recreate after those information leaks. — Tomica (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 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} 02:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because vaporware can be notable too. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you but I think cases where vaporware is notable tend to have significantly more coverage and coverage about its vapor-ness. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:34, 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) 05:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the track listing was released by Billboard in 2010, but the album did not materialise. Promises of a future release are only cited to primary sources i.e. McCartney himself on various social media. Does not meet WP:GNG but meets WP:TOOSOON. The rumours are already in the Jesse McCartney article so no need to merge. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NALBUM is explicitly clear that unreleased material requires "significant" independent coverage and that unreleased material will only meet that criteria in "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects". This is not an exceptionally high-profile project, and there is no significant independent coverage. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS - 'Unreleased material is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.' Two articles by the same author (and self-published material) doesn't meet the requirement for significant coverage.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Album fails WP:NALBUM. From what I can find (as others have), the album was announced but never released. I won't echo what others have said but can add by saying that a Google News search produces no significant, independent, and reliable coverage and Google News archive search produces no new coverage besides what's already in the article or regurgitation of apparently false non-independent information. In other words, even though the sources that published the information may be reliable, the information they were covering was not. At most, that should be covered but not in its own article and since the rumors are already covered in the Jesse McCartney article, the article should be deleted.OlYeller21^Talktome 22:30, 27 June 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) 01:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nigahiga videography

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

I'm not sure whether we have ever decided whether a videography of a YouTube personality, even one who seems to pass the notability standard, is itself a suitable separate article. The utterly trivial nature of most of the contents leads me to doubt it.. I suppose this is not the place to decide if it is even suitable content, but I doubt that also. DGG ( talk ) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe Ryan Higa the person, as well as his body of work, are each independently notable. As the second-most subscribed person on YouTube with various media mentions he certainly seems notable to me. His page receives around 1500-2000 hits per day, placing him in the top 7000 articles by hits.

I will concede that reliable sources generally avoiding discussing his work at length. However, per WP:INHERIT, "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an 'inherited notability' per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."

I see this as a practical concern related to formatting. On a practical level, such a lengthy videography took up an inordinate amount of space on his article. While I personally find most Web videos trivial, I also believe in describing a body of work that has garnered popular culture appeal. This is simply a way of making that content more accessible to those who want it, and keeping it out of the way for people looking for general information about the person. CaseyPenk (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is made of WP:BIG, WP:POPULARPAGE, bordering WP:PRETTY and your original research. It fails WP:NOTABILITY, so whether WP:INHERIT applies or not is a moot point. You say he's certainly notable, but then you go on to say the article is too small for this content. Short biographies suggests lack of notability, not proof.
I've partially solved the 'too big' problem by deleting all the unsourced videos on the list.--Otterathome (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per CaseyPenk. Zappa O Mati 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per CaseyPenk. Mikepellerin (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ryan Higa is notable, but none of this content is covered by any indepedant sources, so fails WP:NOTABILITY. All arguments provided above are terrible, which I have replied to, minus the two votes.--Otterathome (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not sure this list is even notable for a section on the article, Nigahiga makes a wide range of random videos, there is no consistent topic, or sequence of events, like a TV or web series. This list adds nothing to the bio. 117Avenue (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The videography is already in the parent article. The content there, with videography, is not so large as to require an article split. Whether that material can continue there is an editorial decision we need not make here (as DGG duly notes.) Unlikely search term, so I don't see the need for a redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:27, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like others, I have my doubts whether it is even suitable in the main article. It certainly doesn't merit its own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A10. There's absolutely nothing here that isn't in the Nigahiga article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleddog116 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the list was removed from the main article when it was created. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline suitability for inclusion in the main article, not suitable at all for a stand-alone article. If the majority of the videos had their own article along with suitable references, it might be different - but as it is, this should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Janet Devlin. The consensus is that this shouild redirect to the reality program article until such time if(when) she becomes notable in her own right PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Devlin (singer)

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

Devlin was a contestant on last year's UK X-Factor series. Janet Devlin is a redirect to the contestants page. Like the other contestants', she has not long been out of the post-series tour and has done nothing of great note in her own right. The new article is almost entirely about her activities with X-factor, apart from ~~a few subsequent 'tweets'~~ an announcement she is due to start recording. It is normal practise to redirect to the reality TV series until contestants become independently notable. Sionk (talk) 22:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration on the Article. I would appreciate if we could work together so that the article satisfies your concerns. The Article tries to point out that there has been quite considerable moments of worthy notability. There have been a number of newspaper, magazine, television & radio recognition on the said artist. The artist has received an Honorary Civil Award from Omagh County Council for example which has been reliably sourced. I would also appreciate if you could point out where the 'tweets' are. I am new to the process and would like to reiterate that I appreciate your help and feedback. Kind regards, Michelle Gortinsheep (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I hope she does well in the future. But with only vague promises of an album she clearly hasn't made her mark outside of X-factor yet. The Music News source confirms she's about to start recording some tracks. This seems to be the only post-X factor news coverage. See WP:NMUSIC for examples of what might make her notable in the future, for example releasing a successful track. I've amended the 'tweet' comment, I thought one of the sources quoted her tweets. Sionk (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered and swift response. I would put forward that the Artist has made her mark outside of X Factor, I can point you to reliable sources to this fact. If you review the article, a number of the sources are post X Factor and can provide further evidence of this fact. I appreciate that new Articles must be thoroughly scrutinised and totally respect your input and opinion. As I said, I am quite new to the process and would really appreciate any advice and help that you could give. I would still put forward that the Artist deserves a atand alone article. Rest assured I fully take on board your points. Thank you so much for your time and kind consideration. Kind regards, Michelle Gortinsheep (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for your review and improvement to the article. Your time and help is much appreciated. Kind regards, Michelle Gortinsheep (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Janet Devlin, as it was previously. Devlin is not notable outside of the series as she has not had any singles or albums in any chart. Note that I redirected the page, not realising this AFD was open as the template was removed. I also moved the page to Janet Devlin where it should be, but that does not affect this. I reverted my other actions. –anemone projectors– 13:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for your considered and informative response. I would put forward that the Artist has been notable outside of X Factor. For Example, the Artist is the recipient of an Honorary Award at a Civic Reception from Omagh Council in Northern Ireland. Leaving aside the millions of YouTube Hits (Pre & During X Factor) which may or may not constitute Notability, the Artist has been subject to significant media coverage post X Factor as set out in WP:NMUSIC Part 1 Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. I would suggest that the Artist satisfies this test . For example, the media coverage post X Factor: The Artist's Gigs post X Factor and recording her own original songs in studio with Eliot Kennedy & his team. In addition, the Artist was offered a Recording Contract within minutes of leaving the show; which is a X Factor record and notable of itself. I fully take on board that the Artist has not yet had a Single or Album in any chart yet....but would suggest that this is not far from happening. If you look at the Preamble to WP:NMUSIC It does state... Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted I hope I have gone some way to explain and hopefully persuade that the Artist is deserving and notable enough to have her own stand alone Artice. I shall now leave it in your capable hands and hope you can agree with what I have tried to get across. Should the consensus reach a decision that the Article be Redirected/Deleted, All I would ask is that the Artice be returned to my Sandbox so that I could maintain it until it is ready for mainspace....as the Editors see fit, should that arise. Finally, I would just like to say thank you very much for your time and expertise. It is very much appreciated.... Kind regards, Michelle Gortinsheep (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Janet Devlin, as she currently has no independent notability outside of the television show she appeared on. — sparklism ^hey! 13:42, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article has lots of verifiable references. It may be appropriate to delete it later, but I think Wikipedia benefits from it in its current form. Squareanimal (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squareanimal (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis singer has recently appeared in an advert for coca cola and the olympics (The singer on stage)Seasider91 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She didn't appear in a Coca cola advert for the Olympics. It was Katy B. Sionk (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my mistake, but surely the charity single released by the contestants is enough to satisfy WP:MUSICSeasider91 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The charity single is notable to X-factor, but hardly to a single participant among many. Sionk (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This singer meets the notability guidelines found at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. As a reviewer of the Misha Bryan page, which was also flagged for deletion by User:Sionk, I am familiar with the arguments to keep and to delete. I do not understand why this page or the previous Misha Bryan page are so fiercely contested when they meet the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. I fought to clean up the Misha Bryan page and have asked User:Sionk to review and accept at Misha_Bryan_(singer) -- if there are any other reviewers available on this thread, you are also welcome to review and accept. You can see the previous talk about these issues at Talk:Misha_Bryan_(singer). Thanks! -- NewzealanderA (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make a comment relating to articles about The X Factor contestants. The subjects of these articles may appear notable, but until they have a music release (not part of The X Factor contestants) that charts somewhere, then the list entries at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) are sufficient. This is what has always happened in the past, with people like Stacey Solomon and Cher Lloyd, and is what should continue to happen. Otherwise we would have articles for every contestant - they always receive media coverage because of the show they were on. Even Frankie Cocozza is more deserving of an article than Janet Devlin because he's appeared in another reality TV series. –anemone projectors– 09:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then this should be part of the Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles so that this does not appear as a subjective decision only related to X Factor contestants. And, then, it would have to written as part of the guidelines so that it does not single out X Factor but instead would capture every contestant on every music show including American Idol, which then would mean that would subject every individual person's article on Wikipedia from these shows to the same criteria. If we are not willing to have this as part of the guidelines, then we need to allow this page and other pages like it to stand so long as they meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. It becomes very confusing and creates an argument atmosphere to not adhere to written notability guidelines. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability is the primary guide for what should and should not be included in Wikipedia. Because Devlin has attracted significant attention from the media because of her 3-minute appearances on X-Factor, she is included on Wikipedia, at List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#Janet Devlin. Hence the arguments here to 'redirect'. Sionk (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia:Notability were the primary guide, then this discussion would not be happening. What is happening is that there is another level of unwritten notability being applied to these contestants based on what appears to be, at this point, precedent -- the examples stated above being Stacey Solomon and Cher Lloyd -- and interested editors that prevents these people from having their own article until a consensus threshold is met. Having dropped into this discussion because I happened to have been the last reviewer/editor for Talk:Misha_Bryan_(singer) which is in nearly the same situation, this is extremely frustrating. How can we avoid arguments like this in the future? Can there be a post on Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_X_Factor that outlines the consensus approach or the examples of others who have their own page? Something like that could be used as a reference going forward so that it becomes presented as more of the community decision than having it appear that it's just an opinion of one or two interested editors. -- NewzealanderA (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a general discussion about X-Factor or WP:N. Please confine your comments to the subject at hand. Sionk (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect as per WP:1E/WP:TOOSOON. If the putative new album charts and gets coverage, offer a WP:REFUND. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:09, 3 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 (and nomination was withdrawn as well). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

T. C. McCarthy

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

This person does not appear to come close to the criteria in the notability guideline at WP:AUTHOR. The only claim of significance is being the winner of a literary award so minor that it is also probably a valid candidate for deletion on notability grounds. VQuakr (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I'll get this into the article later, but short on time now; here's a review [11]; it looks like there used to be another one at the August Chronicle ([12], but now removed for some reason (maybe it's a paywall); I'll try to find more later. If I can't, I'd agree it's borderline at best. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This along with the couple of other article posted to the talk page get it out of deletion territory for me; nom withdrawn. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In its current form, this page doesn't qualify to be kept. But there may be outher sources out there; without them, I say 'delete'.Squareanimal (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: McCarthy's books have received a fair amount of attention, in some major venues, such as The Guardian and Wired, and some not-so-major venues, including Strange Horizons, The Augusta Chronicle, and SF Signal. An editor claiming to be Mr. McCarthy himself has promised to provide reliable sources to verify claims in the original article that he is a Fulbright scholar, etc. I don't know that such claims will bolster notability any, but if they are verifiable, they are certainly appropriate for inclusion in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The third party sources listed on the article's talk page are sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. In the next few days, I'll work them into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sourcing and WP:WIRED (which I've repeated enough times that I finally decided to make it an essay) Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm happy to do whatever I can to prove that I'm T.C. McCarthy - just let me know how I can do this, but I'm guessing it really doesn't matter. Also, I posted links to Fulbright documentation at the University of Georgia, third party articles (including both WP:WIRED pieces), academic and literary publications, etc., at the T.C. McCarthy talk page: [13] At this point, unless specifically requested (e.g. for copies of print only articles like the one in Impact Magazine), I think it's appropriate for me to bow out of this discussion.Tburger88 (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds plus has received significant critical attention thus meeting WP:AUTHOR. - Dravecky (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author has won the COmpton Crook Award, which has been around for thirty years and has a distinguished pedigree. It is not the minor award the initial poster suggested. Shsilver (talk) 18:58, 1 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) 13:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Bernasconi

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

Non-notable cocktail, unsupported assertions, unreferenced, fails WP:GNG. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails notability. I'm tempted to say this should be speedy deleted as a blatant hoax. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find nothing referencing a cocktail of this name in gNews or gBook searches. Fails notability standards. Could this be made up? Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know if this is a hoax but it doesn't appear verifiable or notable. --Artene50 (talk) 04:34, 27 June 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) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of TEDMED speakers

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

Unverified list whose existence only reinforces the promotional nature of the TED articles. A list of speakers (of whom there are many) isn't necessary encyclopedic anyway, even if in the main article and properly verified. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Patently promotional in nature. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list itself does not meet notability standards (even if TEDMED itself does), is in conflict with WP:What Wikipedia is not on several levels, is promotional, and isn't even verified at present. Snow (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Policies say WP is not news, which the fact that someone spoke at a conference is, and that it's not for non-notable lists. No person's notability is established by speaking at TEDMED. Borock (talk) 06:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:NOTDIR. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Famous _dog (c) 13:39, 27 June 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 The Voice (Australia season 1). Consensus is that a separate article is not merited at this stage. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bennett (singer)

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

Fails WP:BIO. Non-notable reality TV show contestant. Oz ^talk 07:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Singer's recordings have been sold commercially by Universal music. --Victory93 (talk) 10:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:MUSBIO. Oz ^talk 11:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These recordings are just his performances from the show. They're not his official singles. Oz ^talk 07:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Singer meets 3 of the following criteria:

10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)
11.Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
- Fails this criteria. He hasn't released any songs to radio. Oz ^talk 07:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12.Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

--Victory93 (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then he meets just those two. The criteria states that if they meet just one of the critera then they're considered notable enough. --Victory93 (talk) 07:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria states it "may" be notable. But this singer is notable only for one event. Has he released singles/or albums that have charted? No. Is he signed to a record label? No. I think the best thing to do is redirect the article to The Voice (Australia season 1). Oz ^talk 10:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His cover of Fireflies debuted at 93 on the ARIA charts however the information has since been removed from the aria website. I'm unable to find any other reliable link which I can reference this to in the article. --Victory93 (talk) 11:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (Australia), this article is premature. BLP1E for now. Cavarrone (talk) 02:48, 24 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) 01:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (Australia). Per nom and Cavarrone, this is a good case of BLP1E. Will also need to change the hatnote at Ben Bennett.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 02:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this article is informative and useful. It is borderline for the criteria, but should not be deleted at this stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squareanimal (talk • contribs) 10:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Voice (Australia season 1). It is normal practise on Wikipedia that reality TV contestants don't get their own article until they are independently notable outside of the TV programme. Sionk (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (Australia season 1). Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO as an individual. WWGB (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The article Carmen Smith should have a similar fate. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The singer Carmen Smith actually meets to the notability critera for having written songs for other singers and has appeared on other television shows. --Victory93 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do Galé River

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

It has no information that can't be found in another wikipedia page. Flygon's friend- Smarter than the average bear! 02:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that such as river even exists as the PDF file does not show any with that name. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google search turns up only Wikipedia and Wikimirrors. Fails WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, per previous users' comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not quite a hoax, There is a small river on that PDF map, just to the west of the major coastal city João Pessoa. There is also a similar stub in pt.wiki. Whether that qualifies for a stub here I don't know. Sussexonian (talk) 07:20, 3 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) 01:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Peru football rivalry

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

I seek to have a debate about the relevance of this article as there's strong evidence to suggest that this rivalry isn't mutual on the football field. This article cites many Peruvian sources which isn't overly balanced and the only neutral site the one coming from Malaysia only suggests that a war once occurred between the two nations but fails to conclusively suggest if this rivalry actually resonates to the football field. I can write more but I wish to keep this introduction short. Overall most Chileans don't consider Peru as a rival. Chelios123 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CNN in 2008 had this on a list of the "Top 10 international rivalries". This 2006 AP article about Chilean foreign affairs mentions the "heated rivalries over soccer matches" between Chile and Peru. This brief item in the Sunday Mail (Scotland) "describes them as "bitter rivals" and mentions that the Chilean team bus was stoned when it played in Peru in 2001. Here is Nolberto Solano in The Independent in 1999 describing Chile as Peru's "greatest rivals". I note that the history of this article indicates that substantial sourced portions (notably about the disagreement between the countries over who invented the bicycle kick, which is mentioned in the CNN list and discussed in our article about the history of the bicycle kick) have been deleted, rather than improved as they might have been. On the other hand, the current sections describing the Chile and Peru team histories, without reference to the rivalry, seem a bit off the point. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

those are vaild sources however it still goes outside the scope of "football rivalry". Most of the information on this article is only valid for the chile-peru relations page. Like I said before the football contest between chile and peru doen't resonate huge feelings of rivalry in Chilean society and ONLY seems to affect Peruvians e.g the stoning incident in Lima. If the sense of Rivalry isn't mutual then its NOT a rivalry. The Nolberto solano quote only contributes to the Peruvian POV and the CNN source still doesn't explain football related issues on the field e.g Notable games or famous incidents. The scope of this article is about "football rivalry" and sadly everything in this article except the table of the results goes outside the scope of "football rivalry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelios123 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3) & was therefore lost & retrieved today. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 20:53, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge with Football rivalries in Chile/Football rivalries in Peru - The subject strains at meeting notability in its own right, but does have decent sources (and those supplied here above are even better) to establish the existence of the rivalry (whether the animosity is stronger on one side or another). However, it seems redundant to add a third page when we already have pages for football rivalries for both of the relevant countries. Why not rename Football rivalries in Chile and Football rivalries in Peru to Chilean football rivalries and Peruvian football rivalries, respectively? This way both internal and international content can be included in separate sections and the content from the the currently debated article can be merged into them, as can any content for any other rivalries that others may wish to add later that involves either of these nations. It would be a good standard for going forward if we are going to allow articles for individual nation's rivalries and will reduce overhead on the editorial work that would otherwise be necessary in debating the notability of specific rivalries in future AfD's. Snow (talk) 02:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure this 'rivalry' has received enough attention to meet GNG and be notable. Giant Snowman 15:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to meet GNG. The CNN reference above is especially relevant. Eldumpo (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good reference point is to look at the england-germany or england-scotland football rivalry pages and you'll find that those articles are many layers higher in quality than the chile-peru football rivalry page. Just mentioning a "war" is not enough to contribute to a football rivalry. Compared to the England-Germany or England-Scotland pages this article lacks information about notable matches, quotes from important entities from both sides or any other notable football related event. --Chelios123 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 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. It was tagged a blatant hoax, but even if we assume good faith that it refers to some website, it would be non-notable web content. —C.Fred (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mint square

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

I googled this term and nothing came up but the food. I think this is a G3/Hoax, but I am wondering if anyone heard of the term. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page was already tagged per criteria G3, as it's a blatant hoax. Speedy delete per those criteria. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Weinberg

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

The article, which appears to be largely or perhaps exclusively the creation of the subject and related parties, appears to be essentially promotional in nature. While the subject does have a local radio show (with internet syndication), there is a marked scarcity of reliable 3d party sources discussing the subject, and for that reason the article appears to fail the basic tests of WP:BIO. A PROD template was quickly removed by an anon editor, without explanation or improvement to the article. A prior article by the same name was deleted in 2005 but it is not clear that the earlier article concerned this same individual. JohnInDC (talk) 02:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - The IP editor did subsequently add a couple of references, not really on point and only one of them independent of the subject, but my prior observation that the editor did not improve the article at all is no longer true. JohnInDC (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Although I did not read them all, the sources I did read quoted Mr. Weinberg or made passing mention of him as an attorney in a criminal case. This does not seem to add up WP:SIGCOV. Cnilep (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. This reads too much like an uncritical CV. More critical references needed.Squareanimal (talk) 10:35, 26 June 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) —Hue Sat Lum 00:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Park Turner

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

Contested PROD. I was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I also don't think that he meets WP:PROF. Jenks24 (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this entry on Stephen Turner and I have attempted to address the concerns that you have. I have tried to provide additional material that shows that his books and articles have been widely cited and that he is a recognized authority on Max Weber, social practices, social theory, and a number of other academic areas. I am open to any constructive comments on how to write this entry better. I do believe that he meets the professor listing and I thought that I have now added enough material to satisfy the problems about independent reliable sources--various book reviews in academic journals. I would also suggest that his middle name be removed so that the entry reads simply Stephen Turner. I would appreciate any help that you can give me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxweber1864 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have not shown that he passes WP:ACADEMIC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you may be right (you often are, in my experience), but let's help him out in trying to address the issues and see if we can make the notability or lack thereof clearer. (Distinguished University Professors at Research 1 schools, usually pass WP:PROF; it's a significant step above full professor). I see that his book The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology was reviewed in American Journal of Sociology, Social Forces and, intriguingly, Science [14] (rare for a sociology book) -- books with reviews in good peer-reviewed journals tend to argue for keeping. There may be some question about whether his collaborator should get some credit there, but he is the first listed author (despite being second alphabetically) and all the reviews has said that the two authors have very different views. I see 29 citations on GS for "The Disintegration of American Sociology: Pacific Sociological Association 1988 Presidential Address" which is pretty high for a 1989 research paper in a non-Internet-heavy discipline. His 1994 book received five different reviews. "Max" :-) -- these are the types of things that tend to help garner Keep votes on AfD for professors: citations of their authority through reviews, special chairs, and when possible quotations from other sources praising them as experts in their fields. Looking through the net for what might help you there, I've found enough that I feel justified in voting Strong Keep. You may know of additional materials offline that can help you in convincing others. (I think that Stephen Park Turner is a better place for the article since that's what he publishes under mostly. We can do some cleanup on the article's formatting if it's kept.) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:11, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am inclined to agree with Mscuthbert. Esp. wrt the article in Science and the Distinguished University Professor title. Also agree with Keeping the title of the article. Roodog2k (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C5. The many reviews of his books in venues such as Times Higher Education are also persuasive. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 29 June 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) 13:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Learning Network for Universal Health Coverage

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

A google search throws up a flood of sources, but it would appear that they are all published by the parent organisation, or are similarly closely connected with the subject. I can't find any suitable sources. The author is an employee of the parent organisation, and I think it may just be WP:TOOSOON for this article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at this time. Everything found at Google is self-referential. Google News Archive finds only five hits, all passing mentions. A few mentions are found at Google Scholar, and this may be the route by which this project eventually gains notability - if it ever does. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 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, KTC (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent evidence of notability. Famous _dog (c) 13:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 28 June 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} 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Zegart

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

Non-notable person - article also does not claim notability. None of those books have articles. All references are WP:PRIMARY, article also reads a bit promotional. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 06:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Article does claim notability: it claims she is "a leading national expert on the United States Intelligence Community and national security policy". Maybe that wording does read as 'a bit promotional', but that can easily be fixed. Much of the substance of the articles is verified by her biography in the New York Times, which surely qualifies as an independent reliable source. Google Scholar also finds enough reviews of her books in academic journals to meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 3. Qwfp (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- how is being a professor at UCLA, a Fellow of the Hoover Institute, and someone quoted by the NYTimes and the Washington Post not a claim of notability? Far above the average for a researcher with seven reviews of her books in peer-reviewed journals. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:24, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's a transcript of an interview with NPR (HighBeam). Carrite (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's another NPR interview, this on John Negroponte, in which Zegart was again consulted as an expert. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Non-notability your bullbeep, apparently, the user and the agreeable user here believe the person has already sourced the notable facts about the article and the ongoing need of Yahoo, book, and news reviews.--GoShow (...............) 03:40, 27 June 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. This is a close call, but the consensus is just about to delete. There is a consensus that he is notable for one event (his death), and that this is insufficient justification for an article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd Salih Sulayman Al Jutayli

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

a Guantanamo prisoner later released and covered only for a single event (his death). An existing List Saudi most wanted list#List of February 3, 2009 is more suitable. Fails WP:BIO , WP:SIGCOV for an individual article. DBig Xray 07:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWSPAPER also applies here, and fails WP:1EVENT --DBig Xray 12:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - barely notable for being released and then killed. Several reliable sources discusss the subject. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject only appears in two brief mentions found on the BBC. Subject does not pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:05, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-depth coverage by secondary sources is missing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- al Jutayli was involved in multiple significant events, all supported by RS. Geo Swan (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being a part of significant events doesn't establishes notability. Remember that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, our notability guidelines clearly says that one should have in-depth coverage in secondary sources, in order to have an article here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has been very insistent that they think I would be in a conflict of interest unless I explicitly disclaimed that I started the target of any of the XfD initiated on material I started. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@creator Please WP:AGF and see WP:DISCUSSAFD, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --DBig Xray 14:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he was released and then killed. This doesn't make the person notable. Nothing else has been done by the person to make him notable. →TSU ^tp* 14:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The fact that this car was not made is not a reason for deletion, as per the consensus here. There is sufficient coverage at reliable sources for the consensus to be to keep this article, albeit with cleanup needed PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandenbrink GTO

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

Nominating this as it had been dePRODed previously, my rationale of nominating is that this article is more like an attention grabbing press release of a car that have not existed since it was introduced four years ago, for that its a modified Ferrari intent on imitating a well known past model (an easy press points scorer). No physical photograph of the car exist, meaning that it never went beyond its CGI press image (or beyond its drawing board) and I doubt highly it will ever see notability, not since those years have passed. Press release aside, no other third party media coverage to do with it to establish notability exist either. Donnie Park (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, the car it was supposed to be based on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought...keep. A Google News search [15] turns up numerous hits, including one as recently as 2011 [16], meaning it wasn't a flash in the pan, and one [17] from the Dutch edition of Autoweek that says the design won one of these in 2008. Something does not need to exist in order to be notable; I believe that the WP:GNG is met, and while the article in its current state does sound like a press release, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...so this is keep for a project that will only exist in press release form only, just like every other failed projects and keep for ticking wikipedia notability boxes. There are plenty of failed projects but at least some of these have managed to come up with working prototypes if not a physical display model and that retro wannabe GTO is nothing but CGI image and nowhere beyond that. As I pointed out, the link you shown here look as if they are was written from press releases, nothing else and beyond that, no physical example. Are we supposed to give notability to CGI cars which I thought would normally be given for vehicles that appeared on fictitious works. As with Google search, c'mon, its a Ferrari, they will always generate publicity every day of each year, just add the GTO name and ghits will skyrocket overnight, people who know Ferrari will know that. Donnie Park (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google books; that's something entirely different than a plain old WP:GHITS search. And we don't "give notability" to anything; the fact of the matter is that, 'CGI car' or not, this appears to meet the WP:GNG, at which point it is notable and article-worthy. No physical example is required; just because it wasn't built doesn't mean it's automatically non-notable. Given the number of mentioned in published works, and the fact that the design has won significant awards, this is a notable thing that is deserving of an article. (Also, given that the project was still extant as of 2011, it seems that declarations it will never be built might be somewhat crystal-bally.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google books search results only have a single link to its official website, which again, is that a reliable source. So you comparing this to military aircraft/ships, which is more than likely to be notable, to put it this way, they are likely to appear in books wheras this is likely to be forgotten - anybody with a design degree (or anybody else) can come up with a car which is unlikely for military vehicles. Back to what I said, it still consists of the same press releases along with its usual press musings just as i said, I doubt this project will go beyond its drawing board, why, nothing have been heard of the project since 2008. Donnie Park (talk) 03:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I'm sorry, my bad - I meant Google News. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (please see my new position three threads down). There are no sufficient and viable sources to establish notability and the stub's worth of content is clearly promotional in nature, and may have even been contributed by someone who is connected to the subject's designer. Snow (talk) 03:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's promotional in tone, AfD is not for cleanup - also, there are sufficent sources to establish notability. See: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. I'd fix the article myself except I don't read Dutch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well only three of those are really decent sources, but three is enough for verifiability certainly. Not really sure about notability though. The sources reiterate the stats of the car, but they don't really discuss them in evaluative, contextualizing or broader detail. But I will translate some of the better sources and put them on a subpage here (maybe as late as tomorrow though) and people can come to their own conclusions. Thanks for bringing these to attention. Snow (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All evidence I've come across is that this is vapor-coachwork. It made a big blog splash back in 2006/2007 but I have not seen evidence that a physical car was ever made. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vaporware is still notable; the fact that an actual car was not built isn't reason to delete. Also, please see the links above establishing notability, including one from 2011 indicating it's a still-extant project (also WP:NTEMP). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you know the project is still in existence, do you know he design team enough to? Providing you fund for a ___domain name and website for a certain period of time, that website can be kept going until it expires. Donnie Park (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - [27], dated March 13, 2011 on gNews. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Bushranger's research shows notable coverage in third-party sources. We don't delete things that didn't make it off the drawing board, and we don't delete things that could just be cleaned up. Imzadi 1979 → 02:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable only for that short period with a hint of promotional tone to it and copied from press releases, which is typical of all failed projects. I will assure you that in five years time, my rationale to nominate this article will always be the same and we will allow a flood of projects that will never go off the ground, being an expensive car based on a prestigious brand and a well known car, they will have no problem getting media coverage like this one. Donnie Park (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I too am dubious about the notability of this particular subject, what you are saying actually serves more as a justification for keeping the article. The fact that a commerical media blitz can accompany a project like this (whether it comes to fruition or not), only makes it more likely that valid sources will cover it. My only question is whether an unrealized concept for a possibly singular unit for one ultra-wealthy customer that is really only an adaption of an existing subject is really general-use knowledge that benefits Wikipedia users. But I think what you're going to find is that people will make the argument that policy allows for the article (whether it serves any useful purpose or not) in that it has been covered, however briefly, by reputable sources (however small). I would counter that these sources don't seem to do much but list the people who were signed up to assist in the (ultimately unfulfilled) project and some of the car's theoretical performance stats and that this does not itself translate to wider notability or contextual relevance sufficient to meet WP:GNG, but given the community's (intentionally) lax standards on these things, I think you should be prepared for a "keep" determination. Snow (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a note (WP:OTHERSTUFF, yes , but relevant to the above comment), the one-off Ferrari SP12 EC was kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but as you yourself note, we can't really make these determinations based on what was done with previous AfD's, however similar the articles. I'd also note that the SP12 article seems to have superior independent sources, that the project in question was an "in-house" project by Ferrari which was part of an established one-off series, that the model was produced, and that it was made for Eric Clapton no less -- all of which goes a long way to boosting its notability considerably over the present article. And yet, all of that said, I think I would have voted to merge that article too. Snow (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have translated four of the sources provided by Bushranger above to help assess the notability of this subject. Please note that, as the majority of the languages involved and auto engineering in general are out my wheelhouse, some of the technical language may be off. For our purposes here, that should not be a problem, but anyone wishing to add these details as content to the article should fact-check them scrupulously. Also note that the remaining sources were either broken links, invalid sources, or were near-verbatim variations on the four that were translated, so this seems to be the sum total of the info we have available to us at present. Snow (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing that up! I might try, if I get the time, to work some of that into the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - NP, Happy to do it. :) In fact, anytime you need material translated (whether it be investigating sources or transwiki-ing content), feel free to let me know - I've got a linguistics background and a wide array of tools so I'm ok even with languages I'm not particularly familiar with. Snow (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, as per Bushranger's original position (note that he now endorses a keep). I think given A) this really is an adaption of the Fiorano, B) we're unlikely to ever have more than a stub's worth of viable content to add on this subject, and C) notability is at-best contentious, a subsection on that article seems like the best course of action. Snow (talk) 21:17, 28 June 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. Note that the artist's name is actually Calvin Harris, and that the correct title of this article would've been Calvin Harris's third studio album. Should such an article be recreated, this AFD would apply equally to that article as to this one, insofar as G4 Speedy Deletion and other concerns would come into play. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cavin Harris's third studio album

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

Contested PROD. No indication of notability, fail WP:NALBUMS. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The fact that the release date was suppose to be 23 July just 2 days ago and is now shown to be 29 October, and still no album name shows how little solid information there is. KTC (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although that may be true there is legitimate sources that the album does exist and will be released in the near future. And it has sufficient information regarding the track that will be on the album.--A9l8e7n (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No album name == no article. Apart from known, sequential sorts of thins, e.g. 2016 Summer Olympics, we generally avoid creating articles for things that do not exist, Mention it in the artist's article, and as soon as it is named, create it. Tarc (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding no significant coverage for this yet-to-be-released album in reliable sources. This artist's album will clearly be notable as the release date approaches, but at this time it's WP:CRYSTAL and does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no confirmed details, no confirmed tracks, no certainty that anything recorded so far will be on his next album (and it's 'Calvin' by the way). --Michig (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until the album actually comes out. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When you don't know the name of the album, it's likely WP:TOOSOON, even if you know track listings. This is where TenPoundHammer's law comes from, which is a reflection of the reality of AfDs and future albums. WP:HAMMERTIME. Unless the album is unusually anticpated and there is an enormous amount of coverage.... I don't see that here. Hence, delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON I had doubts over this article being encyclopedic when the author can't even spell the DJ's name right LOL Seasider91 (talk) 17:51, 26 June 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.