Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 June	9 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 keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU ^tp* 07:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience

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

WP:DICDEF. This article has no actual content other than a definition. Most of it is unreferenced fluff such as examples of things thought to be "convenient" or "inconvenient" and other things vaguely related to the idea of "convenience." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced since 2007 and beyond, nothing but a dicdef, mess of weasel words and OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a dab page for Public toilet, Convenience Township, Pope County, Arkansas, and Convenience (horse), with a wiktionary link. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab per above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Convert to a disambiguation page. The topic fails WP:DICDEF; it's a word, not a term.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DICDEF is rarely a reason to delete because the point of that policy is that we should group topics by their meaning rather than not covering them at all. So what alternative headings might there be for this major concept? Fit for purpose is a vogue phrase in the UK lately but is a redlink. Labour-saving and time saving are red links too. It seems then that this is the main article and so we should develop it under this existing title. But are there sources from which to work? There are search links conveniently placed above and they soon reveal some good sources. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience has a chapter on the particular topic of convenience. The Value of Convenience is an entire book which takes a broad philosophical approach. The paper, Toward the construct of convenience in consumer research seems to be one of many papers analysing the concept in a multi-dimensional way in the context of consumer research and marketing. The relevant policy here then is not WP:DICDEF but WP:IMPERFECT and so the article should be kept for improvement. Warden (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it should be noted that, regardless of one's opinion on the Article Rescue Squadron as a whole, this article's listing on the rescue list is a blatant canvassing violation. It completely fails to make clear what it would like editors to do to "save" the article besides !vote, and by no stretch of the imagination does it come close to a neutral message to a neutral party.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't too bothered about the !voting because nobody, not even TPH, agrees that we should be deleting this. The issue is now mainly a matter of ordinary editing and I consider this topic to be a good editing challenge. It seemed good for the ARS to engage with this as such work is quite elevating. The only editor that I've ever seen work at this level is Uncle G (see loyalty) and we could use a lot more like him. Practice makes perfect... Warden (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – (Struck my convert !vote above) Per the sources presented above by User:Colonel Warden:

Tierney, Thomas F. (1993). "The Value of Convenience: A Genealogy of Technical Culture". SUNY Press. Retrieved June 10, 2012. ISBN 079141244X
Shove, Elizabeth (2003). "Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: The Social Organization of Normality". Berg. Retrieved June 10, 2012. ISBN 1859736300

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More sources:

Berry, Leonard L.; et al. (July 2002). "Understanding Service Convenience". Vol. 66, No. 3. Journal of Marketing. pp. 1–17. Retrieved June 10, 2012.
Holton, Richard H. (July 1958). "The Distinction between Convenience Goods, Shopping Goods, and Specialty Goods". Vol. 23, No. 1. Journal of Marketing. pp. 53–56. Retrieved June 10, 2012.
Bhatnagar, Amit; et al. (November 2000). "On risk, convenience, and Internet shopping behavior". Volume 43 Issue 11. Communications of the ACM Magazine. pp. 98–105. Retrieved June 10, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep tons of sources. Cavarrone (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NA1000 and Cavarrone. Plenty of sources could be added to make a decent article. Bearian (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample coverage of the concept of convenience, something most people are obsessed with having and refuse to live without. Dream Focus 11:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although it seems strange to me that this one slipped through the cracks. Is there a similar article we could merge this with? Because convenience is a fundamental concept, so I figure it would already have an established presence. Deleting convenience would be like deleting efficiency. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't think it should be a DAB page, as the article page is the main meaning of the term. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:33, 12 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 for deletion, if there is a consensus it is closer to keeping than deleting. Note that repetitively tagging votes with links to the WP:ATA essay is discouraged by the essay itself.

...it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged.

Many of the keep votes are indeed rather vague, but several here have made a reasonable argument that the article is a useful navigational aid, something which is a legitimate purpose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2012 schedule

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

It is a totally redundant content fork to UEFA Euro 2012. Every date, venue and result information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for a schedule. Article also doesn't meed the GNG, as there are no independent coverage in reliable sources, which discuss the schedule of this competition. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as per the reason above, the article content covered in main article on the tournament already. No need to merge.Seasider91 (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

169.587 hits in a single day say speedy keep and snowball close. Moreover, the schedule page presents the data at-a-glance in a userfriendly table format that is nevertheless not useful for the main article. Thus, the page greatly increases reader access to a specific data subset. Imho it would be a disservice to readers to delete/redirect the page. You may notice how I keep using the word "page" instead of "article", because obviously the page is not a full article by any measure. The question is: does it have to be? What's the harm in offering the reader a highly useful overview over this highly notable set of data? Why not propose merger or deletion after the competition is concluded? Why does it have to be right now? --195.14.221.65 (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PAGEVIEWSTATS are not valid reasons to keep any article. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments provide an excellent reason not to nominate the page for deletion in the first place. Again: Why not propose merger or deletion after the competition is concluded? Why does it have to be right now? I also reject your characterization of my reasoning as WP:ITSUSEFUL, which clearly states that this concerns only !votes without argumentation. I did provide my reasoning for why exactly the page is useful, therefore WP:ITSUSEFUL does not apply. You may want to actually read essays before citing them. If you don't agree with my reasoning that the main article does not present an at-a-glance overview of the schedule, just say so. But please don't pretend that I didn't present any reasoning, that's simply not collegial or honest. --195.14.221.65 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the WP:ITSUSEFUL link. Note, however, that WP:ITSUSEFUL includes the following: "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context." No-itsme (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Euro 2012 already has the schedule information, but redirect could be useful. Brandmeister^talk 09:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article shouldn't be deleted, because it provides all information on matches timing. However, the Euro 2012 page just provides the schedule on a group basis which is inconvenient (because you have through every group to know the schedule. A.h. king • Talk to me! 14:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate entries on every match of the group stage and they contain the related schedule, see UEFA_Euro_2012#Group_stage. Brandmeister^talk 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is more convenient to have all the schedule in one article. A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is an incredibly useful page.de Mediātōre Scientiae (discutere) 23:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We're not TV Guide, and the information is redundant. Ask yourself this question: "Will the information this page be at all useful six months from now?" The answer vhere is no, and therefore this isn't material for Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask yourself this question: "Is the page useful right now?" Then what's the hurry? Why not delete it after Euro 2012 has concluded? Why right now? --195.14.221.65 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the information is redundant -- Not entirely, no. The main article contains no chronologically sorted overview. You may argue that that's not sufficient to justify a separate page, but there is in fact information in the schedule page that isn't currently included in the main article in any form. --195.14.207.176 (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is really useful. Secretlondon (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopaedic information in a reader friendly form that Wikipedia does so well. This at a glance information will be as valid in 1,000 years as it is today. The only real question is where to place the chart - is it better in a click-through stand-alone, or embedded in the main article in a collapsible. Not really a question for AfD. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely useful article which I myself have had stickied in my browser for the past week. I can't fathom why anyone would be so anal as to nominate this for deletion. --Schcambo (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get over yourself mate. Numerous users here have given numerous reasons as to why it should be kept, which is explicitly allowed under WP:ITSUSEFUL. I'd advise you accept that other people have a different opinion from you and move onto something more fruitful and worthwhile than this discussion. --Schcambo (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly agree that this page should not be deleted as it contains all relevant info about the match results. Trelos physikos (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UEFA Euro 2012 also contain all the relevant info about the match results. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but not in a concise and chronologically ordered format as found in this page. I think that his alone justifies this page's existence. Finally, about the WP:ITSUSEFUL, please stop quoting it again and again, by now we are all familiar with it...Trelos physikos (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Needs to be fleshed out, but it is notable. Nominator's assertion that there is no coverage is false. Just Google "Euro 2012 schedule". Tchaliburton (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they only contain the schedule and don't discuss it in detail. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is little in the way of analytical examination of the schedule. How does that render the schedule of the UEFA Euro 2012 a non-notable subtopic? No offence, but doesn't this all strike you as a rather pointless exercise at this point? What are you hoping to achieve? An AfD would have had far better chances a month ago, or a month from now. And you know that perfectly well, which once again begs the question: Why right now? --195.14.207.70 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see, why an article should be kept for one more month, if it doesn't belong there. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 16:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point: This AfD is rapidly failing, and foreseeably so. The question is, why then did you nominate it for deletion at this exact point in time, when you must have known the AfD would have no chance during the tournament? Tell me you're not just making a point similar to how you keep citing ITSUSEFUL, or how you tagged the page for lack of secondary sources on the day of the opening match instead of just popping a FUKITOL and moving on. --78.35.236.49 (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the future and therefore I had no idea, how it would end. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 17:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's either naive or dishonest. Which do you consider less unflattering? We'll just settle on that. --78.35.236.49 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THis is extremely useful and is not redundant at all: it organises the matches by date, not by group. Definitely do NOT delete this - it will be a huge loss of a very useful page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.75.29 (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — 81.68.75.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 12:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you have actually read WP:ITSUSEFUL. If people say that an article is useful and give reasons, that is a argument for inclusion - "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion." The above keep comment gives valid reasons for keeping. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I know WP:ITSUSEFUL, but still don't really think it's sensible to delete such an eminently useful piece of information. —Nightstallion 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It provides users with infos in one single article and therefore it should not be deleted. Those infos can't be found on the main article (time and stadium). Oh, and Armbrust, just stop with the WP:ITSUSEFUL, really annoying to see it under every comment, just because someone has another opinion. Kante4 (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. One place to quickly find match results, timetable etc. בורה בורה (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC) — בורה בורה (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you implying that it's useful? --195.14.207.70 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a fork, all the info is already in the main article. It's not going to be fleshed out even if it passes this AFD - it will most likely be nominated for deletion after the competition finishes anyway. Nanonic (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. This page is clearly very useful to many readers. Even if this happens to be a case where Wikipedia's notability rules might endorse deletion, WP:IAR should be used to keep the page. 91.224.27.227 (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. This page is far more useful than the main page on the Euro 2012 - I found this first and then was very confused by the less helpful main page. This is better organized and has pertinent details that are missing in the other page. One other option is to put this at the top of the other page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.60.248 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2012 — 174.51.60.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. This page has day to day utility for the duration of the tournament. Also, it is useful independently as a clear timeline of the matches. The main page is fine for the the first time visitor, but this page is of more practical use. Should be preserved for posterity. --Darwin (talk) 22:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to UEFA Euro 2012. This is a content fork that has no need to exist as a standalone article. If this table is designed in a superior fashion to the main article page then that is a good argument to merge it into the main and replace the less useful tables. Reso lute 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info in the main article's group stage section is sorted by groups, and it includes the group tables. So this table couldn't replace the content of the group stage section. One viable alternative has been proposed further above, to just add the schedule table there, perhaps in a collapsible box. Personally, I still believe it makes more sense (I know, I know, WP:ITMAKESMORESENSE) to keep it as a separate page for the time being. I certainly see no harm in it. We could even break new ground here and decide now that the page will be redirected to the main page at the conclusion of the competition. Why not? --195.14.199.250 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple deletion is wrong because this contains a chronological summary, something not contained in the main article. A merge is possible, I suppose, but would result in the main article getting too cluttered. Perhaps move to Chronological Summary of UEFA Euro 2012 and then add sections with Details on Day 1, Day 2, etc. underneath the table? Smartyllama (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we not "solve" this in the usual way by jumping through hoops and awkwardly expanding the scope of the page to meet the arbitrarily enforced demands of some self-appointed content zealots. I'm still waiting for someone to explain why this page of all, highly useful and closing in on a million views for only a couple of days, has to be deleted right now. Until then, no jumping through their hoops for me. --195.14.199.250 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that if this page provides no notable information by itself (which I don't believe is the case), expanding would be better than deleting. I say keep as is, but I prefer expansion to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'd rather keep it as is too. As far as merge vs expand goes, I'm firmly on the fence for now. I don't really like either of these alternatives. --213.168.108.25 (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I use it multiple times a day, I only came here to say this because of the deletion notice. Are you people serious? For the love of god keep it. Thank you. If it really bothers you so much, delete it after the tournament. 46.137.188.72 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — 46.137.188.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Chronology is content. Saying that the info on this page is the same as the main Euro page shows a deep misunderstanding of what original information actually is. A timeline is information, even if each event is already described somewhere else -- ask a history teacher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.174.127 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2012 — 212.198.174.127 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. If anything, the schedule on UEFA Euro 2012 should be shortened and this one should be expanded. Not only is this article useful now, but it's a good encyclopaedic reference to have for this competition after the fact. Jun-Dai (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for this fork. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For reasons stated above and: Just try to find the answer to "what matches are played today?" elsewhere. Antti29 (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until 2. July or just over the tournament after it delete or merge with the main Euro 2012 page. DoctorHver (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most sensible compromise imho. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jun-Dai above. UEFA Euro 2012 is full of scheduling and match minutia that doesn't belong on a general overview page and belongs on UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. See 2008 Olympics#Calendar for a fabulous use of limited space to convey a lot of information. (Also, each event had its own sub-page; see Rowing at the 2008 Summer Olympics for instance). If UEFA Euro 2012 schedule survives, I hope we use it to its full potential - which is to siphon off minutia from UEFA Euro 2012. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any material (of the sort you appear to be talking about) added to the schedule page would only mean having to scroll a bit further, to the table. I'm against using the page as a dump for barely and non-noteworthy details from the main article. Just weed out those unneeded details from the main article. No need to move them elsewhere. --195.14.222.188 (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this information is already included in the parent article and I don't think there is a good reason to reproduce it in more detail here. Jogurney (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted numerous times above, this page presents in one convenient table all the results in the group stage. ----PCStuff (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information provided in the Article is a matter of record. Reference to the same in the consolidated form may be useful subsequently. Also note that on most mobile platforms the page is the easiest to access. 182.71.109.102 (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC) S Roy.[reply]
Keep - The page makes the dates, times and information easy to understand and get to, while the main article fails to do so. Maybe it would have been better to have this table somehow smaller and integrated into the main article, but please do not simply delete it now. Boccobrock•T•C 15:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The scheduled of the games is clearly stated on official EUFA website and with more detail too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.213.146 (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of the comments, this information is clearly written on the parent website providing no need to create a whole Wiki page. UEFA website is also very easy to access and actually even more convenient then this article, in a matter of fact is that when a user searches up the scheduled games on any search engines the main website is the very first on the list. The only real reason why some of you saying to keep is because users recognize Wiki better then "Official UEFA Webpage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.213.146 (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the schedule is compact, easy to navigate, in a much more usable format - to get the sasme info on the big page one would need to navigate throughout the article. For one - there are no times for the first round matches. Secondly - the dates are not in chronological order but by bracket, and there IS no single place where the schedule is listed in the "main" article, despite the assertions above. Those of you who are banging the "delete" drum don't need to view this article but it clearly has great appeal to about half the folks here. That, in and of itself, is meaningful. Go get a life and worry about something important and don't take away what is a bloody useful page based on some philosophical pontification or pedantic niggling, which doesn't pass the common sense test. If half the people find this useful, what value is there in deletion? None. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.22 (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't understand - what is the big deal in keeping this page for a couple more weeks? Many people (including me) find it useful to have the matches listed in chronological order. I mean, I can see some sense in arguing about the CREATION of such a page BEFORE a tournament like this. But arguing about deleting a useful schedule page, when people are repeatedly telling everyone why they find it useful? Sheesh! Wikipedia does have some mystery-brains around. Just keep this for two weeks and then nobody will argue against your deletion endeavor. (spankingmachine) 20:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spankingmachine (talk • contribs)

Yes, the style and especially the timing give the AfD nomination a slightly "knee-jerky" vibe. I hope that will figure into the final decision. --87.78.46.182 (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Or better yet, snowball or whatever it's called. The entire discussion brings the editorial staff of wikipedia into disrepute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.32.199 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for deletion seem to come down to WP:IDL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Euro 2012 schedule must not be deleted because it is the only article we can access to get information on when each game starts. There is no need to merge or delete the article. Hansen Sebastian 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansen Sebastian (talk • contribs)
Keep. Anyone mentioned how useful it is to have all matches at a glance? Should not have been nominated in the first place. Spc 21 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't we have a lot of "___ schedule" articles? If so, this never should have been nominated for deletion — other articles with similar names mean that this is at the minimum a reasonable search target, so the most that should be done is conversion to a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 11:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until euro 2012 is over, then merge it with the main euro 2012 page. It will be useful till the end of the championship. Michael (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I counter WP:ITSUSEFUL with WP:IAR. Zarcadia (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – b_jonas 10:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOREASON. AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Comments that do not contain an argument for or against deletion will be ignored in the closing of the AfD. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the schedule format is a lot easier to read than the tables in the main article. In particular, the table tells the time (not just the date) and the day of week of all group stage matches immediately, shows how the matches from different groups are interleaved, lets you find the upcoming matches easily. – b_jonas 10:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; top google hit for "Euro 2012 schedule". Delete/merge it after the competition is over for all I care but right now is not a good time. Steevm (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; So surprised to see this marked for deletion, I've been using this page as my go-to reference for the tournament's results as they come in since I found it. There is no equivalent on the main page, where the dates are not in chronological order but by bracket, there are no times for the first round matches, and results are harder to find and unwieldy to navigate. No-itsme (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Steevm. Outback the koala (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the incredibly high number of page-hits via google, it's reasonably to assume that the "anonymous" comments are indeed actual users of wikipedia. Indeed, no website or forum has been linked as a source of these comments, despite the high number of page-views. The "not a ballot"-tag, or any other tag, should not be abused or used as a source to "win" a discussion despite reasonable and definite objections from other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.32.199 (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect for the !voting process, I think the sentiment is pretty clearly in favor of keeping the article. I would like to see the delete tag taken down from the article because it's such a highly-visited one and tags like that are just a nuisance for readers. To put it in perspective, this article has received over 1 million hits this month, while Acrocercops erebopa (an article I found via the random page tool) received 36 (32,000x less). I think practical concerns are most important here. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brace for incoming AADD shortcuts. Seriously, yes, I agree wholeheartedly. This AfD is already overdue for closure. It's an embarassment for us as a project to even had this nominated in the first place. Now the ugly and useless tag is still up there after a week. Could some admin please put this AfD out of its misery? --78.35.245.253 (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not schedule: "an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable". Redundant fork is pulling readers away from UEFA Euro 2012. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your logic we shouldn't have articles about upcoming events at all, saying strictly based on the way you're reading a delete rationale out of that WP:NOTDIR sentence. Geez, let's hurry and delete other clearly unacceptable stuff then, like 2012 Summer Olympics. You took the word "schedule", which in that sentence refers to radio schedules, to refer to the match schedule of one of the most notable recurring events in the world? Don't blame me if that sounds stupid to you. It's what you did. Also, "pulling readers away"? Readers read whatever they want to read. If they prefer a concise, chronologically ordered schedule over your precious main article, who are you to tell them they're "wrong" about that? ~~Maybe you should work in a socialist re-education camp with your attitude. This warrants another Geez. Some people.~~ [courtesy edit] Imho, the normative opinion you're displaying there is not fit for an online project financed by donations from the reading public. Who are we to tell the people that gave the page more than a million hits in under two weeks that they are "wrong" for looking at the page? It does seem like a strange attitude to me. --78.35.245.253 (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you give Wikipedia:No personal attacks a read. Nanonic (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? How about you give the valid points in my comment a read? --78.35.245.253 (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Your comment presents valid opinions which I happen to agree with. But that still doesn't excuse the personal attacks. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I was merely illustrating my argument by pointing out how ludicrous it is to base a deletion rationale on "the page is pulling readers away from the main article". Some normativity is of course necessary in compiling an encyclopedia, but making a judgment call as to what readers should prefer? That's just mighty awkward; an attitude more fit for a re-education camp than for an online project that is made by volunteers for a reading public on whose donations we rely. That was the point of that comparison. If you prefer to read it as personal attack, that's on you, it's not my intended meaning at all. --78.35.245.253 (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonsense, all content is on the individual group result pages. Only diff is opening/closing ceremony which can be added with source to the main page/Lihaas (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That "argument" has been addressed many times over already. The main article does not contain a chronologically sorted list of the matches. That's very real information not included in the main article. --78.35.245.253 (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IMO it's useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velociraptor888 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 June 2012‎
Keep. ...until after the final, then it'll be redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.6.16.134 (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ...until after the final, then it'll be redundant, and right now it present info in a very useful format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minimosher (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Imho we should take this AfD as our cue to start a discussion if situations such as this one couldn't elegantly be avoided if we adopted the competition article format of the German language Wikipedia. They use subpages (of the main article) instead of separate entries. These subpages (including the subpages for groups etc) are then given far more leeway regarding sources and typical article formatting. It would save us discussions like this one in the future and help streamline our overall coverage of events like the Euro, or the Olympics. --213.168.73.110 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, on the English Wikipedia, the subpage feature for Article(main)/File/Category/Mediawiki-spaces has been disabled since 2004. Subpages work on all other namespaces. Creating a page with a slash in mainspace creates a standalone article. See Wikipedia:Subpages. Nanonic (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well, subpage creation has been disabled, so it can be re-enabled. Or are you one of those nay-sayers who oppose any change based on "it would be a change"? --78.35.244.186 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The schedule is already in the main article and the subarticle on the different groups. This article is really more news than encyclopedia. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a new argument. Would you care to elaborate? How is the page "news"? --78.35.244.186 (talk) 17:13, 18 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. I see no particular reason to declare this differently from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule, since the arguments overall are the same. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2008 schedule

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

It is a totally redundant content fork to UEFA Euro 2008. Every date, venue and result information can be found on this article. There is no meaning to make a separate article for a schedule. Article also doesn't meed the GNG, as there are no independent coverage in reliable sources, which discuss the schedule of this competition. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The competition itself is notable, and a chronological list of the matches (rather than lists of matches by group) cannot be found anywhere else on Wikipedia. – Pee Jay 22:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If the chronological list is unique to this article then a merging of this info into the main article as a sub section.Seasider91 (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Seasider91. extra999 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the same reasons mentioned at UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. --Schcambo (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for this fork. Giant Snowman 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/delete/whatever as per the results of the Euro 2012 discussion. WP:NOTNEWS means that just because this is less current does not mean it is less notable. Smartyllama (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it just the other way around? NOTNEWS says that our article topics should have lasting notability in the first place, and if it doesn't, it shouldn't exist as a separate article. Right? --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, I think. But WP:INTHENEWS clarifies that "it's in the news"/"it's not in the news" is not an argument for or against deletion. If it was notable when it was in the news (Euro 2012), it's notable now. If it wasn't, it's not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clearing that up. --87.79.215.174 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge/delete/whatever per much more prominently discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UEFA Euro 2012 schedule. --78.35.239.12 (talk) 10:07, 16 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Collins

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

Was a political campaign worker for Rand Paul and Ron Paul. He managed Rand Paul's Facebook and twitter accounts for the campaign. It's vague on what he did for Ron Paul, but appears he was a "social media adviser" for the Minnesota campaign. The references are forums, YouTube, Photobucket and blogs. No independent and reliable reference to back up anything. There are 3 SPAs working and one identified himself as Matt Collins. Prod was contested because, "Matt Collins is a very important and notable liberty activist. He ran the war room and won Minnesota for Ron Paul, he convinced Rand to run, and he advised Thomas Massie. He's a Legend in the liberty movement. Even has his own smiley in TWO forums". Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Relevant person, plenty of stuff about him over the web. Con Rev Null (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Matt Collins is very well known in the liberty community. He's highly respected as a campaign adviser and manager.JebbySanderson (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great for him, but what you say has no bearing on the matter since it doesn't come with a bunch of evidence. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the Notability guidelines. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? All the refs are from the Ron Paul website, youtube and republican party website, none of them sufficient to establish notability. Google doesn't turn anything up in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was essential in the campaign, and seems to meet WP: A7. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment- It's a lot more notable than garbage ("Malaysian yachtsman") like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malik_Sulaiman Also, there used to be a lot of ink written about this guy in the Nashville Post, but those pages have since expired. Con Rev Null (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide references to those articles? Even if the links are expired, do you have hard copies from which you can provide article titles, bylines, dates, and page numbers? LadyofShalott 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Malik Sulaiman "garbage" because he's Malaysian or because he's a yachtsman? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's garbage because it's a very poor excuse for a Wikipedia article. Matt Collins' Wikipedia page has probably been visited more times in three days than Sulaiman's in a month. Collins is way more notable than some dude who sails on boats, and that's inexplicably allowed to stay. Con Rev Null (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inexplicable at all. Wikipedia uses a particular, somewhat jargony, meaning of notability. Sulaiman has been show to meet that definition. Collins has not. You have not answered my question about theNashville Post articles. If actual references to such could be provided, it might make the difference this article needs. LadyofShalott 23:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent references that I can see. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a bad argument to make. The only possibly notable Matt Collins I could dig up is the Yugoslavian in the Rockabilly Hall of Fame [1]. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the nominator correctly states, there are no reliable sources covering this individual and the "references" currently in the article are a mixture of youtube, blog and his employers website. Fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources. Even the FEC link that is supplied as a reference does not mention Matt Collins. If someone could locate the articles about him that were said to have appeared in the Nashville Post, that could make a difference. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Location (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Closing admin should note probable SPA activity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN. This is a vanity entry. Note that the page was created by "Intact Molls" which is an anagram of Matt Collins. He's trolling ya'll. Angelatc (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is he not even the least bit notable, the article contains no useful information and lacks citations. Byates5637 (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - References in article do not establish notability as defined by Wikipedia, and requests to provide references that supposedly exist have been ignored: no prejudice against recreation if and when such references can be produced. LadyofShalott 00:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page was created by Matt Collins himself. The username Intact Molls is an anagram of his name... -=Eduardo=- (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the anagram certainly gives major room for suspicion that it is an autobiography, but it's not proof. Even if it was, that's not grounds in and of itself for deletion. The lack of notability is the reason it needs to be deleted. LadyofShalott 03:18, 11 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toaster magazine

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

A UK based free publication that I don't see passing the GNG. The article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005, and after searching around, I have found none to add. There is some claim of notability by the statements that several notable musicians have been contributors to the magazine, but notability is not inherited solely because notable people were involved, and I can find no reference to their connection to this publication anyways. The only sources I'm finding out there are mirrors of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't meet WP: NOTABILITY and is unsourced. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – After searching, the topic appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:39, 11 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. WP:G11 and WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budgy smuggler

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

Pure advertisement for a quite unknown company, no NPOV Torsch (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep At a first glance, it seems to meet the notability guidelines, but I'm not 100% sure of that. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a big company in Australia and i'm pretty sure they share the english language wikipedia with britain and america.Seasider91 (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this awful thing. The term budgy smuggler is just Australian slang for a type of skimpy swimwear and the linked news articles have nothing to do with the company at all. They aren't even large enough to have a receptionist and a landline - just three mobile phone #'s for contact. There appear precisely zero reliable sources discussing this small and recent enterprise, and only one article where an independant party mentions the company . Fails, well, everything - Peripitus (Talk) 00:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "budgie smuggler" is indeed a nickname for a particular type of male swimwear in Australia (typically associated with Speedo, at least when I was growing up), but that name pre-dates this particular novelty swimwear company. The piece of slang and the style is notable, the company most certainly is not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete When you exclude the slang, there's not much independent coverage except for one fundraiser a few years back. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable company, no independent sources discuss it in depth. If someone wants to rewrite the article to be about the term "budgy smuggler", which is probably notable, that would be fine, but as it stands the article should be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the company-specific stuff. Can the budgy smuggler term remain as more than a dic-def? Mark Hurd (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. A real article would be a WP:DICDEF. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 11 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RaSon

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

Does not meet WP:BAND. Only source provided is sefl-published information from a CD's insert note. Singularity42 (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per WP: BAND. It seem to be poorly sources, as well. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find coverage about the band or the one CD mentioned in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 13 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbymasters

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

While there is some minor coverage of this store, it doesn't seem to pass the threshold of "significant coverage" in third party publications. The article also comes off as promotional in the latest round of edits, while before it was lacking in reliable sourcing. A google search leads mainly to primary sourcing while a gnews search leads mainly to nothing. The article makes a claim regarding coverage in Forbes Magazine but there are a couple problems: 1. It is Forbes Travel Guide, not Forbes, and 2. even then I can't seem to find that article. The source RedBankGreen is a local New Jersey internet news site that doesn't seem to hold notoriety per se. It looks like a case where a single or double ___location business is getting their WP:WEBHOSTING from WP. SÆdon^talk 20:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A highbeam search turns up with nothing substantial, but it does lead to this where it is claimed that Hobbymaster's website gets "between 25 and 30 "hits" -- or visits -- per day." That's incredibly low. SÆdon^talk 20:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP: CORP. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realized that I'm the one who moved this article from AFC to mainspace. Looking back on it I can't figure out what I was thinking. SÆdon^talk 04:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The press coverage I could find all come from the Asbury Park Press, a local paper. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 13 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. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 07:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Walter the Farting Dog

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

References do not establish notability.Pucamann (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable series of books. Per WP:AGF, I notice that the nom is also a new editor. He may not have followed WP:BEFORE, as I found a large number of references that could be added to the article. Not to mention that I have children, and I can say this is a pretty well-known series of books. Since my word and $10 will get you through the Lincoln Tunnel... look for yourself. Roodog2k (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article right now is referenced only to sites where one can buy the book. Searching for sources to add, I found a movie project from 2008, the same project revived in 2011, a report of its appearing on the New York Times children's bestseller list in 2003, and a brief mention of it as an example in a report of a librarians' conference. I am not seeing evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources or of prizes or other distinctions relevant to the notability requirement. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesn't seem to be so famous, but meets WP: NOTABILITY. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly enough out there to pass WP:GNG. 321 GNews hits and, remarkably, 66 GScholar hits, include reviews, news coverage, bestseller list appearances, and reports of censorship incidents. I might not want to see a separate article for every book in the series, but the series as a whole is easily notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sources on this, like the ones found by Yngvadottir, and others that can be found on Gnews and Gscholar as well. We would want to remove the current "sources" in the article that consist only of sales pages and replace them with the actual, valid sources, but its enough to pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per lack of WP:BEFORE.Cavarrone (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please use BEFORE in the future. Obviously notable books. Dream Focus 00:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For all the support this article seems to be getting, we’ve yet to see somebody cite a sound source that meets the notability criteria, never mind multiple citations needed to pass the grade. Just because it appears on a Google search doesn’t cut it. You will only find trivia or overt advertisement. Subjectivity and forms of ‘recentism’ should not translate as notable. The appropriate citations need to be furnished. Pucamann (talk) 18:57, 14 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. A reasonable argument has been presented that the subject ought to be notable due to her roles, but the consensus have a reasonable argument when they point out that the sourcing is too weak to create a decent and verifiable article at this point, especially considering that such requirements are critical in a BLP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Matsumoto

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

Prod declined for invalid reason. Only source is a DVD review of questionable notability. No sources found in English or Japanese. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at the time I added the passing reference the nominator correctly characterizes, I was unable to locate reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this voice actress through in-depth coverage, and in looking now I don't see that anything has changed. Language issues could be in play of course, but this article has had time to grow sources in the five years it's been sitting around, but of course, language issues could be in play, and additional sources are, as always, welcomed. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aso, I suppose this is a possible hoax, given that Marina Inoue, not this actress, is listed in our explication of the role Inugami Kotaro that we credit Sachi for here, but a more likely explanation is that Matsumoto voiced a second-language dub on the work in question. if that's the case, though, the article's a bit misleading, I'd argue. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck the last bit, I guess it's only for the video game, not the actual film role. Fair enough, it's noted there now. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One passing mention on a DVD review site does not constitute sufficient in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see any evidence of notability, just minor character work done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ENTERTAINER #1 is met. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has had the role of a major character in a notable series and the film for that series, Penguin no Mondai. [2] So those are notable roles. Yozakura_Quartet seems to indicate a significant role this voice actor played, in that series and in the film for it. Dream Focus 04:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 05:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. I hate to say this, but while she has had significant roles in multiple notable media, there isn't a lot of reliable sources to affirm that. A search using both her English and Japanese names failed to find enough reliable sources, which is especially important since the article is a BLP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Their official website confirms their birth date, ___location of birth, their occupation, and roles they have done. That's all the information in the article, so it being a BLP isn't a problem. A main character that appears in most episodes, as opposed to some minor bit found here and there, is a significant role. Dream Focus 11:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears she was only in a major role in about two or three notable works. I'm not easily convinced unless the works themselves are especially notable and have a lot of coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable by Wikipedia standards, since they have articles about them. Also, these series were notable enough for a film to be made about them. Dream Focus 13:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable by Wikipedia standards, but not especially notable. The works she did aren't so particularly notable that it would be unthinkable not to have an article on her. Besides, notability isn't inherited anyway. I would have considered a keep, even a weak one, if I found enough Japanese sources, but even the Japanese search was mostly inconclusive. Even our friend Hitoshi Doi doesn't have a page on her. As much as I love anime and Japanese media, not all voice actresses should have articles, especially if reliable sources cannot be found. Even if she passes criterion #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, the question remains – is there enough sources for us to write a good article, or to establish notability? No. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:I don't like it is not a valid reason to delete. If the person meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors, then the article must be kept. Dream Focus 14:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't like it. It's just that I have a very high standard for criteria #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. For me to say that she passes that criterion, she needs to have a noteworthy role in several (at least 6) notable works or a major role in particularly significant or notable works (like Studio Ghibli films or extremely popular anime), a role that would itself be a claim to notability. As it stands now, I don't think she is notable by the lack of reliable coverage. But there is still a way how i can say she is notable. Does her Japanese Wikipedia article have sources which can be considered reliable here? If so, it can be added to the article, and hopefully the said sources will be enough to establish notability and for me to reconsider my !vote. To me, the only thing that really matters are reliable sources, especially on BLPs. As much as I want to keep her article, WP:RS fails her. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would she need at least 6? Regular actors, and basically just everything there is, only requires two. Dream Focus 04:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have high standards, remember? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've checked her Japanese page, and there aren't any references whatsoever. So much for that. If the article is kept, sources must be found to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Wikipedia standards fortunately aren't as high as your personal ones are, and the Wikipedia standards are all we have to satisfy. The Japanese Wikipedia has never required sources, they accepting "common sense" in cases like this. Dream Focus 16:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "third party" but surely her agency's site is a reliable source with regards to her career? Shiroi Hane (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her agency's site an be a source for certain information like her birthdate, birthplace, blood type, certain biographical information etc., but third party sources are required for establishing notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as noticed above, she passes WP:ENTERTAINER#1 per multiple significant roles in notable productions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has enough notable roles to warrant inclusion. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough coverage per WP:GNG in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article. "Their official website ... That's all the information in the article" and "her agency's site is a reliable source with regards to her career." Neither are independent of the subject Sachi Matsumoto. The article is nothing more than a List of Sachi Matsumoto performances. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is determined by an article meeting the GNG or a Subject Specific Guideline such as WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 16:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources here meeting IRS. The article as is represents itself as a BLP, but in fact it's a filmography for a LP. Even the filmography fails IRS. IMHO, as a BLP, the threshold for sourcing must be higher. No reliable secondary sources back the (entirely subjective) assertion the subject meets ENTERTAINER #1. We have no reason even to believe the birthdate is correct, based on sourcing. 01:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would the birthdate be in question? You can run the referenced Japanese site through Google translator and confirm this. [3] Dream Focus 01:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may in fact be correct. She may in fact be 163 cm tall, but we can't accept the agency site as an independent reliable secondary on a BLP. IMDB certainly doesn't qualify. Inclusion requires notability and verifiability. We can only presume notability in certain cases, but even in those cases we need some sourcing to stand on. Nothing like that here. It's sad that in Japanese Wikipedia they don't require sourcing, but here, by policy, we do. BusterD (talk) 02:05, 18 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 speedily deleted as a hoax (non-adimin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frau Pfefferkuchenhaus

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

I can find no reliable sources saying that this is indeed the name of the witch; in the copy I have just accessed the witch is never named. There is a Wikia using this name, indeed using this exact text (link), but that's not an RS. If someone can find an RS to prove this is not a hoax, then this should be redirected to the H&G story anyways. If not, db-hoax is in order. This is also Sven Manguard 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Sisters Grimm (novel series). I think Frau is a character in that series. A Google Books search only turned up books from that series. However, she does not appear to be a notable character. —Hue Sat Lum 19:30, 8 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. Per WP:HEY — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SK Foods

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

WP:COATRACK article that has two sentences that cover the company, which itself is likely not notable. Came from ANI, revdel'ed BLP violations, some which may still exist. "Crimes" seem to fit WP:NEWSPAPER. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything regarding reliable sources about the company itself, saving some insignificant news items about some people associated with it. Clear WP:COATRACK issue, no reason to exist otherwise. --Jayron32 18:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite to the neutral point of view. The New York Times said SK was one of the nation's largest tomato processors. Similar statements were made by the Los Angeles Times. The admitted criminal conduct involved bribes to executives at Safeway, one of the largest grocery store chains in the country. I concede that it isn't easy to write neutral, encyclopedic coverage of scandal-plagued businesses, but I conclude that this topic is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, those mentions about size were incidental to the criminal coverage and fail WP:SIGCOV relative to the company itself. None of those articles are actually about the company, they are only about the misc. criminal charges. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic has received significant coverage other than about the price-fixing and racketeering charges and conviction of its owner. The topic passes WP:GNG. Here's some sources:

Vasari, Marie (April 19, 2008). "SK Foods target of immigration lawsuit". The Herald (Monterey County). Retrieved June 09, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Bing, Jeb (June 16, 2008). "Monterey vegetable processor makes record-setting donation to county food bank". Pleasanton Weekly. Retrieved June 09, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Salyer American Fresh Foods acquired by SK Foods CEO Scott Salyer". The Produce News. Retrieved June 09, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Lindt, John. "Singapore Company Bidding for Lemoore Tomato Plant". Valley Voice. Retrieved June 09, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"SK Foods' sale good news for tomato growers". Marysville Appeal-Democrat. June 27, 2009.

Also, SK Foods, Ingomar Packing Co. and Los Gatos Tomato products formed the California Tomato Export Group, which collectively produced over half of the U.S. supply of tomato products at the time of the group's formation in 2005.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it fails WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I reject the idea that because the available sources are primarily about the scandal a company has evidently perpetrated that those sources aren't also "about the company". What, do people want to rename the article to something like "The SK Foods bribery and price collusion scandal"? If a company comes to the attention of the media for its alleged crimes that's just as notable as if it were to come to the attention of the media for its takeover bids, its product innovations, or any other result of its business decisions and activities. It's all about the company, imo. Re Dennis' WP:NOTNEWSPAPER suggestion, I can't see that, either. The relevant passage would seem to be, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." I don't see this as "routine news", and I do see it as beyond the importance and inherent interest of "most newsworthy events". --OhioStandard (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As of this timestamp, the article bears no resemblance to the page nominated for deletion. Several editors have performed rescue work sufficient for me to offer a keep assertion. I'll concede that some of the sources linked tend to cover Salyer more than the company, but sourcing applied since nomination puts this business well past CORP and certainly past GNG. Per WP:CRIME, an article on the BLP is not appropriate, but an article on the organization is. I tend to concur with User:Ohiostandard's argument above; when the scandal sourcing isn't discounted, the coverage surpasses WP:ROUTINE. BusterD (talk) 16:33, 15 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nautical Angels

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

I found no coverage for this show. Google News only brought up trivial mentions. SL93 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 May 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) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no references, and contains a lot of namechecking (i.e., including the names of non-notable individuals). I did some searching, and I could find no independent sources discussing Nautical Angels, so Wikipedia's film notability guidelines have not been met. NJ Wine (talk) 03:32, 1 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, —Hue Sat Lum 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. In fact, there is no indication that this show has been picked up for broadcast by anybody. The article is a borderline copyvio; compare the cast description with this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 13 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Bird (curator)

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

Very little indication of notability. Chief reference here is her eulogy. JoelWhy (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting person but no evidence that she meets notability criteria. Whouk (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 30 May 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Several sources have been added since the article was nominated, actually backing up things such as her notable expertise on the Jack the Ripper case, which I feel just barely pushes her into passing the GNG.Rorshacma (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If her work on Jack the Ripper was groundbreaking or she wrote a bestselling book then she would be notable per WP:SCHOLAR or WP:AUTHOR, but as it stands her work was nothing special. Wikipedia would be clogged with historians if every historian that maintained documents of notable events and people were included. Maggie Bird only worked on a re-dedication of the inspector's tombstone. --Joshuaism (talk) 18:23, 8 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. Clearly the consensus is against an outright deletion, although the call for a redirect to the election has some merit. On the other hand, there seems to be a clear majority who feel that the coverage is sufficient for a full biography, even before the election. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cartwright (Pennsylvania politician)

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

Doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN. Should redirect to article about the congressional race. Arbor8 (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2012#District 17 until such time as he actually does win the election (if he does) makes sense for now (that section needs rewriting to be up-to-date, btw). postdlf (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:POLITICIAN to the link provided by User:Postdlf, for which thanks. He hasn't won yet and the standard is fairly clear. "[T]he general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." I looked for media coverage outside Pennsylvania and found little or nothing relevant; thus far, he's of state-level interest only. As always, there is no prejudice to recreating this if and when he becomes notable. Ubelowme (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there are lots of articles on wikipedia who have pages about them even though they haven't done anything notable either e.g Steve Daines and yet their articles have not been deleted either, so can the article not stay. Slytherining Around32 (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That argument is governed by a policy known colloquially as other stuff exists. Feel free to nominate Steve Daines for deletion, or improve the article by adding citations, at your leisure. Ubelowme (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly fulfills the second criterion of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." A major party nominee for congressional office qualifies. The article should be kept as Matthew Cartwright is notable as he is expected to become the new Democratic Congressman for the Pennsylvania's 17th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives elections, 2012 due to it being a safe Democratic Party seat. Also he is notable for having defeated the 18-year incumbent Congressman Tim Holden in the Democratic primary by 57%-43%. So since most newspapers and politicians are saying that he is going to be elected I therefore strongly believe that this article on Matthew Cartwright should be both kept and he is notable.Slytherining Around32 (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We must be looking at different versions of WP:POLITICIAN; mine doesn't say that. In fact, it says pretty much the opposite: "Just being … an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability …". Best of luck with your election. Ubelowme (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC
  - Its not my election as i'm not an american nor am I standing for elected office, but Matt Cartwright is expected to win this congressional seat so i fail to see why he does count for notability.^[1] Slytherining Around32 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Slytherining also created Brendan Doherty, another candidate. Might as well add that article to the AfD. Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources. Criterion #2 of WP:POLITICIAN supports Cartwright's notability. Defeating a 20-year incumbent and being a major party nominee in a Congressional election qualifies him as a "major local political figure." Regardless, criterion #3 says, failing that, "such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion." See New York Times, Times-Tribune, The Hill, Morning Call, CBS News, Huff Po, Express-Times, National Journal or the majority of the news articles in this search, which demonstrate that Cartwright has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. Roll Call also says he has been a regular face on TV for years with his "The Law and You" segment airing five nights a week on the NBC affiliate WBRE-TV. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 13:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon reviewing the links above provided by User:Gobonobo, this person certainly passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG with ease. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not held notable elected office and is merely a candidate. Multiple independent sources are nothing if they don't include significant coverage, and those given above only cover the primary election. Hekerui (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the breadth of coverage (much of it highlighted by Gobonobo, above) speaks to notability here. Being likely to be elected is not itself a source of notability - see WP:CRYSTAL, and I don't care how safe your district is (See also Richard Lugar). The critical factor here, to me at least, is that lots of sources discussed the primary campaign, and many did so by talking about Mr. Cartwright. That's sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fulfills criteria #2 for WP:POLITICIAN as he is certainly "major", running for Congress, and has achieved press in multiple feature articles, per above. Smartyllama (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I consider being a candidate for a national office of one of the two main parties in a two -party system a major accomplishment. We have not always kept these, when the sources were borderline, as is often the case, but here's an instance when there are clearly enough sources. Whether you go by common sense standards of notability or by the GNG, this meets the requirements for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if he didn't meet WP:POILTICIAN, which it appears he does, he certainly appears to meet the WP:GNG. Be careful of falling into the trap that "if it doesn't meet X, it's just not notable" without checking for GNG meeting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major party candidate (and nominee) in a U.S. federal election. Even if he doesn't win, and all polls say he will in November, he defeated a 10-term U.S. Rep. in the primary election. Scanlan (talk) 15:15, 18 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Kashmir Freedom Movement

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is hardly any secondary source covering this topic. Although dead, even if the "Kashmir Watch" sources cover the topic in detail, the source is WP:SPS and thus not a WP:RS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dℬig Xray 21:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of third party reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. Dead movement lacking WP:SIGCOV the few good sources that turn up just mention the name of the organisation or its secretary. --DBig Xray 20:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. there are no notable results or sources on the article. There are only 3 refs (2 are dead and 1 doesn't have any significant coverage for the particular moment). All the facts are unsourced and they can't be verified. The material can also be WP:OR. The movement is static and nor has done anything notable in past and has not planned anything for future. There is nothing on the article to gets its significance or notability. →TSU ^tp* 07:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources. fails to meet GNG. - Bharathiya 15:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooper Selection

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

Reason This is a page created for a marginally notable tech demo which is yet, if ever, to receive serious implementation in products and achieve recognisable status as a distinct, mature user interface technology. The page was created just days after Daniel Hooper demoed this technology online, in an apparent response to the positive feedback he received. The page was created in part to capitalise on this feedback and spread the idea. However this is not what Wikipedia articles are supposed to do - Wikipedia articles are supposed to recognise established, notable events, ideas and things. "Hooper Selection" does not meet this criteria.Mglmpr 24 (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 28. Snotbot t • c » 01:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Advertising. From the article: After an enthusiastic reaction from tech press Hooper coined the title and created a Wikipedia page in an attempt to legitimate his project. Pburka (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to set the record straight: I'm the original author of the article, and have just posted a comment to the talk page explaining my rationale for creating it, which you can read for details. Daniel neither created the article nor coined the term "Hooper Selection" - these were both my doing (he changed the name of the video to Hooper Selection after I told him about the article). In the few emails I've exchanged with Daniel he has come across as a very modest person and not at all out to promote himself. Any blame for the article's contents should rest with me. I'm also not opposed to it being deleted if people genuinely feel it's not appropriate for wikipedia. Kellypmk 30 May 2012. —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just searching for more recent material on this concept and found the following press release from Georgia Tech University: [4] which mentions, among other things, the origin of the wikipedia article. I also found articles describing two production implementations of the concept, in Codea [5] (an app on the app store) and SwipeSelection [6] (a jailbreak extension) (disclaimer: I happen to know one of the authors of Codea but have had no involvement its development myself)

I don't think Mglmpr is entirely correct in stating that the idea has yet to receive "serious implementation" given that it's now available in production applications. However he is right about the fact that it is not yet a maturely, widely deployed technology. I'm not certain what the threshold of adoption of a technology is for it to meet the requirements of wikipedia; I'll leave it for more experienced wikipedians to judge.

Kellypmk —Preceding undated comment added 08:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose you were just feeling enthusiastic - I should apologise for unfairly depicting Daniel as self-promoting. I still think the technology is not notable enough for a wiki article yet. Thanks.Mglmpr 24 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted :) Thanks for your understanding. I can accept deletion on the grounds of the technology not being sufficiently mature or widely deployed yet. I think the situation will be different by the end of this year, so perhaps at that time it might be suitable for inclusion. --Kellypmk (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's possible this could become notable in the future but the sources don't appear to exist to support notability now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Msnicki (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated. Maratrean (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Georgia Tech and Tech Crunch refs establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't. The Georgia Tech article is basically an interview, which makes it WP:PRIMARY and not helpful in establishing notability. The Tech Crunch article isn't about either the subject or the subject's work; it's actually about somebody else's work that may have borrowed some of the ideas (but who knows if the author of the new product would even agree with that.) Msnicki (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interview by a journalist indicates that the topic was of sufficient notability for the journalist bother to do the interview. Even if Hooper selection is not the focus of the TechCrunch article, there is significant coverage of it in the article. Also what User:Tgeairn says below. --Kvng (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient independent coverage (as above). The description and operation sections could use sourcing, but that lack is not sufficient for removal of the article. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that we don't remove articles simply because sources have not yet been cited. But they have to exist. Which sources in particular are relying on? Msnicki (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Codea piece is written by a regular appadvice editor, and establishes third-party notice of the idea and name. The TechCrunch article is similar in that it establishes notability for the concept. Neither of these articles would establish sufficient notability for a product, but I am viewing the article from the perspective of a notable idea. For WP:GNG, we need significant coverage (the above plus MacWorld and others); and independent reliable sources (the examples I have given are all third-party and are written by paid editorial staff). The oddity here is that the actual term appears to have been "created" on Wikipedia (resulting in circular references such as the MacWorld article referencing WP), as opposed to outside. It may be that a move to "Swipe selection" or some other term will be in order once the idea is further incorporated into the marketplace and products; but until that time, the term "Hooper Selection" looks like the name for the idea. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:14, 6 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, Ged UK 13:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given are not sufficiently reliable to establish notability. Spinning Spark 14:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Interesting, but not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:SPIP. "Wikipedia is not a promotional medium." I'm seeing nothing linked on the page which meets WP:IRS standards and a reasonable search doesn't find anything non-trivial. Only a couple of the sources even mention the phrase "Hooper selection", and the concept is certainly NOT YET the subject of coverage by multiple independent sources directly detailing. Might be one day... Page creator admits above the term is invented by himself; page creator admits lack of independence from the concept creator. No objection to userfying for improvement and later assessment. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 18 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, already speedied under A7. J04n(talk page) 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kasyfil Yohan

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

Since CSD tags keep being removed by IPs (almost certainly the author and article subject, but one AGFs...), I'm bringing this here. Non-notable sixteen-year old, who may or may not have appeared in some films that may or may not exist - since none of it seems to be verified in reliable sources, it's impossible to tell. Either way, not notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the merits. If the subject is a living person, we need sources and I can't find them. That said, if they're a young actor, it's possible that they'll eventually land a notable role - and then an article might be appropriate. But not yet, and certainly not without sources. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:07, 8 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Solutions Training Center

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

Non-notable institution. Exempt from A7 deletion by virtue of being a vocational school, but unlike some other educational institutions, such schools are not inherently notable. No sources found which would enable a pass of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC) It is an educational institution and is definitely verifiable a simple Google Search would show 6 pages of results for this particular institution. It can also be verified on Google maps. ~~whistlerworks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whistlerworks (talk • contribs) 16:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, it definitely exists. The first six pages of Google results certainly testify to that. None, however, is an arm's-length third-party source of expert opinion stating that the organization in question is of any merit or notability. Indeed, I could find nothing beyond directory-style listings. Notability is neither asserted nor documentable. Ubelowme (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD A7 as I had previously nominated. This is not a mainstream education facility, it is a business, as I had confirmed here, prior to nominating a verbatim copy of this article with a slightly different name. Labelled as an "ad" in the creator's opening edit summary, this is also a case of CSD G11 spam. The nominator should not have removed the CSD tag, and this article should not be wasting time and resources at AfD. -- WikHead (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally vocational schools need external accreditation or to pass GNG to be notable. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait Because it is verifiable and it is a educational institution, I say just wait a few week and see if this does not pick up any reliable sources or maybe add it to a list of vocational colleges in Oklahoma. james4761 ^arf_contribs. 09:11, 9 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 Raving Rabbids. Delete and redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbids

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

As with Edward Carnby, there is a history on the history of this article between (stubby) article and a redirect. Following requests at RfPP to protect the page as a redirect, I thought it needed to come here for the community to make a decision on whether the page should stay, be deleted or be a redirect (which can then be enforced by protection if necessary). I have no opinion either way. Ged UK 13:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raving Rabbids, which is basically the same article but better. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you please explain why you would not want a deletion then redirect, as there are persistent editing wars? CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raving Rabbids. As stated, that article contains the same information, only well sourced, and it would be redundant to keep this as its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect - the warring needs to stop, and this is a good way to do so without losing any information. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 22:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, doesn't deletion imply loss of information? If the warring needs to stop, convert the article into a fully-protected redirect to Raving Rabbids (might get away with just semi-protection) unless the content languishing in the history has some serious justification for deletion like being a copyvio or severe BLP issue. I doubt it's either so a protected redirect should be fine. Interestingly, the singular Rabbid has been a redirect since 2009, no warring. tutterMouse (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raving Rabbids. There is already another well-sourced article on the topic, and the title is a possible search term. Do we really need two articles on the same topic? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Raving Rabbids. Pretty redundant to the article about the game series without any clear and separate notability. Better to cover it in context. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect - I don't see any sourced information in the history that would be useful for keeping and merging. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 13 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 for deletion and please note that AFD is a venue to determine deletion, not to decide whether or not to redirect an article. AFD discussions often end with a decision to redirect (sometimes to a relevant article, sometimes to a completely different article where the title happens to be a plausible search term), but these decisions arise because participants suggest alternatives to a deletion. Redirect discussions belong on the article talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Carnby

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

This article is essentially one long, slow running edit war between whether this should be an article or a redirect. The first nomination was a poorly bundled affair where the discussion didn't cover this article. Following requests at RfPP to protect the page as a redirect, I thought it needed to come here for the community to make a decision on whether the page should stay, be deleted or be a redirect (which can then be enforced by protection if necessary). I have no opinion either way. Ged UK 13:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No notability outside the context of the game. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect. No independent notability outside of the game series. Even the sources provided in the article are about the series itself, not about the character. Rorshacma (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I don't know how many of the google hits are relevent, the article about the character in relation to the movie alone is enough to convince me to change my vote. Rorshacma 19:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD is for deletion, not for winning edit wars. As for the topic, this is the central character in multiple works and so is a valid basis for an article just like Lara Croft or Sonic the Hedgehog. The character has appeared in two movies, not just games, and so the comments above demonstrate their ignorance of both the article and topic. Warden (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [7] covers the character. Google search for the character's name and the word "character" and that gives 60 results to go through. [8] I'm convinced already, so don't feel like digging through all of that to find anymore. They describe the character in the games, as well as the films. Dream Focus 18:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to game series. No notability outside the series, unlike Lara Croft, who was a virtual sex symbol for awhile in the 90s and appeared in various merchandise. Article is just restatement of the plots of each game, which further underscores that there isn't much else left to say about him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Also no reason for bringing Lara Croft to the discussion, just compare to a sample other horror game character, which I've edited earlier today, Jill Valentine, and you'll see how the article Edward Carnby is completely lacking any estabilished Wikipedia:Notability plus no Wikipedia:Verifiability (his article has only 2 references). --Niemti (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And only 1 now, after I removed "The Alone in the Dark series is widely credited as being one of the first "survival horror" games; a sub-genre that was later further populated by Capcom's Resident Evil and Konami's Silent Hill franchises." which had nothing to do with the character. --Niemti (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why are people complaining that this article doesn't meet WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:V when the persistent vandalism is much more clearly the real issue here? CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 22:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete an article because of vandalism. And what some called vandalism seems to be someone objecting to them eliminating the article with a redirect. The proper procedures for a disputed action like this would be to send it to an an AFD. Dream Focus 03:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's pretty obvious that you do not understand this vandal - they have been asked to discuss, warned, and blocked. Secondly, this is an AfD... CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's the core issue, otherwise the "rv v" guy was right all the time, lol. (Btw Colonel Warden, if you're not "ignorant of both the article and topic" so much, go and make it "an article just like Lara Croft or Sonic the Hedgehog". Amaze me. Btw the article is hardly new, created in 2007, but apparently everyone "demonstrate their ignorance of both the article and topic" and it's the only reason that nobody's working on it. Of course.) --Niemti (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could make it a better article by not spamming it with pointless citation needed tags. Please discuss your actions on the talk page with me. Dream Focus 03:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is about a fictional character in film and video games. It passes WP:GNG, per:

Chang, Justin (January 27, 2005). "Alone in the Dark". Variety. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
(in German) ""Alone in the Dark": Christian Slater as a private eye". Focus Magazine. Retrieved June 9, 2012.
Williams, Kevin (January 28, 2005). "'Alone' should stay that way". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved June 9, 2012. (subscription required)
Additionally, there's this source, but unsure of how reliable the source is considered: (in Norwegian) Haug, Vegard (March 13, 2008). "Edward Carnby is ready for adventure". gamer.no. Retrieved June 9, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK I checked your links:

Just plot.
Just plot.
Just plot.
Just plot.

I see also you don't understand what independent notability is. It's this Jill Valentine#Cultural impact kind of thing. As far as I know, Carnby has just nothing of it. And that's why he can't have an article, because there is no significant reception of the character (there's only reception of the games, and of the film which was totally awful), because he's not notable. Myself, I'm now struggling with Christopher Blair#Reception, at this point he's only borderline notable (he was once, but then got quickly forgotten since the 1990s and there's very little in the modern Internet and it's much harder to dig up stuff from the old paper magazines), I'm not sure what will happen to this article (and this is what happened to it once before). Anyway see Raiden (Metal Gear) or Taki (Soulcalibur) in their entirety for what fictional character articles should look like. Or, for just some actually notable characters from some minor horror series (AitD is very much a minor series, it was just a one-hit-wonder in 1992), Aya Brea#Merchandise and reception or Scissorman#Reception. --Niemti (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, the "notability" link you cite above (here) is an essay; not a guideline. I tend to base notability upon WP:N, the actual notability guideline page. The links I provided are congruent with improving the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Also, I notice you didn't comment about this source: Haug, Vegard (March 13, 2008). "Edward Carnby is ready for adventure". gamer.no. Retrieved June 9, 2012.. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about "this source"? Once again, take a look at some horror video game characters, like this: Leon S. Kennedy. Stuff that are needed, multiple sources discussing various non-fiction aspects of the characters themselves. If all you can do is to write once again write about the series, it's all already in the series' articles, and the characters are, you know, not notable. --Niemti (talk) 08:02, 10 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 nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Globus (clothing)

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

I'm not convinced this meets the notability guidelines. Press coverage is minimal, and what there is either originates from the company or mentions them only in passing. Note that their name is identical to that of a Swiss department store, a Russian airline, a Croatian newspaper and an international tour operator, which means searching for sources requires a bit of creativity. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 12:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment a non notable advertisement, with no third party sources. --Dℬig Xray 20:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic is meeting WP:GNG:

Short article, significant coverage: Chennai stores of Globus relaunched.
Short article, significant coverage: Globus ropes in Kareena as brand ambassador
Mentions: Pantaloons, Globus, Turtle and other retailers eye Bangladesh to cut costs

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news articles are more like an advertisement without wp:SIGCOV--Dℬig Xray 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 150 stores. Dream Focus 11:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I won't vote for the moment at this is rightfully listed at ARS. I've already added a number of sources. The confusion with other brand names is easily rectified, as Globus is part of the Rajan Raheja group, providing an easy second search term. Easy pickins', certainly notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn in light of Milowent's additions. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:11, 14 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 under WP:CSD#A7. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ECMW Films

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

Not notable, no reliable sources, page creator has COI. GregJackP Boomer! 11:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is close to a speedy for G11. The article clearly isn't notable. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Even if it doesn't quite meet the criteria for G11, it most certainly does meet the criteria for A7. I've tagged it as such, in the hopes of having it deleted without having to go through the whole AFD period. Rorshacma (talk) 18:10, 8 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. Deletion done by Jimfbleak under G11. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (artiste)

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

Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC, repeatedly recreated after being speedily deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 11:33, 8 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. Deletion done by Jimfbleak under A7. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sterlin C

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, and fails notability per WP:GNG. Possibly an autobiography or created by an editor with a conflict of interest. jfd34 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 11:46, 8 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. Most of the editors commenting below indicated that the sourcing was not sufficient to establish notability, and even after trying to fix the problems with the article, didn't feel they had succeeded. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

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

This page reads as ongoing promotion/advertising and the there is a long standing history cross linked to cultural diplomacy and Amerika Haus Berlin both of which are also highly promotional of this group - and the page on Diplomacy has been altered in the same manner. There has been and remains an excessive level of self referencing upon claims which come from the organisation. The most recent edits with additions add to the promotional nature. There has also been a habit of presenting supposed upcoming events on the page - and then the events have no source as ever having occurred, leaving the page in a most misleading form. Constant IP editing and change - other Wikis have deleted entries due to promo concerns. The claims that the organisation are located in not just Berlin but also Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Romania, Ecuador are without source or merit. Past claims to links with high level groups such as US Department of State, the British Council and the European Union have all proved invalid. Repeated passing references to the company/organisation in media are not WP:NOTE. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: True & tried - ICD Offices in Bulgaria - It did not take me long to find the institute office in Bulgaria. You can find it here:http://www.atlantic-club.org/index.php?en_contact&PHPSESSID=798bf4h36fsvcb23r694dg43t7. It looks like it is a partnership between the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria and the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. I also checked the activity of the Atlantic club of Bulgaria and found that 90% of their events are cohosted with the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy.--Hessin fahem (talk) 04:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership between the US Embassy in Berlin and the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy - Your entire research althought admirable, does look as if it was not done thoroughly abd it is clear that you did not check several sources - see below:

“Floodwall Exhibition – Berlin September 10 - October 15, 2010” – You can read the exhibition opening welcome speech by the US ambassador to Germany thanking the Institute members for working together with the US embassy. It is clear that this partnership exists. Please remember that the US Embassy in Germany belongs to the US Department of State.

Read the ambassador speech (in the embassy page) here: http://germany.usembassy.gov/about/ambassador/speeches/2010/09/10/floodwall/

View the ambassador lecture video here: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/index.php?en_conferences_loam_floodwall-exhibition

--Hessin fahem (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership between NATO and the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy – Partnership between the ICD and high level groups exists in many forms and mentioned in many independent sources. See another example below: “Understanding Afghanistan and Central Asia”, – Berlin, 28 to 30 May” – Please read NATO report about the event: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_63992.htm?selectedLocale=en --Hessin fahem (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has some independent references, and GNews and GBooks show that there are plenty of independent sources about this organization. If there are problems with promotion, the answer is to fix them (and yes, the Amerika Haus Berlin and cultural diplomacy articles could use a cleaning). --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

)

Not true. I have spent quite a few hours cleaning up the references in this article, and trying to find reliable sources, on Google Books and Google News. With all respect, I do not agree that there are PLENTY of sources: I couldn't find a single entry on Google Books that does more than mention the ICD once, in passing. At least 80 per cent of news references read like press releases; then there are a few short interviews. I haven't found any in-depth articles from serious political media. What is demonstrated by these references is that they exist and organize talks and receptions.

Note: True & tried - Institute Book Publication - I simply checked Google Books as you suggested, typed Cultural Diplomacy and found some interesting books. One of them is even mentioned in the institute wikipage (under the Academy for Cultural Diplomacy Section).

The name of the book is: Searching for A Cultural Diplomacy/ Edited by Jessica Gienow Hecht & Mark Donfried (The founder and executive director of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy).

You can find and read all book pages in google books here: http://books.google.de/books?id=a7F3Pi2zvr4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=cultural+diplomacy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ih7UT4KTF4X0sgaGo9GLDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=cultural%20diplomacy&f=false

I also found it for sale in the publisher webpage (Berghahn – very respectful publisher/ an “authority in the field”): http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=GienowHechtSearching — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessin fahem (talk • contribs) 04:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Still not true

I said above: "I couldn't find a single entry on Google Books that does more than mention the ICD once, in passing." This is true even for "Searching for A Cultural Diplomacy": It does not discuss the ICD.SkaraB 11:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkaraB, You are Wrong Again

Please see the first page of the acknowledgements (by the editor of the book who is the founder and executive director of the ICD) in paragraph 3: "For their hard work in managing the conference and then proof-reading, formatting, editing and sub-editing contributions, we own a debt of gratitude to the interns at the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. . . "--Hessin fahem (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hessin fahem - you do still seem to be confused about how Wikipedia works. I have left you some more information about The Golden Rule on your talk page. Click here to read it. As I have also said, it may be better to discuss quality sources on the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy Talk Page. It will save disrupting this page any more than necessary. Cheers. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem with keeping this article is that the ICD constantly interferes with it, and as I have found out, with related articles, so that keeping it up to the required standard becomes an endless task.

Not true - speculation - This is only your assumption, how do know that the ICD constantly interferes? can you proof this? Your involvement with this page, regrettably looks as if you are actually biased, and actually trying to find every excuse to attack the organization. Even if it is completely false, just to make your point. As an honest neutral user, I suggest changing tactics and to be more objective in writing this. --Hessin fahem (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Well, I am happy to rephrase: "An additional problem with keeping this article is that someone constantly interferes with it, and as I have found out, with related articles, so that keeping it up to the required standard becomes an endless task." SkaraB 11:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, recently, more promotional material has been copied from their website: a list of members of an advisory board;I see that when clicking on these persons' wiki articles, it is always stated that they are members of the ICD advisory board, with a reference to the ICD website. We are talking about former presidents and ministers; surely being a member of the ICD adv. board is not a relevant merit, the mention of it only serves to inflate the ICD's prominence. A "Press" section has been added (i.e. copied from their website), which only serves to illustrate the point I made above about the lack of serious sources; you will see this if you click on any of these links. SkaraB 12:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - AfD is for discussing the notability of a subject, not the quality of an article. That the article reads like an advert is inconsequential to this discussion unless you can prove that editor !voting here have a WP:COI and even that would only affect the perception of their opinions. For this AfD to end with a substantial Delete !votes, you would need to explain why every reference in the article cannot be used to establish notability under any subsection of WP:N. The burden of proof of non-notabilty lies with the nominator and Delete !voters. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there OlYeller21 You said

"For this AfD to end with a substantial Delete !votes, you would need to explain why every reference in the article cannot be used to establish notability under any subsection of WP:N. The burden of proof of non-notabilty lies with the nominator and Delete !voters."

It is an interesting comment. As a relative newbie and the person who has nominated, could you point me to the relevant wiki guidance on this matter - and in particular the "Burden Of Proof". I have already spent quite a lot of time looking for refs that are not primary sources - meet WP:V and can be used WP:NPOV - and I've been looking across multiple languages (English - French - German - Russian - and quite a few others) and simply can't find anything other than advertisements for this organisations private activities, or glancing references to association with events funded by other bodies.

I have traced "ONE" document of interest http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/449633817 which is apparently a dissertation on the organisation - held by one library globally and not referenced anywhere by any person since 2009. It's also listed on Google Books but there is no content visible - and without sight it can't be used as WP:V. Even so, one disertation does not WP:NOTE make.

I have noted that when you go hunting you keep finding papers and documents on the subject of Cultural Diplomacy held on the website of the IDC - and they have been copied as Pdf's and then headed "icd – institute for cultural diplomacy" with a year reference. But when you study these documents there is no relevance to the organisation. Here Is an Example. This does cause search engines to locate information, but the linkages created are not WP:NOTE. Of course It also takes time to actually read the documents before they can be excluded from WP:NOTE, just to make sure that there is not some missing gem hidden in the article or paper. No gems have been found. If they did exist, I'm sure they would have been used already. There is a definitive net/web presence but nothing within it that is WP:NOTE

I have been looking at WP:SPIP - WP:LISTN - WP:NRVE - WP:ORGSIG - and it would appear that all references are to other people and organisations and it's all about "Inherited Notability" which does not apply for Wiki.

It's as if they are a conference and events organisation business in a very niche market.

The list of people acting as "ICD Advisory Board" members is impressive at first sight, but when you check it against the ICD website you discover that such positions are in fact not WP:NOTE.

If you search for these advisory board members they have not had anything to say about the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy - and you keep finding looping references from the person to ICD events involving the person - which just lead back to ICD as a primary source about the event and the person. That does raise concerns under WP:COI where a person has only appeared at an event due to Financial Remuneration.

It's like attempting to smash you way out of a maze of mirrors in an attempt to find an image - even one in crayon - an abstract even - that is WP:NOTE.

I'm happy to analyse and provide a critique on all the sources that are listed on the page - but can you advise where would be the best place to do that - here - on the talk page - somewhere else?

I have been over the page history and also looked carefully at all content - and it is interesting that when you do this you even find that Named Editors and Contributors are identified as employees of the Institute For Cultural Diplomacy WP:COI - else claims of copyright in wiki commons are false and that is rather worrying - and when you have a logical conundrum that either means WP:COI else false claims of copyright and even not WP:GOODFAITH.....?????

Not sure where to raise that issue? Not sure what to say and to who, as I don't want to end up falling foul of WP:OUTING or being accused of some weird form of "sleuthing" because I simply look at what is published and publicly available and then check it. I've even had to explain the matter in oblique language to one admin already! They got it - but it did take some time - and I'm not sure they grasped the full picture. I don't fancy being accused of Privacy Violations by those who presume others are less capable or insightful just because they are newbieish and unknown to others.

If there is a "Burden Of Proof" that I need to meet, as the person who nominated, please let me know what it is and where to reference on it and write it up. I have taken the name media-hound for a reason ... and I do know how to dig for References that meet Wiki standards.

If I could find the refs and cites, I would not have nominated - but If there is a step I've missed in that process, I'm happy to a make up for my deficit.Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - ICD Advisory Board - independent references - As suggested I checked the page and found some valid references about the Advisory Board of the institute for cultural diplomacy:

President of the institute for cultural diplomacy - Speech by the President of the ICD Advisory Board after his nomination - confirming his nomination (click on the content photo): http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/index.php?en_advisoryboard

Vice President of the institute for cultural diplomacy - See the official page of Erna Hennicot Schoepges (scroll to the bottom – unfortunately it is in French – so excuse my French) http://ehennicotschoepges.lu/cv/

An article about the nomination of Akua-dansua: http://newtimes.com.gh/story/akua-dansua-now-on-advisory-board-of-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy

There are many more in this page, you just need to look thoroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessin fahem (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - - From checking the history of this article, it seems that the following user: SkaraB, has created some sort of negative campaign to undermine the credibility of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy and its wiki page – this goes back to June 2011. For example in June 1st 2011, SkaraB tried to upload some controversial material to the page in question. Controversies that were immediately reverted for questioning by the administrator Arthur Rubin. This goes on for, up until the last deletion suggestion. The arguments and the annulment of dozens of independent links are absurd. It becomes clear, from just a five second check in youtube that over 200 high profiles individuals have given lectures and interviews for ICD and all are posted there. This is in addition to all of the links mentioned in the press section. Unfortunately, this is a compromise of the five pillars of Wikipedia. And it is important to inform other administrators immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessin fahem (talk • contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward Delete. I haven't found any of the dozens of references which are about the organization, or discuss it more than incidentally. There may be some, but they would need to be pointed out. A list of press releases does not a notable organization make. And, to reply to one of the Notes above, if an article cannot be made encyclopedic, it shouldn't exist, even if the organization were notable. It appears that permanent full protection would be required. This is not an argument for deletion, just a counter to one of the arguments to keep the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to OlYeller21

The problem with the burden of proof is that the organisation itself has now provided an enormous list of references; as MediaHound notes, it can be very time-consuming to tooth-comb each article for any possible scrap of relevance. There must be some limit to the lengths we have to go to, ESPECIALLY considering that these are references provided by the organisation itself. SkaraB 21:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true - can you proof this? Your involvement with this page, regrettably looks as if you are actually biased, and actually trying to find every excuse to attack the organization. Even if it is completely false, just to make your point. As an honest neutral user, I suggest changing tactics and to be more objective in writing this.--Hessin fahem (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkaraB Your passion is admirable, but your words are coming out the wrong way. It is not the responsibility of the ICD to provide references that meet Wiki standards. That responsibility lies solely with an editor - it comes under WP:CHALLENGED.

Note

No, the ICD must not provide the references for this article; but the numerous references in the article that we as editors are supposed to check are all from the ICD website. My point is that if we can't even find good references from their own website, which is there to promote them, then that seems like a good indication that there are no good references out there. That's all I wanted to say. SkaraB 11:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get your passion - there is evidence that at least one editor is acting under WP:COI - but that is not insurmountable. I'm a Host over at the Teahouse and we deal with it all the time.

However, the pattern of editing in general, plus the continuous use of content that is Not WP:V - IP editing - removal of templates that should not be removed - that paints a different picture, that for me does raise many issues under WP:SELFPROMOTE. I may be right - I may be "SO" wrong . It is up to other editors to express views on that picture, which is why it has been listed here.

As as editor, I have taken the responsibility to check and verify references provided - and the references that do exists do not, in my opinion, meet WP:V. To me that is quite simple and straight forward. I have looked - I have searched - and I can't find sources or references that meet Wiki standards - as such the page does not meet the burden of third party verifiability that gives it a place in Wiki Land.

That is not a judgement on the organisation - just Wiki standards being applied. It is quite possible for valid organisations to exist - be doing exemplary work and still not meet WP:V. I know that from personal experience having worked with many of them. I have my concerns as to WP:COI + WP:V + WP:NOTE and that WP:ORGSIG also has to be considered. I do believe that the page fails to meet Wiki standards in many ways.

I did request rapid deletion, as I do feel that is warranted, but it was declined. I would prefer for my focus, and the focus of other editors, to be on areas that I see as more valid and Wiki Relevant. I've even today had to request a page be given protection to stop IP edits that are very deliberate and about misusing wiki land to create Religious and Sectarian trouble on other parts of the world. C'est la Vie!

But - it was me who Nominated ICD for deletion, so I'll take that on the chin, and accept the consensus. As an editor I do look at matters with great care - which is why I have had to point out your confusion of language. It is not up to the ICD to provide WP:V sources - that is the editor's responsibility.

You had concerns, which is why you raised an Rfc. I responded - assessed and made my position clear. I even removed some of the more delinquent content and references, having checked against standards. It has been frustrating that the Rfc gained so little response - but that is Wiki Land and how it works. I am aware that you have looked and found and cited - and that has been contested. You may feel hard done by as a result. Wiki Land can be like that! I'm also still stumbling about, trying to find my feet.

I have found it interesting, that your past conduct in using sources has been raised. For me the past is the past. As editors we all get it right and wrong - and you either live in the past or you progress. Grudge holding is not the Wiki way. It stops Wiki Land growing. Wiki can exist without any of us - WP:VESTED - which is why it's built upon standards and aspirations that all editors struggle with.

I have made my position as clear as I am able, at this time, and I feel you have done the same. But passion is no replacement for cool, calm and valid assessment. Ultimately, Wiki has a rule that trumps all others - WP:IAR - Ignore all rules, if doing so makes Wiki better. As it says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I'll place my faith in more experienced Wikipedians to make the right decision, based upon the evidence and the standards that apply. It's called WP:GOODFAITH. P^)
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Hi Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^ , I was trying to make some order in your postings (I must note that it was not easy, as your comments were very long ) and I have counted the following WP´s which you indicated in your 3 long articles, which you published on this page: WP:N., WP:SPIP - WP:LISTN - WP:NRVE - WP:ORGSIG - WP:V - WP:NOTE. - WP:NPOV - WP:COI, etc. etc. After arranging all your comments about your doubts in a logical and comprehensive list, I have checked these all in depth, and could not understand your points. See above an answer to each of them (answering you and SkaraB) with references to serious and reliable independent external references, which annul each of the doubts, and proves, that your claims are not based on any facts. I could not avoid my doubts and would summaries it all as WP:UHB WP:LEW --Hessin fahem (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This AFD is a complete mess for all the reasons that the article itself is. Basically: there are a small number of people who seem to have a very strong interest in the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy having an article in Wikipedia and, from what I can tell, very little else. Hessin fahem, like all the major contributors to the page, joined Wikipedia in order to participate in this issue.

This article has serious problems. I have posted a detailed list of my problems on the article talk page: primary sources, conflict of interest for nearly all substantive contributions and reading like an advert are the biggest issues. My efforts to list these problems were reverted without discussion by an anonymous editor from Berlin.

I have seen no evidence that the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy satisfies WP:ORG but I agree that it is possible that it does. I strongly agree with Arxiloxos that articles should always be fixed, and not deleted, if they are fixable. But I also know that Wikipedia does not deserve this article, that I don't know to fix it, and that despite my efforts to address these issues (and I'll keep trying), the old patterns of editing have continued and the article is only getting worse.

This ICD seems almost entirely based around a model that involves organizing conferences and then calling and emailing to recruit speakers and attendees. A large number of people will visit this Wikipedia article to find out more about the organization before deciding to pay for a conference or to join to do an internship. What Wikipedia shows to them reads like an advert, links almost exclusively to of pages on the organizations' websites and seems very likely to have been written by the organization itself. We are doing an enormous disservice to our readers by keeping this page in its current form.

If somebody wants to make a serious effort to improve the article, I will help and will happily reconsider my !vote. But after quite a bit of time trying to raise interest and to get this fixed, I'm skeptical this can be addressed and my decision reflects this fact. —mako ๛ 05:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update/Note: I've just sepnt a couple hours in a final attempt to improve the page -- largely by removing irrelevant, redundant, or non-encyclopedic content. I also went, one-by-one, through every single link in the press section. Many did not include any mention of ICD and very few did anything to speak toward notability. Please look at my write-up on the article talk page.

My feeling, based on all that evidence is that the ICD Founder, Mark Donfried, probably does qualify for a biography under WP:BIO but that the ICD itself probably does not qualify under WP:ORG. I feel slightly less strongly about this than I did before -- but not enough to change my !vote. —mako ๛ 07:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources proposed have been either trivial, or not third party. Their own books and publications are not a reliable source for provingthem notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Something feels weird about all this to me. How is it possible that they've been involved with all these high profile people without attaining some degree of notability? Why do we have to work so hard to find even a passing reference to it? It makes me wonder if there isn't some elaborate con going on here that I just haven't caught on to. (For example, Perhaps ICD is managing to attach its name to conferences it's not really responsible for?) In any case, I guess it doesn't matter why there are no third party sources that establish notability, just that there aren't. APL (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and collapsed multi-posted wall o' text

ICD Conferences Reports – Reliable External Sources to establish Notability

Hello Wikipedia colleagues, I have spent some hours over the past days and collected some independent, objective and reliable sources by reading the ICD online information and then google-ing the events and the conference speaker names to check other sources. As I understand it from the ICD website, ICD events are not public and by invitation only and even do not include invitations to the press or media, this is indicated on the ICD webpage. However despite that, I managed to find a serious amount of material (relative to an NGO) as you will see below, assessing WP:V and also WP:NPOV.

At the bottom of this page I have raised concern to many negative remarks and comments made by Skara B and Media Hound on the ICD Wikipedia page. My major concern here is that it looks like that no matter what material is posted on this Wikipedia page, it will always attract immediately negative reactions of Skara B and Media Hound and they will annul them and say that they not be good enough for them.

Therefore and in order to keep the work on this page as neutral as possible, I decided not to upload material to the Wikipedia page myself, but to post the resources in this talk page. My goal is to provide you with information that, to the best of my opinion, is reliable, objective, and supported by only a AAA sources, such as governmental institutions, top media organizations, high-level speakers (such as Heads of State) and to post them in this talk page to enable those who are interested, to use that for improving the page once and for all.

As the activity of the ICD is very wide and continues over many years, I decided to start with investigating ICD conferences and events firstly and then move to other activities of the ICD as well as to include confirmations from governmental institutions where ICD is registered or able to conduct activities (which I will upload to the talk page in the next days).

However, before we start with the conferences, I would like to draw your attention to the page on the website of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, where the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy is presented, please see the link below:

http://www.kooperation-international.de/detail/info/icd-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy.html

Now, I will move on to the conferences:

14 Conferences in total – As it seems, the ICD is normally organizing international conferences that are taking place mostly in Berlin, but not only. Usually you can see all of the lectures and interactive discussions and interviews with the speakers in the YouTube page of the ICD. After spending hours watching some of the clips (and there are many) I find that actually this YouTube page can stand alone by itself to provide a proof that all of the ICD conferences did in fact happen and all of the speakers mentioned on the ICD pages did in fact speak at the event, and in time some of them have even paid tribute to the ICD for allowing them the possibility to speak in the ICD. It clearly shows that Mark Donfried is always moderating all lectures and panel discussions and from watching the clips you can clearly see all banners of the ICD in the background verifying that the event is an ICD event. In many cases the speakers are also greeting the institute for its events.

I would start with a prominent example, which can be found below:

Conference Title: The Berlin Freedom of Expression Forum - "Censorship and Freedom in Traditional and New Media: The Revolution of Media as a tool of Freedom of Expression" (Berlin, February 28th - March 2nd, 2012) Link to conference lectures on YouTube (in total 33 lectures): http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL40E07B72E759D5C6&feature=plop Link to Conference Interviews: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1FAFAD40CEFB4E0D&feature=plcp

Link to Kathleen Carroll (Executive Editor, Associated Press; Co-Chair Pulitzer Board) speech can be found here: http://www.ap.org/Content/Press-Release/2012/Kathleen-Carroll-discusses-the-challenges-of-getting-public-information

You can see the AP article about Kathleen Carroll's participation here: http://www.ap.org/Content/Press-Release/2012/Kathleen-Carroll-discusses-the-challenges-of-getting-public-information

You can even watch Kathleen Carroll's speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6Z38vByUaI&list=PL40E07B72E759D5C6&index=22&feature=plpp_video

Link to conference on ICD webpage: http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/gphr/index.php?en_rifef-2012

William Eivind Hall

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

Another editor has declined a speedy deletion for this company executive, apparently because his company is notable. A similar article was apparently previously speedy deleted. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage about Hall, the Sydney Morning Herald article (cited in the new article) merely mentions Hall briefly. He may be an executive of a notable company but he does not meet WP:GNG notability requirements himself. People do not inherit notability from the company that employs them, do they? Sionk (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article wasn't suitable for an A7 speedy delete: being CEO of a company like this one should certainly enough to meet A7's "indication of importance" requirement. A7 specifically notes that this is a lower standard than notability. Now, as to notability, the question appears to be more subtle. For the moment I'd only note that the great majority of references refer to him as "Bill Hall" and so sifting takes a lot of time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ::He was CEO and Chairman,. I agree just being an executive isn't notable, nor just being on the executive board. and I wouldn't even necessarily consider it a credible claim to importance. ANd this was one of the most important chemical engineering firm in the world, not just a barely notable company. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like there's enough coverage of the guy to warrant having a page. (Plus, the guy's a war hero! Cut the guy a break, Sionk! Sorry, j/k, not really the reason I voted keep;) ). JoelWhy? talk 20:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BIO states the following: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article contains multiple independent sources, and it was easy for me to find additional ones. NJ Wine (talk) 21:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - why was the article previously speedy deleted if the guy was notable? Why is there not an article on Parsons Energy & Chemicals, if this was such a notable division (as DGG claims)? Where are the reliable indepth sources about Hall - there is one sentence on an Oil and Gas Industry website and one and half sentences in the Sydney Morning Herald?! Hall certainly wasn't the subject of either source. This guy is a senior businessman in the modern age of the internet, so one would expect to find coverage about him if he was notable. Sionk (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ Delete. The current references, as Sionk points out, are not about Hall, but about the company, in which he is either named as its head or gives a comment. I can't seem to find anything about him personally other than the Bloomberg bio, and that's more in the way of a directory listing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The logs show that this page (with this exact title) was speedied not once but 3 times since 2006. Guess there must have been some good reason to do so.TMCk (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the time of my writing, none of the 5 citations give that CEO any notability on his own, (one being a dead link). A company can be quite notable but that doesn't mean that any person in such cooperation has a notability by default. That "3-day-forum" link sure doesn't do it either. And if he's notable as a war hero as suggested than by all means create an article based on this, although I very much doubt that is possible.TMCk (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find him notable. The article says he is currently "an executive" at WorleyParsons, a notable company, but his role doesn't seem to be important enough to be listed at the Wikipedia article or at Bloomberg. The article gives his main claim to fame as the fact that from 2000 to 2004 he was CEO and chairman of Parsons Energy & Chemicals - which was not a freestanding company but a division of Parsons Corporation. I find nothing about him at Google News under William Eivind Hall. Leaving out his middle name and adding "Parsons" supplies only this from the company website. --MelanieN (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The fact that this article has been deleted three times previously makes me wonder if it should be salted - if the result is delete. --MelanieN (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an article on him from the LA Times. There may be more, but I don't have time to look at the moment.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are really about the company. There are some mini-biographies on some sites due to his current position but I've not found anything in-depth (nor in the references in the article as it stands) that would suggest he has notability independent of his role in this company. Whouk (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :: Chemical engineers tend to not make the news, but when they do why should they not be included in wikipeida.org? How many chemical engineers make wikipedia when there are thousands of athletes and actors who make the news because their professions depend on media attention while engineers who lead a company into a merger making it a leader in their field do not? He has mutliple internet references and there is a print news article from the late 1980's that I am digging up. He was/is a noted engineer turned head of an engineering company that merged with an Australian company making it one of the largest chemical engineering company's in the world. His professional name is Bill Hall so that makes searching online more time consuming but there are more references to him with this name J341933 —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The references are what will make or break this nomination, so please do let us know what you find. My own search using his name as Bill Hall did not turn up much. Google News Archive found only three passing mentions. Even the company's own website history does not mention him. --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is no requirement for in-depth coverage, which is a good thing, because that is pretty much undefinable. There is a requirement for substantial coverage--perhaps that is not really definable either, but it's less than "in depth". Myself, I think a reasonable guideline is thatthe CEO of a notable company is notable when there is sufficient information. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this subject was never CEO of a notable company. He was CEO Of Parsons Energy & Chemicals, which was a division of a notable company, Parsons Corporation. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 17 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. I'm sorry Rstafursky but there's a clear consensus here that this is a non-notable neologism. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok Ron. Thanks for your work to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic. Rstafursky (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Species forest

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

Appears to be an attempt to promote a neologism. Only instances of this term outside this article are similar attempts in comment threads and personal webpages. Not used in any scholarly biological papers that I can locate. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldn't find sources, either. I think this is more of a WP:SOAP issue than anything, neologism or not. Links to Occupy and Mother Earth seem to support that. Having said that, the article still has problems. Concur with the neologism, except I can't find anybody using that term at all... so, I contend that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH come into play. Roodog2k (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The one positive thing to come out of this article is that all of the partial matches of the phrase "multi-species forest" led me to discover that we didn't have an article on monodominant forests. However, nothing scholarly came up. This is unsurprising, as all of the article creator's lengthy arguments on Talk:species forest amount to arguing that Wikipedia should have an article on this not because it is a properly documented and established concept in the world of biological science, which it clearly isn't from those arguments alone, but because by some magical and unspecified means it will become encyclopaedic. But hey! We got an article on some actual science out of it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Yup, the commentary on the talk page pretty much sounds like WP:SOAP, WP:OR. Roodog2k (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, SPECIES FOREST has nothing to do with SPECIES LIST FOREST. They may seem to be similar because that is my profession and I am an expert on the natural landscape and in creating and protection of forests. In the case of Species List Forest of conway, MA it is a real place owned entirely by a non-profit conservation organization and Wikipedia:Species List Forest should never have been deleted. Wikipedia:Natural landscape was attacked also and so a claim that I am some sort of troll is false. If User:Yunshui is to like my history s/he should list it all. I have contributed and contributed well. I once again tell you that User:Yunshui seems to not understand environmental language seems to believe that there is some hidden agenda. But it only seems to be the case. I have given references on Species forest TALK to a variety of species forest types. Like Species forest, they are used, but not a lot, because there are not many conservationist who deal with healthy forest descriptions. Usually working forest get all the attention and have the most obscure terminology. Native species forest is one of many species forest such terms which I have referenced. I am not sure of User:Yunshui's other claims, because I do not do many submissions on Wikipedia and have difficulty deciphering the complaint codes. How can it be neologism if the term is clearly found in Google and is totally understandable by environmentalists of my profession? It is a well used phrase and not an acronym or other single word. There may be ambiguity for some editors not skilled in the natural sciences, and that misunderstanding I regret. That is why it is a stub and that is shy it will be made made less ambiguous. Please do not delete.Rstafursky (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a notable concept there should be reliable references to attest to that fact. Also, "Species List Forest of Conway, MA" may (or may not) be an actual place but that does not mean that Species forest is a valid article under Wikipedia notability guidelines. If it is notable an article for "Species List Forest of Conway, MA" is valid. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and RooDog2k. Also, if it were to be a definition it would not justify an article per WP:DICDEF. Poor quality articles such as this are doing WP disservice. Please, lets get some sort of peer review in place to stop this stort of rubbish from turning up in article namespace. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a bit over-dramatic, no? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Don't you want WP to improve the quality of its contents? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't that what we're doing now? Roodog2k (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, non-notable neologism. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable WP:NEO. -- 202.124.72.221 (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty clear now that Wikipedia editors believe that I coined the term SPECIES FOREST and that they believe that there is a good need for such a term. Committee editor Yunshui has confirmed my own Google searches that most, if not all discussion using the term SPECIES FOREST originates from my comments on social networks. This may be true, although I never imagined that such a useful environmental and ecological term had heretofore been overlooked for it has been used, but not perhaps in a meaningful way. Although SPECIES FOREST origins my be foggy it is crystal clear form your contributions to this Wikipedia delete page that I am the first ever to define SPECIES FOREST. I, as a conservationist, have been up to the task by defining it in the best way, the correct way and the modern way, if you will. My sole interest in these things is to improve the natural landscape for the Earth and for us all. Words are everything. If the natural science does not have its own correct definitions in its arsenal then natural landscape suffers. In the past the forests of the world were framed in terms of resources their extraction of which does harm to the forest. Even term such as WILDLIFE AREA implies that megafauna are the species of interest to hunters. The term BIODIVERSITY likewise for some ecologist must necessarily be determine by people. SPECIES FOREST is none of these because this term is not anthropomorphic in any way. Therefore, even if this committee does not see a need to put SPECIES FOREST into Wikipedia and condemns to oblivion such a useful and nature loving expression I now define it here for perhaps the last Wiki time. "A species forest is a forest of, by and for all nonhuman species; it is a place in the natural landscape occupied by all its existing and recently extant plant, animal, fungal, and microbial organisms." Go now back to your homes. Take a walk after supper. Breath the air, smell the smells and off in the distance you may see a species forest "its head sticking out of a low flying cloud." Or you may never see one in you entire lifetime . . . but you have to look. Rstafursky (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This unsourced definition is nonsense: of course a forest is occupied by species (what else?). And what on earth does "existing and recently extant" mean? WP:BOLLOCKS, I'm afraid. -- 202.124.72.138 (talk) 13:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as a neologism that isn't able to be sourced, per WP:NEO. Sorry, but the term isn't in wide use whatsoever and there are apparently no reliable sources about the term. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 11 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) 15:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Travel Services

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

Apparently fails WP:N, and looks like an promotion attempt Lakokat 09:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've removed the substantial part of the article which was pasted from the company's website, where it is copyrighted. No evidence that this is other than a run-of-the-mill company plying its trade; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)3[reply]
SPEED DELETE - It seems to be private company with no coverage/no trusted third party source. Seems like an advertisement attempt. Not Notable to the minute extent. For deletion, please. - Bharathiya 03:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)

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) →TSU ^tp* 07:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power, Profit and Protest

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

Delete per WP:NB -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. Which section(s) of WP:NB do you have in mind?

—Wavelength (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The spirit of the guideline applies. The article may pass muster on criteria #1 but it would depend on the interpretation of "multiple". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the three references in the article are insufficient for criterion #1, then perhaps these three additional references are sufficient to rectify that deficiency.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well-referenced, so the book is notable.—Wavelength (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC) and 19:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are some more sources:

Fighting for the Forests. Ron Chapman (PhD) 2008, p18. (shows use in research)
The workers' flag is deepest green. Jeff Sparrow. Seminar, Australian National University, October 2004. (shows use in teaching)
David Sprigg (shows use in social policy research)
Book review in Australian Journal of Politics and History Volume 50, Issue 1, pages 123-154, March 2004. (ref) Cathie Jensen-Lee writes "This book provides an interesting and thoughtful analysis of several movements for change in Australian society; namely the Aboriginal movement, the women's movement, the green movement and the anti-capitalist/anti-corporate globalisation movements."

Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources support notability, per User:Wavelength and User:Chiswick Chap. Johnfos (talk) 17:03, 10 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} 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Mumbai landslide

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

The article sounds like a news article, which doesn't qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. It only talks about no. of people killed and the reason for landslide (in two lines). -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 08:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The stubs are allowed to exist. It is referenced .Large number of lives were lost and it is an important incident in history of modern Mumbai. If wikipedia would have been there in 2000 the page would have readily created and accepted like this one 2011 Hindukush earthquake even though there was no loss of life.Shyamsunder (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Hindukush earthquake din't only took place at a single place. The earthquake was felt in 3 countries at the magnitude of 5.5. In that case, 2011 Mumbai landslides didn't took place all over the Mumbai, it just took place at a suburb of Mumbai. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep The article seems like a news article as pointed out but the news sources are fine, is there a place where this can be redirected to? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2011 Mumbai landslides didn't took place all over the Mumbai i dont think that is a good counter arguement. Landslides ~~never~~ generally dont take place all over a city ~~(other than a Hollywood movies)~~, This incident qualifies as a notable natural disaster due to the number of lives lost and coverage in national print media, Passes WP:GNG--Dℬig Xray 20:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DBigXray — it's possible for them to take place all over a city in real life. Nyttend (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nyttend for the link, I have struck of my comment, By the way the calamity you linked was volcanic eruption although landslide did occur as a result, thanks--Dℬig Xray 22:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are currently only two sources on the article. Shouldn't it have a little more for GNG to apply? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rsri after my recent edits it has 5 sources. The incident has Coverage in international Media BBC news, National newpaper Tribune, and coverage in 2 books That I have added as reference. should pass WP:GNG why do you think otherwise ? --Dℬig Xray 22:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: One of those books (Current ref5) says "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I have removed the mirror source, thanks for pointing out Animesh, any comments on the GNG by the way ?--Dℬig Xray 09:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is enough coverage in WP:RS thus passes WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 12:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. And, let's not live in a world where the killing of 67 people in a natural disaster is readily dismissed.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG. Although with some more expansion we can decided to maybe move it to "2000 Mumbai floods". Irrespective of that, its a Keep for sure. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Meets GNG. - Bharathiya 03:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC) (talk)

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 Tourism in Sydney. --MuZemike 00:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of attractions in Sydney

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

Unscoped, unreferenced, unorganised and seemingly random collection of items.

Redirect to Tourism in Sydney. Moondyne (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but... - once I was going to suggest renaming "Tourism in Sydney" => List of Attractions in Sydney". After all, that's all that article is. A compilation of attractions in Sydney. Barely any discussion of tourism in Sydney. There are plenty of lists (most?) on wikipedia that are "unscoped, unreferenced", disorganised and random. I'm not saying that is good, but this doesn't seem to be an accepted standard as far as lists go. :) --Merbabu (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that rename. Neither article is particularly special, and we certainly don't need two. Moondyne (talk) 07:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need Tourism in Sydney as it currently stands? Indeed, they are both essentially the same and suffer the same problems you described - with the exception that one is padded out with info from the individual attraction articles they link to. I'm leaning towards deleting the tourism "article" and keeping the list. Happy to hear the counter argument. :) --Merbabu (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Tourism in Sydney as a starting point for a merge, as its at least got some organisation. Moondyne (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed to delete. Then we should work out what to do with the other. --Merbabu (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I agree with Moondyne if consensus becomes merge. I was almost tempted to recommend Tourism in Sydney for deletion per WP:NOTTRAVEL but on second thought think it is a good candidate for becoming more encyclopedic if someone wished to comment on the travel industry within the city and add facts and figures on the size of said industry. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, that's exactly my thoughts on the Tourism in Sydney article. I'd be happy to do the big chop/stubbing now if people are supportive. THat article suffers the same problems of scope and the basic fact that currently it reads like a tourist's to-do list. --Merbabu (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tourism in Sydney, per WP:PRESERVE. The article is comprised of many links to other articles, and the addition of them to the Tourism in Sydney article would improve it. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. "Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city." The lead suggests this list includes surrounding areas which seems to be a no-no. Moreover, this information is better gathered in a category, and what do you know? There is already a category that includes more complete information in Category:Visitor attractions in Sydney. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is part of the Category:Lists of attractions by city Lugnuts (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what, exactly, is an "attraction"? Wikipedia is not a travel brochure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Support comments per Northamerica and Moondyne regarding merge Satu Suro 11:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tourism in Sydney Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 13 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) 15:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kountermove

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

This article lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability in general, or satisfy inclusion through web notability guidelines. The only significant coverage I could find was this article. Whpq (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searching brought up no coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing to show this subject meets any of the notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 20:34, 14 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, utterly unsalvagable rant. No need to let this sit 7 more days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE RUDIMENTS OF WISDOM FOR A BETTER YOUTHFUL GROWTH AND NATION

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

Original research and like an essay. PROD was removed without any efforts →TSU ^tp* 06:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete with fire, lasers and angry bees. Nonesensical personal essay of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. If we keep this, we might as well host the entire text of Time Cube in an article. Yunshui 雲‍水 06:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ESSAY--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 07:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ESSAYS and WP:OR. -- WikHead (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (guess I should put that in all-caps). --IllaZilla (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an unencyclopedic essay entirely comprised of original research. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:28, 8 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} 00:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naša TV

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

Fails WP:NOTE and cannot find notable sources to support it →TheSpecialUser^Talk_{Contributions}* 08:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep assuming it is indeed a national TV station (like NBC in the US or ABC in Australia) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm worried by the fact that it doesn't seem to have an article on Macedonian Wikipedia and the article on Russian Wikipedia has been deleted[9]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Russian very well myself but my understanding is that Russian Wikipedia, like many of the lower-population wikis, has a reputation of basically just being a battleground between self-absorbed users. (That is, considerably moreso than English Wikipedia is.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, though, a Google Translate of the Russian Wikipedia deletion conversation appears to indicate that it basically says, "There's not much more than an interwiki link to English Wikipedia here and the article there doesn't have good sources." So, we would end up with circular reasoning to say that their deletion is good reason for a deletion here. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ‣ I added {{find sources}} for the Cyrillic form Наша ТВ at the top of this AfD. But there appear to be copious Google News and Google Books hits even for the Latin rendition of the name, anyways. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 23 May 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a national TV channel. Mcewan (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an interview in a national newspaper and addet it to the article. The interview demonstrates notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 8 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 23116 Streich and delete history per consensus. Also, I did take note of the fact that the nominator only has 4 edits as in my view, AFD nominations should be made by here compliant editors. However, he could be a long time IP editor who created the account in order to make the nomination. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip_Vidal_Streich

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

This page is in clear violation of WP:N. Web searches for the individual in question produce several identical copies of the article text, some of which come from profiles on various social media sites, establishing that this is nothing more than a vanity page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YJyIBAsR69G (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 June 2012‎

Delete Not notable. Despite having an asteroid named for him. Mcewan (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question This is clearly a problematic article (POV, overblown, etc), having been edited by a succession of SPA editors and anonymous IPs (the latest one tracing back to Harvard University). However, I think the nom is problematic, too: somehow I cannot take a nom serious that is the very first contribution of a specific editor (who doesn't even sign the nom). So I would be interested in hearing from the nom why the references present in the article are insufficient to satisfy WP:N, what the nom thinks about the fact that an asteroid has been named after the subject, and what effort the nom has made to uncover possible other sources not yet present in the article that might establish notability (per WP:BEFORE). Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Has a handful of papers, but is first author on none. He is one of three [10] winners of the 2007 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. Will probably go far, but does not currently satisfy WP:N. -- 202.124.72.221 (talk) 08:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with Guillaume2303 I'm also sceptical about the editor of the nom, but after checking G, GNews, etc. I couldn't find enough for WP:N.-- Dewritech (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: on TOOSOON. A lot of great awards and press, but basically all at the "young with promise" stage, not what we generally consider to be sufficient professional awards. Could probably be recreated in a few years, so definitely re-research at a future AfD if it's > 2014ish. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 23116 Streich - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 15 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 merge to Liberty University. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy surrounding Liberty

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

Page was created to split this information from Liberty University. I believe the split is not necessary and that the controversies belong in the original article, as splitting them off adds no value and is confusing to people not familiar with the matter. θvξrmagξ^spellbook 01:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge That fork is so forky it could take your eye out! Its sole purpose appears to be to bury content, content that is central to the main article because it reveals a lot about Liberty University's identity and ethos. Meowy 02:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fork does not even have a link back to the main Liberty University article! Meowy 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Liberty University. As an independent article, it is a point of view fork. NJ Wine (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's well sourced, and could easily fit in the main article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This much content is giving undue weight to a few incidents; merging everything back into the article would not be productive. Even if you want to keep the information in the article, why do we have to merge? Just delete this title and revert the edits that split it out of the university's article. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "merge" doesn't mean simply adding all the content of one article unchanged into the existing content of another artcle. Meowy 12:20, 10 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. In my judgment, the sources cited by Interfase strongly weaken the earlier arguments that this school of architecture does not exist. The remaining arguments that the article is OR or advocacy (or, if I may add, very badly written) do not preclude a "keep" outcome, as they can be remedied by editing. This discussion also does not preclude a discussion about merging the topic with, e.g., Architecture of Azerbaijan. Sandstein 06:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural school of Nakhchivan

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

The article is OR. The subject of the article does not exist: there is no term called "Architectural school of Nakhchivan" and the content has been copied from information already in various Nachchivan-related articles Meowy 01:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I reviewed the references for the articles, and they largely consist of broken links and links which do not refer to the Architectural school of Nakhchivan. I can find no sources at all mentioning this topic, and I don't see any material in this article which can be proven to be accurate. There already exists an article architecture of Azerbaijan, which would cover the region in question. NJ Wine (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NJ Wine; no substance here, unless some of the external links are useful in Architecture of Azerbaijan or Nakhchivan. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nakhchivan architectural school mentioned in Encyclopedia Iranica: [11] Grandmaster 08:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "architectural school" is that? Two structures designed by the same person. The term "school of architecture" means a definable architectural style that is influential by being widespread throughout a specific time-period or ___location and which is created by multiple architects or master builders. Meowy 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Azerbaijan, each large region has a different architectural style. Nakhichevan and Karabakh are closer to each other, but are still quite distinct. Shirvan and Sheki are completely different. If you look at mosques and traditional houses built in Shirvan and Nakhichevan, you will immediately notice the difference. And Iranica does not say that Nakhchivan school is represented by two buildings only. They are the most notable, but there are many more. Grandmaster 12:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Meowy that Nakhchivan is not an architectural school. Ajami Nakhchivani is an architect who already has his own article, and anything of important is this article appears to already be in his article. NJ Wine (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the term "architectural school" does not refer to minor local or regional variations in building types due to, say, climate or building materials - so it can't be applied to everything and anything. Just because place A looks different from place B, doesn't mean we can start to use terms like "Architectural school of A" or "Architectural school of B". And traditional architecture is almost never defined as an "architectural school" because it is rarely the product of architects or master builders. Meowy 13:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ajami was the founder of this school, but he was not the only representative of it. The article needs further development and expansion, to include more examples of the local architecture. And the Nakhichevani school was clearly the product of master builders, Ajami being the best, but not the only example. The fact that the school is mentioned by Iranica makes it notable enough. Grandmaster 07:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. This is a part of nationalistic propaganda, started in Azerbaijan and criticized by scholars like Victor Schnirelmann, Philip L. Kohl and Clare P. Fawcett. For example, Akhundov's "seemingly innocuous, abstract archaeological paper was a deliberate political provocation: all the crosses on today’s territory of Azerbaijan, including significantly Nagorno-Karabagh and Nakhichevan, were defined as Albanian, a people who in turn were seen as the direct ancestors of today’s Azeris".(Philip L. Kohl, Clare P. Fawcett, Nationalism, politics, and the practice of archaeology. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. — P. 154. — ISBN 0521558395) Gazifikator (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does that to have do with Muslim architecture in Nakhichevan? Grandmaster 07:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Grandmaster is right, it is off-topic for the discussion here. I understand the reasoning behind Gazifikator's worry: some of the article's content could be seen to have propaganda purposes. (For example, the article is template linked to "Azerbaijani architecture" and mentions Tabriz using "the territory of Iranian Azerbaijan" wording, implying that there too are examples of "Azerbaijani architecture" and that Tabriz is Azerbaijani territory. The creation of a supposed "architectural school of Nakhchivan" could have the aim of "Azerifying" what are actually Iranian architectural forms and traditions). But that is a content issue. My deletion proposal is based on the fact that the subject of the article does not exist. Meowy 14:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Sprutt (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Meowy. I think the idea of an architectural school denotes more than mere similarities between certain structures. I don't think it would be too inappropriate if I bring the example in Armenian architecture of the existence of the "Ani school" and "Syunik school" during the medieval period, when certain designs and patterns could be discerned in structures found in their respective regions.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many sourses where Nakhchivan architectural school is mentioned:

Encyclopedia Iranica: [12]:

AJAMĪ B. ABŪ BAKR, 6th/12th century architect under the Eldigüzid atabegs, founder of the Nakhchevan architectural school.

Great Soviet Encyclopedia. [13]:

Ослабление (9—10 вв.) Арабского халифата обусловило возникновение множества небольших государств, в городах которых (Барда, Шемаха, Байлакан, Ганджа, Нахичевань и др.) складывались локальные художественные и архитектурные школы. Важнейшие из них — нахичеванская, ширвано-апшеронская, позднее тебризская. Памятники нахичеванской школы поражают великолепием керамического «одеяния» сооружений, первоначально одноцветного, а впоследствии многоцветного.

К. М. Мамед-заде. Строительное искусство Азербайджана, Баку, 1983:

Продолжение двух архитектурных направлений — нахичеванского и ширваноапшеронского, является еще одним из важных доказательств о сохранении и развитии традиций азербайджанской архитектуры, созданной еще в домонгольский период. (Page 23)

Рядом с мавзолеем сохранились руины неизвестного сооружения и полуразрушенный цилиндрический минарет, сложенный из обожженного квадратного кирпича. Сохранившаяся часть минарета позволяет еще раз проследить влияние нахичеванской архитектурной школы. (Page 42)

Естественно, что одним из главных вопросов при изучении бузханы г. Нахичевани является вопрос о его датировке. Высокий уровень архитектурного решения, по нашему мнению, указывает, что памятник был возведен в период, когда традиции нахичеванской архитектурной школы находились еще в расцвете. На данной стадии изучения мы склонны отнести сооружение бузханы в Нахичевани к началу XIV в.; т. е. к периоду, когда мастера нахичеванской архитектурной школы прославились далеко за пределами своего родного города.(Page 44)

Jonathan Bloom, Sheila Blair. The Grove encyclopedia of Islamic art and architecture, Volume 2. 2009. Page 45. Nakhchyvan:

A local school of architecture, characterized by the use of engaged columns and glazed brick, developed for commemorative and religious buildings in the 12th century under Ajami ibn Abu Bakr, who designed the octagonal mausoleum of Mu'mina Khatun.

As you see there is no any original research. And Nakhchivan architectural school formed specific style of architecture. --Interfase (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone does not know their subject - there are no engaged columns in the Momine Hatun tomb! A "local school of architecture" [in Nakhchivan] is not the same as "Architectural school of Nakhchivan". An "Architectural school" requires a sequence of buildings that have been created over time by multiple architects or masons (perhaps starting with one singular structure that has exerted stylistic or constructional influence) and all which have certain distinguising features in common, features which also make them distinctive in some way. Meowy 21:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nakhchivan school is mentioned in encyclopedia Iranica [14], which means that the subject of the article exists and is notable.Ladytimide (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no notability, and the article's content simply duplicates the content already on two Wikipedia articles: Ajami Nakhchivani and Momine Khatun Mausoleum, (and also, to a lesser extent, Nakhchivan (city)). Meowy 21:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Uccept the Grove reference as sufficient to warrant the article. Perhaps there are only two buildings, but that is still enough to define a style, and I think we have to go by the way the term is usef in the most reliable encyclopedic sources. The more extensive coverage in the GSE and EI confirm this . DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 17 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FreeCell (Windows)

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

Merge with FreeCell. This is just one of many, many implementations of the game. It really doesn't have substantial coverage or notability outside of FreeCell. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows). Sven Manguard Wha? 00:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to FreeCell. There is nothing special about an implementation on Windows. JIP | Talk 05:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of implementation-specific detail in there that could not be merged. Mcewan (talk) 07:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm forced to concur with Mcewan, there's a good bit of information (and sourcing) specific to this version that likely would not survive a merge. The aspect that involves the internet freecell project is unique to this version as well, and that got its own coverage. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge FreeCell and FreeCell (Windows) have a lot of very similar information. If there were multiple notable implementations, it might make sense to separate them out, but in view of the common material and the difficulty of separating it, I think it makes sense to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for the same reason as I stated in my vote to keep Hearts (Windows). This article is not about how to play the game, it's also about the history, development of the software component. It's part of a series of software components found in MS operating systems, which happen to include games. It's a weak keep b/c the nom didn't bring this here to be deleted, rather to be merged, which does have SOME merit. It would be a stronger argument for the merge to go the other way, given that MS FreeCell is really the only notable version. Roodog2k (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kaye, Ellen (2002-10-17). "One Down, 31,999 to Go: Surrendering to a Solitary Obsession". New York Times. —Ruud 18:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or procedural closure There is no argument for deletion, anything else is a matter for the talk page of the article as there is enough work already at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and maintain information in a distinct section for the FreeCell article. Someone should replace the deletion tag with a proposed merge tag, as there are no arguments for deletion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough valid information to fill its own article, it too long if you merged over all content. A notable bit of software on its own. Dream Focus 00:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable in its own respect as one of the iconic Windows games, Mcewan and Ultra also make good points. Also a {{trout}} for the nominator who failed to advance a deletion rationaile, making this a WP:SK1 candidate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 15 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} 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire (Windows)

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

Merge with Klondike (solitaire). This is just one of many, many implementations of the game. It really doesn't have substantial coverage or notability outside of Klondike. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows). Sven Manguard Wha? 00:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is about a specific piece of software, a particularly widespread games software, and is not really about the card game itself. I don't see how the content could be merged with Klondike (solitaire) since, exccept for the list of them, there is no content about the various other computer versions in the article. Meowy 02:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. I totally agree with Meowy; this is a valid encyclopedia article about a popular piece of software in Microsoft Windows. Ahmer Jamil Khan —Preceding undated comment added 04:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A game available to hundreds of millions of people for well over two decades, and which was implemented, at least in part, to teach mouse usage to new users, must be considered notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Klondike (solitaire). I see nothing that special about an implementation on Windows. JIP | Talk 05:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If anyone wishes to propose merging the article, this is the wrong venue. They should raise the matter on the article's talk page and, given consensus, proceed. Wikipedia:Merging may be helpful. If "merge and delete" is sought this is the correct venue but the proposal should be explicit and a reason for deletion given. I would have suggested merely closing this discussion but because the article seems particularly satisfactory to me, I propose "keep". Thincat (talk) 09:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Cullen. If it was partially made to help with the technique of drag and drop it has to be notable. I also know it is very popular piece of software and there seems like there's a lot of information on the product. Finally, I think the article layout is good enough to stay on Wikipedia. It is professionly done, which is what we are also looking for. pbl1998Pbl1998 (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly the second most notable computer game, right after Minesweeper (Windows). Must have received independent coverage in dozens, if not hundreds, introductory computer books. —Ruud 18:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or procedural closure There is no argument for deletion, anything else is a matter for the talk page of the article as there is enough work already at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calories Per Dollar (CPD)

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

Non-notable (and incredibly trivial) "measurement unit" invented (allegedly) 2 months ago. Originally proposed deletion as a non-notable neologism; PROD declined by article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve article by adding more references. I was easily able to find a number of independent sources[15],[16],[17] discussing the concept of calories per dollar, thus making this term notable. NJ Wine (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per NJ Wine, the term has been in use before the alleged invention by the Australia student. The term is still trivial, and requires a Wiktionary definition at best, but certainly the hoaxish article that was nominated, claiming invention of the term in March 2012, needs to be deleted or completely rewritten from scratch. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless completely rewritten with actual sourcing. This is utter shite.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the article to remove the specious claims about the Australian student. Having done so, we are left with a rather short article about a term that appears to be in widespread use, but trivially so. Even given the sourcing that I have found (and more can be found -- just do a Google search on the term), I don't feel that this term merits anything more than a wiktionary definition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to Wiktionary. I favor delete because a definition would be trivial: "Calories per dollar means the quantity of calories in a particular food divided by its price in dollars." Well, duh! --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 7 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) 00:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MelanieN. And I have concerns that the article seems to be trying to compile a list of foods ("Add your own items to the list"), which would be well out of scope of Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "WP is not a dictionary." The concept could be mentioned and explained in some other article on the topic of nutrition. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:35, 8 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. --MuZemike 00:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Forget Your Roots (H2O album)

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

Unremarkable album with no chart history or enough music notability to held an article of its own. Some album reviews are availab,e but it's not enough coverage or media presence. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A cursory search of a few reliable music sites turned up sources rather easily: [18] [19] [20]. The WP:N bar is deliberately not set very high; enough sources are available for this topic to pass WP:NALBUMS. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:57, 2 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) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generally, if a band is notable then major studio albums by that band are also notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that, per policies, notability is not inherited. That a band or artist is notable doesn't mean all of their albums/singles/songs/etc will automatically be notable. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 05:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion is probably moot, being the creator and one of only two significant contributors to the article, but I figured that since the band already had five other albums deemed notable enough, then it only made sense that their latest would pass the test as well.Jasper420 05:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick Google search came up with many reviews (including 22 on iTunes), videos and reports on the album. It's a notable album from a notable artist, it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splasher9 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that iTunes reviews are made by users, and then are not reliable. —Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 14:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to H2O (American band) (possible search term) - It can't have much independent notability because the only info about it is that it exists and consists of 14 songs by various artists. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for thousands of others albums currently covered without issue on Wikipedia.Jasper420 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the countless, worthless, shitty little music stubs that contain less information than one could find on HMV's website. As they say, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And with that attitude, they'll never become anything more.Jasper420 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They'll never become anything more because they rarely receive more than routine (if any) coverage in reliable sources. Regarding this album, if there's any viable info it should be used to expand the brief line at H2O (American band)#Don't Forget Your Roots (2011). A WP:SPLIT to an independent article would be reasonable if there was so much reliably-sourced information that it made the main article unwieldy. Basically, my stance is quality over quantity. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:OSE. benzband (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with sources already in article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 16 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. Clear evidence iwas presented that her work is notable. The consensus considers that this meets the requirement; the evidence for GNG does not have to be biographical material about her professional life, just material about her work. Journalists become notable by the journalisml. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Johnston

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

The subject is marginally notable at best and the article has been the source of problematic additions which have caused the subject to complain to OTRS and to myself directly. The article has been orphaned since its creation because nobody has been able to find an appropriate article from which to link to it, again suggestive of non-notability. The two sources cited are a dead link to the the Humane Society of the United States' website and an article on the IFJ website that verifies a commedation she was awarded in 1998. The main source of any coverage she has in reliable sources is some severe criticism of a particular article she wrote. There is little else in the way of coverage of her work and nothing (that I have been able to find) by way of biographical details in reliable sources, so an argument could be made that BLP1E applies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are some disturbing elements to this AfD, not least that the current article is a shadow of its former self, with many reliable citations deleted, most probably by people opposed to her views which in 2009 in particular were certainly controversial. However the complaints then are not the only thing for which she has been in the news. Here are some (apologies for length):
- headhunted from Big Issue by Observer
- Minority Thought (attacks Lucy Johnston) 9 January 2011
- Daily Express scoops international award for Imutran exposé, 2001 (Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert were presented with the award by film star Tim Curry)
- She drew criticism in 2007 for "Dangers of MMR Jab" (a major and long-lasting controversy); and in 2009 for Jab as deadly as the cancer. This particular controversy thus extended over a period of three years.
- No less than Ben Goldacre critiqued her in his Bad Science column: Jabs as bad as the cancer, Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, 10 October 2009. Goldacre also critiqued Johnston's Express piece on mobile phone masts, another controversy.
- Professor Diane Harper complained formally about her: Complaint, 10 October 2009. The Sunday Express published an apology October 2009 apology by Sunday Express.
- On 26 April 2010, NICE requested the Sunday Express to print a correction relating to an article "SCANDAL OF LIFE-SAVING DRUGS HELD UP BY POLL" on 25 April 2010. This was a separate event from the above.
There appears to have been a long-running edit war about all this. However that doesn't seem reason not to report the facts about the several controversies (MMR, Cancer drugs, NICE - not just a single BLP1E) using the reliable published sources listed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You stated that the article is a shadow of its former self, with many references removed. Rather than judge just the merits of the present form of the article, and to save every other editor form having to page through every previous revision, could you please point to the previous version which you feel best demonstrates that the person satisfies WP:BIO? Edison (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Info: OK, there has never been a stable version, but 19 March 2012 is as informative as any. My point is rather that there are RS out there and they have been in the article, which is why they are listed above. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you address the fact that those articles contain pretty much zero biographical information about this person (since, after all, they discuss the factual errors themselves, only mentioning this person as the author of the stated-to-be-erroneous articles) and that the only biography that can be constructed out of them is the fairly dreadful revision that you point to, which tells us nothing biographical? This seems to be a textbook case of things that shouldn't be presented in Wikipedia in a biographical article, because they are actually about (to pick one) the scientific statements made about Cervarix by The Daily Express, and don't tell us anything about this person other than that she was the byline. Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "How do I address it?" Like this: We have a great many bio article which have been kept in AFDs, which do not have date and place of birth, education, and family information. These include bios of CEOs of major corporations, which AFDs found to be notable because the individuals have multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of their accomplishments and positions in the business world, and because they have had an important effect in their field of endeavor, as has this person. To a greater extent, we have thousands of bio articles about some jock who played a few games of some professional sport, with far less significant coverage than this person,. We have at least hundreds and likely thousands of articles about "porn stars" whose articles only relate what "porn awards" their onscreen copulations and sodomies garnered, and what films they were in. while hardly any even give their real names. (See Long Dong Silver, which survived 3 AFDs, if you are unfamiliar with this vast number of bios.) Many such bio articles have survived AFDs. I do not see in WP:BIO where it says that the subject's birthplace and birthdate, schooling, residence and family, etc must be freely available in online sources. The sources for this article are by no means just articles under her byline as you imply, but deal with perceived failures in her reporting. To balance that, there are also awards recognizing her accomplishments in reportage. Edison (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In other words: You address it by pretending that it's OK that there's zero biographical material in the sources to be had, and that articles whose subjects are not this person's life and works can somehow magically support a biography of this person's life and works even though they don't document them in the slightest but are rather articles disagreeing with other articles about subjects such as Cervarix and the MMR vaccine controversy. You need to read Project:Coatrack. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:BIO. BLP1E does not apply when she has won a 1998 commendation from the International Federation of Journalists for her article "Barred from Animals Kingdom" [21] as well as a 2001 'Genesis Award' from the Humane Society of the United States for her article on pharmaecutical companies, "Terrible Despair of Animals Cut Up in the Name of Research". The Humane Society award being a deadlink does not make it not exist,. Does the nominator think it is a hoax? Indications are that her story in fact a winner in 2001 at the 15th Annual Genesis Awards, "an international distinction that recognizes members of the major news and entertainment media for spotlighting animal issues with courage, creativity and integrity." A career in journalism, including influential writings about animal research and animal abuse, capped by being health editor of the Express, is by no stretch of the imagination "one event." A smoldering edit war, with criticism of her article "Jab as deadly as the cancer'" criticizing a cancer vaccine, and harsh condemnation of said article by a "bad science" column being alternately added to and removed from the article, is not a valid reason to delete the bio article. Several books have some coverage of her work, per a Google Search, although the content is not viewable online and some may be false positives. The talk page of the article does not show a serious effort to establish a consensus as to what the article should say in regard to the "jab" article and the response to it from the journalism and science communities. There are certainly BLP issues, so protect the article and work via its talk page toward a balanced section on the article "Jab as deadly as the cancer," the backlash to it from journalists and scientists, and an apology of sorts and the removal of the story from the Express website. Edison (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you address the fact that "A was criticized by B, C, and D." is not a biography, but a coatrack for the actual subject, which in the cases of the sources so far pointed to appears to be various health/science topics such as Cervarix and the MMR vaccine controversy? Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - She is an influential journalist, and the health editor of a major newspaper, and her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources, particularly with controversial claims that some types of vaccinations are harmful, and in reportage on animal research, with recognition by the Humane Society of the US and other well known organizations, as well as multiple significant coverage in books and newspaper articles, satisfying WP:N. Do you understand that "various health/science topics" plus animal welfare, is not one little area in which people criticize her? Edison (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - her work has had multiple instances of significant secondary coverage by reliable sources — No, it hasn't; neither has the person's life; and that's the point. Rebuttals dealing with other subjects do not constitute biography. Try pointing to an article that gives biographical information about this person, not non-biographical information about a science/health subject or a public debate, and after seeing that it's not possible maybe you'll comprehend that. Uncle G (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The work certainly has been covered in good secondary sources, repeatedly, on multiple issues. It is true that LJ has been extremely private with her personal life, which is fine, but that does not exempt her writing life from public discussion and encyclopedic public record. Her writing life is notable for its repeated and strong ventures into controversies that she has created: people have reacted to her expression, not only and individually to the topics she has written about. The pen is not independent of the hand, and for example Ben Goldacre's Bad Science is crystal clear that LJ's science writing is a serious and notable topic. It would form a perfect starting point for a tutorial on science and society, for instance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 1 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) 00:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient coverage exists to pass WP:GNG, plus the amount of criticism directed at her is significant enough to pass WP:CREATIVE as well. The lack of biographical detail is irrelevent - reliable sources have written about her work, and that is enough for her to be notable by Wikipedia standards. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: This is not an easy AfD. If not for the fact that article is being used on and off to emphasize criticism of the subject, I wouldn't worry too much that someone decided to write an article about the "health editor" of the Sunday Express a middling British Sunday paper. But scads of successful competent professionals receive some awards and recognition for their work. I've read the "most full" version of Lucy's bio as identified by Chiswick Chap[22], and its really not that special. Cf. even Marilyn Hagerty (not subjected to AfD, but certainly has a lot more coverage than this one if considering BLP1E). This is all somewhat subjective, and I don't disagree with Edison's !vote lightly. When you have someone marginally notable like this, and the article has been subject to attacks, and the subject wants deletion, I usually favor deletion. (Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson we considered a Los Angeles area reporter who had won some awards, but got fame because of an apparent episode of aphasia she had on camera. She hadn't requested deletion, but BLP concerns were present.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree that this one isn't easy, but feel Edison is right here. Johnson is, like it or not, definitely in the public gaze, and has won enough prizes to be notable. The series of controversies that she has stirred up is also on public record (indisputably existing) and again she is notable for that. For both these reasons she can't fairly be called "marginally notable". Unlike the one-off 'aphasia' of Serene Branson, Johnson's fame is long-lasting and not the result of any one minor slip. And the most probable explanation of the 'attacks' is that Johnson herself tried to remove or emasculate the article, including reliably-cited facts: not a cause for deletion (indeed, blocking might have been appropriate). So we should face the discomfort and keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is arguably a borderline case, and if the subject had requested deletion, I'd support that. But it seems her main concern is that the problems with the page should end, so with that in mind I've expanded it and added more references (diff). With more eyes on it after this AfD and with HJ's semi-protection, hopefully the page will stabilize. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, 14 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 United States Senate election in New York, 2012. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colia Clark

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

Nomination on the grounds that the subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Clark was a minor party candidate for the Senate 2010, winning only 1% of the vote. None of her activism work in women's rights or civil rights is especially notable. WP:BEFORE is satisfied; searching for sources hits the usual candidacy pages, facebooks, etc... When limited to the news, she receives trivial coverage in the Times Union and a HuffPo blog, as well as a Green Party press release, all of which are insufficient in establishing notability. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States Senate election in New York, 2012, where she is already appropriately mentioned; readers deserve to be sent to the current election. Dru of Id (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO I'd rather see it deleted outright. If it was a candidate from a major party or at least a 3rd party that saw significant electoral support I would go for a redirect. But in her only run to date, this person garnered 1% of the vote. There has to be a threshold for what a fringe candidate is, and IMO this is it. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's deleted, readers get to go to a page that shows it's been deleted; industrious ones then have to wade through one of these, and the butterflies and Montgomery are irrelevent (to her, the Green Party, and the election, just to clarify). Anyone currently searching is most likely to be doing so in the context of the current election. Sending them is cheap. Dru of Id (talk) 02:53, 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) 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States Senate election in New York, 2012 - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:19, 15 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 Littoral combat ship. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of littoral combat ships of the United States Navy

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

This page duplicates three separate pages and a template: Littoral combat ship, Freedom class littoral combat ship, Independence class littoral combat ship and the LCS template. Prod stating that fact was removed with the comment 'Deprod Reason given does not justify deletion.' Buckshot06 (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Littoral combat ship, which should have been done before the prod or AfD. The presence of the two class articles has no bearing on a list covering both classes as a standard set of the list system (see List of frigates of the United States Navy, List of destroyers of the United States Navy, etc.). The presence of the template is utterly irrelevant to the deletion or retention of this article as well. That said, though, it duplicates the list currently included in Littoral combat ship, and as at the moment there are only the two classes of (what is claimed to be) an otherwise-unique ship type, there is no reason to list the ships both in the ship type page and on their own page. If additional classes of LCS are created (and I certainly hope that instead we have a return to sanity, but that's neither here nor there) or the type starts being used by other navies, then the merits of a seperate list can be debatated anew, but right now this should simply be redirected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the two-column list I added to the main LCS article sufficient for all 55 ships? (Is it allowable to go four column?) Hcobb (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles systematicaly listing all US vessels of each type have been provided for all other types of vessel. If this list is removed then this scheme will be broken. It may may justifiable to rename this artle List of classes of litoral combat ships of the US navy (or similar). If there is an article that is wrong then it is the Article Littoral combat ship, which has become US centric as a result of the list. There are other ships of this type (even if their owners have not classified them as such). e.g. Hamina class missile boat. Op47 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be a comparable class? It's a tenth the size of the LCS and is actually a combatant as it is armed. Hcobb (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LCS is a US-only thing, and the term "littoral combat ship" is purely an invention of the United States Navy, so of course the article is "US-centric". The rest of the world, not needing a buzzword to wow Congress, calls this type of ship a Corvette. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest-of-Earth isn't immune to buzzwords, but I personally find the "See Also" note to be sufficient mention for MEKO. Should somebody else start putting modular multirole frigates that use a lot of unmanned systems into the water and calling them LCSs then these should be listed as LCS classes. Hcobb (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agree with Bushranger. There's no need for this page at present, and even if at some point there is, it should be at 'List of corvettes of the United States Navy'. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Bushranger. As a note, should the corvette title come into use, suggest "List of corvette-type ships of the United States Navy" to keep it neutral. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Corvette-type ships" would be weasel-wording, and there will be porcine aviators over Tartarus before they get officially designated "corvette", I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then expect ravings for using a ship class that the USN doesn't, is all I can say. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:30, 7 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, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I see nothing wrong with this list at all. No one has made a strong argument how this runs afoul of WP:LIST or any of the subcategories therein. Roodog2k (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it completely duplicates content in another article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A list can duplicate content found in other article(s). Roodog2k (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Bushranger. Brad (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to avoid unnecesasry duplication of content. Sandstein 08:34, 16 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.

^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Apr/25/pa__rep__holden_loses__critz_tops_altmire.html

[1] ttp://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2012/Apr/25/pa__rep__holden_loses__critz_tops_altmire.html

[1]