Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 March	6 March >

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. Swarm ^X 05:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Flare

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

Appears to be a non-notable DJ. Completely unreferenced. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are several sources describing him as influential and discussing his innovative 'flare scratch': [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], he has released several albums, at least one of which has received coverage: [7]. There is also this. He was featured in the 2001 documentary film Scratch, and also in Wave Twisters.--Michig (talk) 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Michig's rationale & sources sound convincing to me.Cavarrone (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- Though I have much more experience in geography, not music, the MTV and Shure book sources strike me as compelling. They note he invented a particular technique. That seems to support his passing WP:ENT No. 3, if only by a hair. This news article Michig cited also gives his real name and age and discusses an incident where he was shot. All together, I think he passes WP:BASIC. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:18, 12 March 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) 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Chill

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

Unsourced article on a student film. No indication of notability given at all. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was sorely tempted to IAR speedy it, but I PRODded it instead. Completely non-notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - film doesn't seem to be on IMDb, which includes a lot of non-notable films; doesn't contain information (year, country of origin, director, production company, etc) to allow others to identify the film and improve the article; no indication it's even a real film, or that it was ever released/shown to the public. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability Zad68 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources whatsoever for this student film. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete The article tells us this is a zombie film about and by middle-school kids, is still under production, and with an anticpated May 2012 release date. Lack of any coverage in relaiable sources fails WP:NF through WP:NFF. While it's entirely possible that this project might become notable in the future, it is, at best, currently premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schmidt. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:36, 9 March 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 William Henry Kimball and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Forgotten Son

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

Contested PROD (by creator). I can't find any evidence of notability for this book, even though it's an interesting subject. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I'm not seeing it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD tag was removed from the page, and then another user (presumably acting in good faith, not being aware of the AfD discussion) blanked the article and replaced it with a redirect. The deletion process is now in disarray. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the book is probably not notable: the only reference I can find is in a Mormon History Association newsletter list of new books[8] and the stated pubisher, Downs Printing in Hyrum, UT, is in reality a printer not a publisher, indicating that the work was self-published.[9] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it was even marginally notable, I'd have just closed it and let it sit as a redirect, but I'm not even seein enough for that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm tempted to agree, can an AFD discussion result in deletion for the redirect? Or should we punt to RFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reverted the illegal redirect, and suggest deletion. The book does not seem to be notable, and there are other, more notable, books with the same title, so a redirect would be confusing. -- 202.124.75.135 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable work; apparently self-published. At most, redirect to William Henry Kimball, which itself is a borderline case for existence. (Sorry, I was the editor who redirected it. I was unaware of the ongoing AFD; I should have checked.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:44, 7 March 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. Redirecting to "ecological region" would be perfectly reasonable—if that article gets created. Swarm ^X 05:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spenser Ecological District

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

Delete. There is no designation of Spenser Ecological District but there is a Spenser Ecological Region. I am embarking on a series of articles for the ecological districts but I do not consider the need for ecological region articles at this point. I cannot think of anywhere to merge or redirect the article. See also Ecological districts of New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Good to hear that you want to get articles up for NZ's ecological regions. I would suggest that the term 'region' is easily confused with 'district', hence this should become a redirect to the Spenser Ecological Region article. Schwede 66 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is little enough demand (IMO) for the district article let alone the regional articles. If there is going to be a redirect, which I do not agree with, it should got to Ecological districts of New Zealand. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Support redirect as the terms 'region' and 'district' are sometimes confused. NealeFamily (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to what? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect to a new article of Spenser Ecological Region, Plausible redirect. Obvious need for an article, as the nom says himself. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Need to create an article before you can redirect to it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ -- Redirect to Ecological districts of New Zealand as a deletion alternative. The article under discussion here does not meet WP:GNG as things stand. If a more appropriate target article is written, the redirect could be updated. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand why deletion is not seen as a viable option? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do think deletion is a viable option. I agree this article does not pass notability and should not remain. That said, I would not object to a redirect from any of the ecological districts to the Ecological districts of New Zealand article. So, I do not object to that in this case. We would essentially be deleting the aritcle and creating a redirect. If it is not actually one of the Ecological districts of New Zealand, that is a different story and I would not favor a redirect because that would be misleading and not allowed according to WP:R#DELETE Nos. 2 & 5. Hoppingalong (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- switching to straight Delete -- I looked at this again and realized--as I should have before--that it matters that the Spenser Ecological Region is not one of the an Ecological districts of New Zealand (as Alan noted before). I think a redirect from the various regions to the Ecological districts of New Zealand would be ok (just) pending something better as the article at least mentions the regions in reference to the districts. If an article on the Spenser Ecological Region is ever created, I also think that would be close enough to redirect this article to, and I would then agree with DGG and Schwede66. Since it hasn't, I am not willing to prejudge whether such an article is needed or meets notability, etc. As WP is now, redirecting a non-existent district to a discussion of districts could be misleading, or at least confuse an editor who searched for this and came upon a list of districts only to not find this district. I now no longer think a redirect would be a good or useful thing with any existing targets. If that changes, it is easy enough to create a redirect then. Meanwhile, I now think the article should be deleted. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule wardrobe

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

Not notable and no assertion of notability. 3 dead links and a blog are all that support it. Somebody's idea of the moment. Should have been speedied a long time ago. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I've heard this term quite a bit to describe a basic wardrobe. I believe that the article could be cleaned up and Wikified, although I wonder whether there isn't another page on here dealing with the same thing, perhaps under a different title. Quite a few of the American sportswear designers offered "capsule wardrobes". I will have to investigate further, but I think it's quite a widely used term. (and that was before I saw the hundreds of sources!!)... Mabalu (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used phrase, used by major publishers and broadcasters[10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Phrase also in Collins English Dictionary[17]. Maybe more common in UK than US? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula. I've added one ref, will finish later. A412 (Talk • C) 15:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have finished. Looks plenty notable. A412 (Talk • C) 00:19, 7 March 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 Hahn Island. Swarm ^X 05:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Hahn (naval officer)

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

A U.S. naval aviator and public relations officer. He was a Lieutenant in 1952 and in 1961. He flew helicopters. Nothing stands out as meeting WikiProject Military history's notability requirements. I'm unable to find any reliable 3rd party references. He does have a small island off the coast of Antarctica named after him, Hahn Island. Prod was contested because, "People with landmasses named after them, no matter how small, generally are regarded as noteworthy enough on that count alone. As such N/MIL is not the correct guideline to use." Bgwhite (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full story of this article. The article on Hahn Island was top-heavy due to this information about James Hahn, so I excised it from that article and created this new article. I have no real opinion one way or the other about whether the article should stay - as Bgwhite points out, from a military personnel standpoint, Hahn is probably below notability threshold - but that is not necessarily the only guideline which should be used. The fact that he has a landmass named after him lends him a certain notability which his military history alone would not incur. As such, I'd regard him as a borderline case, and would be inclined to give this a weak keep. I certainly wouldn't want to see all the information back in the Hahn Island article - it would again overload that article. I suggest that, if the decision is to delete, then there is a smerge - and a slight one at that - into the Hahn Island article. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless there's actually a policy that states having a place named after you is grounds for notability. No merge, as the details of his life are not particularly encylopedic. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; although the subject has a geographical feature named after him, he is not notable per WP:BIO or WP:SOLDIER that being said, a summary of this article would IMHO be suitable in the article Hahn Island. If the article about Hahn Island grows to the size prescribed in WP:LENGTH it can always be spunout. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Our coverage of a place ought to include information about the person for whom the place is named, so I don't agree that this content should be deleted. Edited for concision, on the other hand, yes. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but without prejudice to a paragraph on him in the island article (not much more needed when you cut out all the fluff and non-notable stuff). MilborneOne (talk) 23:14, 9 March 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) 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Lilygreen and Jon Maguire

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. "Currently recording their first album". Re-create if/when it is released. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there might be an argument for an article on Jon Lilygreen (Cyprus rep at Eurovision contest), this band has nothing of note yet. (Unlike the previous editor, I would suggest that the article not be re-created if/when thier album is released, but only if/when it is successful.) Emeraude (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing that appears to satisfy the requirements of WP:MUSIC, is the fact that the subject is signed to Warner Brothers Records, but with no product released, I fail to see much encyclopedic importance here. -- WikHead (talk) 03:54, 10 March 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 without prejudice per Orange Mike's argument. If anybody who is not associated with the subject wishes to write a sourced article from a neutral point of view, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin cj mongiello

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

He may be a very nice chap and a decent chef, and have worked for a grown up organisation, but does that make him notable, or has he inherited notability from his surroundings? I think the latter, and propose deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Placing an AfD five minutes after it was created is not cool. Bgwhite (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cmt He hasn't become any more notable in the intervening period. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, taking an article that has been recreated by the subject after being speedily deleted for being a blatant advert is a perfectly legitimate action. Valfontis (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one on the Mongiello Associates team or group of companies has ever understood why it was necessary to belittle him by saying "have worked for a grown up organisation." One never considers it needed to strip down others. Where is your interest in ripping apart his mentors also in the White House http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Scheib who each of their pages has been used as a direct model for Mr. Mongiello's page? Where are the tons of CN's smashed all over those pages of each other Chef? In the case of Mr. Mongiello, it's a massed attack of unscrupulous nature on a person who has done so much global work for the poor and hungry - one cannot even get it typed up before it is deleted and attacked, on a personal level. Not a professional level. I personally know he has even donated financially to Wikipedia in the past so it still never bodes right off to have Administrators ripping people down and making fun of them. Given some time to work on an OPEN ENCYCLOPEDIA (the stated goal) those of us here with many degrees would be more than happy to work on anything to ensure it is better, accurately cited and correctly listed.Mongiello Holdings, LLC group of companies 22:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abghty (talk • contribs)

Please read about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, and see the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions; the most common being "other pages exist!" The {{cn}} tags are there because large claims have been made; see WP:BURDEN. tedder (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A professional comment on the article itself is that attaining notability from his surroundings would be impossible since the individual attained over 200 awards and medals, worldwide, prior to being investigated for one year (including his family) to be appointed to the White House Military Office. The investigation cost the Americans taxpayers over 100,000.00 Sterling so the flavour shows the proof is in the pudding.--Mongiello Holdings, LLC group of companies 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abghty (talk • contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources to any of these claims? tedder (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong delete Fails WP:GNG: lacking multiple significant coverage in independent 3rd party sources. Note that Wikipedia is not a place for promoting one's business or career. Wait until you are notable enough that someone independently writes an article on you. See also our business FAQ. Valfontis (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amending to "Strong delete" per Fiddle Faddle's cleanup. There's nothing here. Valfontis (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm assuming and hoping you checked my edits and found them to be valid. I was careful to do a decent editing job, but am conscious that the article, after removing the puffery, self eulogising references, invalid references and the material related to them, is rather empty. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your edits are fine, no worries. I searched on my own and couldn't find anything else. Valfontis (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the flurry of alleged references is interesting. A load of Youtube items is not a good omen, and at least one reference doesn't mention the subject of the article at all. At least one of the alleged references is a drive by mention of the man's name, but does nothing to assert his notability. This reinforces my view when I nominated it that this man is as notable as I am. I've been mentioned in the press, too, but that does not qualify me for any notability in an encyclopaedic sense. Smoke and mirrors and vanispamcruftisement Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The unprofessional comments focused on the page content only do not add up nor make any sense, such as, "I've been mentioned in the press, too, but that does not qualify me for any notability in any encyclopedic sense." The individual has appeared in the news more than 100 total times of the printed effect and on televisions stations spanning the globe in numerous languages. Aside from serving and protecting Royal households and the President with a Top Secret clearance the intimation is that you have done this also, your entire family has also gone through such investigations and you also served in the military for your country for decades. The comments don't add up when stating, "you have done all of this also." Additionally, the mentions of YouTube completely vacate any responsibility for the fact that you DO NOT mention the qualified technologies of footage on actual and real television stations.

In fact, any legitimate citations are glossed over unprofessionally and are not focused on the Wikipedia requirements to focus on the content only in a verifiable manner. The citaitons provided of television footage obviously are pre-technology level associated before television stations embedded shows and appearances - thusly they can only be provided technologically on YouTube or Facebook or other third party platforms due to length.

Continuing to attack and randomly delete letters from the White House, deleting citations from the First Ladies Office and deleting citations verifiable through the United States National Archives is not contributory to the common good. Your continued violations of unsupported statements are a violation of the community trust.Martin CJ Mongiello, MBA 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC) certainly in this current incarnation — Abghty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I've been trying to go through the article to work out which of the references have the potential to be WP:RS and which are part of a smokescreen. I've flagged several as being part of the smokescreen, though a previous attempt was reverted by the article's creator and main editor, whom I have flagged here as a SIngle Purpose Account since that is certainly the behaviour exhibited at present. I've also removed several references which purport to cite something but cite nothing at all. A previous edit to do that was reverted by the same editor. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - although in its current condition this is a total mess, and the shameless involvement of Mongiello's company account (Abghty) in the process has made it much worse, yet I'm willing to admit that there seems to be a real possibility that there's a marginally notable person somewhere under all the debris. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you done any googling? I admit it is difficult under the weight of Mr. Mongiello's self-promotion efforts, but like I said in my !vote, I can't find any reliable, significant and independent third party coverage of him on the Internet, in books or in magazines. Valfontis (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator and primary editor has now been blocked. That has given me breathing space to remove what I perceived to be uncited and irrelevant stuff. Obviously the work I've done is open to scrutiny and your mileage may vary. I believe we can now begin to see the wood from the trees. I see Mongiello ad a decent cook, a man who turned his naval career around (though that is uncited) and that is pretty much it. I see nothing to confer any encyclopaedic notability on him. You could argue that "I would say that" since i nominated the article and then edited it mercilessly, but you must judge it on its merits, inspecting as many intermediate revisions as you see fit, to determine its notability.

The Youtube alleged references were all either uploaded by the article creator or were in violation of copyright, or both, and cannot be used. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article as it now stands crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds using reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article's subject currently passes notability as two of the references appear to be passing mentions and the note about the submarine does not confer notability on the subject (we have no idea if Mr. Mongiello contributed to the sub's getting the award). Being included in a cookbook does not confer notability--my former employer also has a recipe in that book, and despite being peripherally involved with a notable national figure (as was I), she is not notable (and neither am I). I can't access the other reference, but adding all the sources together, I don't think this meets the WP:GNG requirements of "significant coverage" or "multiple sources". Notability (the White House) is not inherited (working at the White House). Am I missing something? Valfontis (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have the same question for you. I've done a load of work in the article and I'd kind of like him to be notable because of having done the work, but I can't spot anything that sets this chef apart from a couple of tens of thousands of other decent chefs. The award for the sub galley is an internal naval award, one I left in the article out of regret for editing it down so tightly. Every second goshdarned book seems to have "bestseller" on its front nowadays, and the other references also don't pass the WP:GNG test for me. Your mileage obviously varies, and I wonder if you would elaborate on your rationale, please? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valfontis, note he wasn't "the" chef at the White House, the article claimed he was "the" chef at Camp David and a sous chef at the White House. I wonder how many sous chefs there are at the White House. tedder (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four. Valfontis (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The White House sous chef role cannot, then, be a cornerstone of this person's notability. One of four is not notable unless one is part of a team that is inherently notable. White House sous chefs are not an inherently notable team. I'm discounting the submarine galley award as a non notable subcategory of a borderline notable award. Yes, the award has its own article at present, but its not as if it were the Oscars. The recipe in the cookbook is one out of so many others. All must therefore hang upon his employment in Camp David. I submit that this provides tenuous notability at best. It is quasi-notable, yes, but misses the WP:GNG criteria. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (note I commented above, but haven't officially given my !vote until now). When this AFD started there was a lot of blustering from the named individual and/or his team. However there is very little in reliable sources to indicate a depth of coverage necessary to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the notability is conferred (working at the White House and Camp David, working on a sub that won an award). Thanks to Timtrent and Valfontis for working through this. tedder (talk) 11:49, 12 March 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) 23:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlene M. Proctor

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

The subject fails several criteria, notably WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR, no independent third party coverage in any reliable sources, just a host of self-promotional mentions on ALL the usual webpages (YT, FB et al.), plus spiritual guru web-savvy advertise yourself websites. Cleaned up a bit, as the article also falls (fell) foul of WP:SPIP and WP:NOTPROMOTION. Oh, and what are those refs supposed to be? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This subject fails WP:GNG and alternative criteria named by the nominator. Panning through mentions of this name produces some true hits, but no gems at all as far as substantial coverage on which to base a WP:BLP. And as for existing references, I found little to nothing to indicate notability. JFHJr (㊟) 06:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable, and the article is mostly WP:NOT. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:13, 6 March 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. Kubigula (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dotson

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

This auctioneer's known only from his appearances on the series Storage Wars. By comparison, none of the five stars of the show have their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator first tells us that "This auctioneer's known only from his appearances on the series Storage Wars," which is not true, as shown here, in this NPR segment featuring Dotson that was aired 4 years before the show's premiere. (Even if it were true, being the host of a popular, national TV series could certainly make Dotson meet the criteria for notability). The nominator then mentions that "none of the five stars of the show have their own articles," which is not a reason for deletion (nominator, please familiarize yourself with WP:OSE before submitting further nominations!). Dotson has significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject here, here, and here, among others. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 02:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The NPR article is short, and he's not the focus of it; he's someone called upon to share his experience with the real topic: storage auctions. I've no objection to the USA Today article (though it incorrectly describes him and Laura as the "stars" of the show; he's also not the "host"), but your other two examples are press releases, hardly reliable sources. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is somebody called upon to share his knowledge on the topic since he is a notable figure in the industry. The length of the article does not determine notability. The other links that I posted were just 3 news results that came up since I took the time to do a 30 second search on the subject before commenting on his notability. One is indeed a press release, one is from yahoo news (I think most people would consider that reliable), and the other you admit is a reliable, secondary source independent of the subject.

P.S. Sorry for calling him the host, you're right, he's the co-host[18] along with his wife Laura. Big mistake on my part. MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 03:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a press release written by an employee of StorageTreasures.com is somehow more solid because it's posed on yahoo? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People are often notable beyond what they are most famous for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Largely per the sources presented by User:MisterRichValentine. It appears that the subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources, meeting the notability guidelines for biographies. There also appears to be a fair amount of google news coverage in regards to him and his company. However, the majority appears to be behind paywalls. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion, period. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.A.W.S.

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

I was Contacted By PAWS San Diego. They wish for the article to be deleted. Most data is inaccurate, they will have a volunteer recreate the athletic when ready. They are not affiliated with PAWS an Francisco Charles E. Keisler (talk), A+ Network+ and Security+ Certified 20:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep your paws off. PAWS San Diego wants to delete an article that is also about the San Francisco organization? Just delete the San Diego section. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we really can't delete an article simply on their say-so without a good reason. Also, their volunteers should generally avoid editing the article for COI reasons. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The volunteer is supposed to correct the data which are inaccurate (COI allows for correction of factual data), and not "recreate the athletic". COI is meant to reduce the bias on articles. Rewriting it would probably introduce bias, so the article is a Keeper, if not even applicable to SNOW-closure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by One.Ouch.Zero (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But badly needs sourcing♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "Pets are Wonderful Support" concept has ample coverage in reliable sources.[19] (and GScholar also seems to have a decent amount of literature on PAWS's concept of pets as patient support, if anyone's interested[20]). The current article's references to "chapters" and (in the infobox) to San Francisco as the "headquarters" may be inaccurate; based on the San Francisco group's website, they have encouraged the formation of P.A.W.S. groups in other locations (and even have a "start-up kit"[21]) but each local organization is independent[22]. So we'll need to revise the article accordingly. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I'm not sure about the periods in the current title of this article. The San Francisco organization's website doesn't seem to use them. The San Diego organization does, mostlyu. A random check of a few of the other PAWS groups seems to indicate than some do and some don't. On the other hand there are lots of notable organizations (and other subjects) called "PAWS", see Paw (disambiguation). Some thought might be given to whether this article is correctly named. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a national program, not just limited to California. Disclosure: I have given time and money to that program in Albany, New York. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 12 March 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) 23:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pai lum

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

This is an article about a non-notable martial art. It's only source is the organization's home page. There is no indication it meets any notability criteria. Article was PRODed 3 months ago and recently restored. The talk page shows there is little independent support for many of this style's claims and history. Astudent0 (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. (listed 19:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)) — Frankie (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find any reliable sources to show this style meets WP:MANOTE. The article seems to be full of unsourced claims and comments and has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article gives no reason why it's subject is notable and has no independent sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:42, 9 March 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) 23:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 and beyond in television

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

Another contribution from TBrandley (talk · contribs), this time involving this crystal ball article about "future events" in television starting in 2013, when we're not even through the first quarter of 2012. Assuming that the editor used 2013 and beyond in film as a template, but television is a much more shaky business than film (we're not even through the pilot season for 2012-13 yet, whereas film studios can plan years out), and we have the majority of the article's content already in 2012 in American television; also, what makes 2013 more special than 2014, 2015, etc. A similar redirect discussion is up for more crystal balling out to 2020. Nate • (chatter) 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what about 2013 and beyond in film, and this article has good sources from TV by the Numbers, The Huffington Post, The Hollywood Reporter and more, there is about 30 good sources in the article. --Tate Brandley Stockwell 01:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the sources are also in the 2012 in American television article already. I've chosen to nominate this on predicting future events, not the use of sources duplicated in this article. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - mostly synthesis at this point. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2013 will happen and this article has lots of reliable sources indicating these shows will continue. The article needs to included non-US TV shows though. Lugnuts (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Excluding the information (and refs) duplicated from 2011–12 United States network television schedule or 2012 in American television, and removing the obvious (e.g. Academy Awards and Kennedy Center Honors will occur every year barring a major catastrophe), there is not much left to the article. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SYNTH. What articles will come next? 2014 and beyond, then 2015 and beyond? How much will this duplicate unnecessarily? The current year in TV has enough instability. There is no reason to crystal ball out to 2020. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. The bulk of the article is duplication, and what's left is mostly obvious far-off WP:CRYSTAL material--yeah, there will probably be an Academy Awards show in 2020, but that's not encyclopedia material in 2012. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 7 March 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--Salix (talk): 23:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sporty

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

Run-of-the-mill WP:BLP1E, woman gets news buzz for dating multiple men to get free dinners. An otherwise private person, non-celebrity, news coverage has completely fallen off the map, so no enduring notability. Just like the woman who walked into a pool while texting or a billion other 1E examples, there is no justification for the retention of this type of article. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Otherwise private except for the interview she gave with Good Morning America. CallawayRox (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giving interviews does not overcome 1E guidelines. In many cases, multiple interviews or even book tours are not enough. Show us why this person is notable beyond the one event. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic tabloidery. WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she seems to be a classic case of BLP1E, but this content could perhaps be usefully merged to an appropriate section of Match.com. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I WP:PRESERVED the article by merging it as proposed. CallawayRox (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I have removed that nonsense from the match.com article. This was the action of an individual person who simply picked this particular dating website to do what she did. The match.com proprietors are not in any way responsible for this situation, and to my knowledge no reliable sources lay blame on them either. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does Online dating service meet your approval, o wise one? CallawayRox (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS is an understatement; going out on multiple dates to get free food and beverages isn't newsworthy in the least. And so she got interviewed on GMA; alot of people get an interview on that show, but it doesn't lock up Wiki-notability. Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yep, this is pretty much a textbook case of NOTNEWS, plain and simple.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5) – creation by a sock puppet of banned user User:Grundle2600 in violation of ban. --MuZemike 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blankmeyer v. Stonehill College, Inc.

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

Thousands of lawsuits are filed in the United States every day. A few articles in domestic and international press do not make this notable. By analogy, news stories about a cat falling in the well might also generate some media coverage but are not Wikipedia-worthy. Reconsider an article only if a noteworthy court decision ensues. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very interesting case, as it combines the issues of religion, sex, disability law, privacy, and contractual obligation. Given that Catholic schools advertise themselves as offering students a certain kind of campus life, this issue is of interest to a huge number of people. And it's not just Canada and the U.K. media that are cited in the article - Italy and even Pakistan's media are cited as well. This is much more than a few news articles. This case is a big deal, and is highly notable. Friendly Freeper (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This case has attained worldwide notability at the same time as, and probably to some extent in symbiosis with, the controversies associated with government-mandated insurance coverage of birth control by Roman Catholic employers and Rush Limbaugh's calling a Georgetown University (also a Roman Catholic institution) student a slut after her testimony on Capitol Hill supporting the coverage. Rammer (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received a good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:11, 11 March 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 Corporate (film)#Sequel. Can be recreated when RS info about the film becomes available.--Salix (talk): 23:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate 2

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

WP:NFF states that, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." The article has only one source which doesn't states anything about the filming progress. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Corporate (film)#Sequel. Any information can be added there until it becomes notable in its own right and passes WP:NFF. Incidentally the only source is a casting rumour from 3 years ago, and a google search for "corporate sequel" only shows results from 2 years ago, so I wonder if this film is still on the cards. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Corporate (film)#Sequel. Currently available sources are not recent,[23][24] and this film may be on hold. The redirect can be undone and the article expanded and sourced accordingly if/when it is shown as having begun pronciple filming. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 11 March 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) 23:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coste Boy (El General)

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

Non-notable musician. Article has been repetitively re-created and deleted (under minor variations of the title). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Sources are all blogs or user-generated content. Lots of socking here as well; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BicliotecaMusicalColombia. Hairhorn (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any notability, in this or any of the previous name variants. AllyD (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After some searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harold van der Heijden

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

Delete - article was obviously started by the person the article is about User:Hhstudy [25] to promote his commercial product. JunoBeach (talk) 22:09, 3 March 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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 17:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article was obviously started by the person the article is about User:Hhstudy [26] to promote his commercial product. JunoBeach (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Described as "world's leading authority in endgame studies" by British Chess Magazine [27]. Article is unsourced, pov puffery and needs total rewrite from neutral viewpoint, but the subject seems notable. A lot of non-English sources. Tigerboy1966 01:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Tigerboy1966. He is notable as a chess writer, and not as a biology WP:PROF (low citations number for his biology papers on google scholar). Tradedia (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was likely started by its subject, but I think he is notable in chess composition. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work, but subject meets notability criteria. Was also the subject of a recent Chessbase article. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 5 March 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 both. Blatant hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Craziest Show Ever

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

Likely hoax. Not quite blatant enough IMHO for G3 deletion, but I can find no evidence that this show actually existed. Also involved is List of The Craziest Show Ever episodes. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have Google searched for this with no luck. And another sign of the possible hoax is the listing of a DVD release 2 years before DVDs were officially first released/invented. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that this is deleted, the cleanup afterwards should also include the five templates that were created for ususe on one or the other of these two pages. {{Start date: 1992}}, {{Start date 1993}}, {{Start date: 1993}}, {{End date:}}, {{Start date:}} - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. As Texas Android says above and the unlikelihood that a television show that is asserted to have run for 48 episodes over two seasons on ABC has managed not to leave any traces whatsoever online, whether for the show or the actor. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now up for G3 CSD deletion. I had thought in not quite blatant enough of a hoax for that, but some other admin may very well feel otherwise. If it and the episode page are both thus CSD deleted, then this AFD obviously becomes moot. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 5 March 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 --Salix (talk): 23:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James R. Lee

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

Fluff bio, references are run of the mill release type for a Managing Partner..of an... international strategic advisory and investment company. WP:N notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a direct reference from the World Economic Forum website, and took out the "fluff". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadh3492 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, but it is a bio, not an article with significant coverage. They are just bulleting things they have been told about him, not reporting on him. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My bullshit detector was going off like crazy on this one. Please compare this alleged fact from the article — "Lee graduated from the US Army & Naval Academy aged 13, and went on to study at King's College, Department of War Studies. Lee has since studied at the Beijing Language/ Culture University, Lancaster University, The London School of Economics and Georgetown University." — with the source which purports to document it HERE. In any event, whether it is "merely" improperly sourced or a full-blown hoaxification, the piece as it sits is an inadequately documented fluff bio. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what exactly is the "US Army & Naval Academy"??? I get exactly four hits for this purported institution, all tracing back to the article subject. An improper name or a hoax? Carrite (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No such entity. At least not until West Point and Annapolis decide to merge. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 19:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I strongly recommend that an administrator carefully review all previous contributions of User:Wadh3492 to make sure this is an isolated case of flagrantly bad sourcing and/or hoaxing. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - http://www.armyandnavyacademy.org/ here it is, it's a high school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.203.164 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is very self-promotional. Here are my four reasons for deletion unless someone adds something substantive soon: (1) Yes, Lee was nominated as a "Young Global Leader" in 2011 but not from the USA, as this page implies, but from Denmark. http://www.weforum.org/community/forum-young-global-leaders# What does Lee do in Denmark? So the page may be misleading in addition to not being notable. (2) Also, I see that since 2005 there have been over 1000 "Young Global Leaders" so this is not sufficient IMHO by itself to support notability. (3) Since the World Economic Forum is largely 'pay to play', I suspect that could be a bought-and-paid for honoria. (4) But my main complaint is that there is nothing showing what Lee has done as a YGL. It says on their website that YGLs must devote some of their time to giving back. Looks like Mr. Lee has not even bothered to do anything with this award.Gofigure41 00:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucienne Bloch

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

Appears to be a memorial page. No reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 16:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A significant artist, she and her work are discussed in many books[28]), for example [29][30][31][32](calls one of her murals "the archetypal New Deal art work") And she had a news obit in The New York Times[33]. The "memorial" tone can be easily fixed. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxedo Source for Sports

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

Delete. Non-notable and SPAMish. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 5 March 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 only routine coverage.--Salix (talk): 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

South Carolina Cloud

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

Glad they have it, but that doesn't make it notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one news story on the topic, so it appears half way to notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only brief, routine coverage in reliable, non-primary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:50, 5 March 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Cars Limited (New Zealand)

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

Article subject does not pass WP:CORP, particularly the requirement that "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". Company is a small kit car manufacturer. The coverage is from specialist kit car magazines only. Article was declined at AfC on this basis but, rather than improve the article, the author proceeded to vigorously canvas various editors until they found one who would move it to mainspace. Sionk (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in WP:RS. If WP:RS sources are added, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments, however in the context of the Wiki Cars project, and in a New Zealand context the company is significant. The kit car publications you call "specialist magazines" are international publications in most cases and no less notable than most used in Wiki. Also, you say I "vigorously canvas various editors until they found one who would move it to mainspace". If seeking advice on the article and the references used from a (single/one only!!!) fellow Wikipeadian within a project can hardly be termed "vigorous canvasing". Also Sionk I posted this comment your page in January and never heard any more, so I resubmitted the article.

"have been on a rather long excursion through the guidelines - at best I would describe them as vague and at worst confusing relating to Notability. Given the pages of discussion on Notability and the meaning of "limited interest and circulation" I can only conclude that it seems to become a matter of opinion as to whether a kitcar magazine constitutes a publication of limited interest and circulation - not helpful to either of us. I therefore turned my attention to other Notability guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) and Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft), the latter being an essay rather than a guideline. These seem to show a split in the way Wikipedians view notability. As a sweeping generality (please excuse me for this) those from a scientific/literary viewpoint seem to prefer to limit what is notable in their field, while those from mechanical/technological one seem to want to include more. From my personal preference, I tend to lean towards the latter and I think that would be similar for those on theWiki Automobile project - the projects stated aim is to "co-ordinate the effort to compile articles on all types and classes of automobiles, automotive parts and technology of the automotive industry". A troll through the various autombile and aircraft pages shows some very obscure types, which in themselves must be of limited interest even from my viewpoint. So despite my best efforts I don't think I have resolved much more than to agree to disagree. Let me know if you have any suggest/thoughts on the matter as I am quite interested. NealeFamily (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)"

So before you jump please read and consider as it affects us all. NealeFamily (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I came here from WikiProject New Zealand and have lived in New Zealand for most of life. In response to ...in a New Zealand context the company is significant. I can confirm that I'd never heard of them. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry Stuart, I may have slightly misled you - I should have said in terms of kit car manufacturers in New Zealand they are significant. You'll find their cars regularly listed on Trade Me and represented at various local car shows. They are internationally known as is illustrated by the assorted kit car publications running articles on them. The company is also international with Alternative Cars (Australia) Pty, and Alternative Cars International Ltd, which I believe is based in the UK. You should be able to confirm this with a quick web search. I have also added a recently published book on the New Zealand industry as a reference to the article.

As I stated in my comments back Soink, when I originally submitted the article, I found the definition of notability vague in the context of motor vehicles. My discussion above explored that issue and I sought but did not get any comment from Soink. With regard to the references I orginally used, I asked a (one) member of the Automobile project for guidance on whether or not the publications I was using were within Wiki's criteria - they thought they were. I have therefore put the references issue to the Automobile project for comment because I want to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia, not because I have any particular hidden agenda or because I am somehow trying to drum up support. I respect both Soink and your comments, but I may not fully agree with them. NealeFamily (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be self-promotional/COI. lacks independent news coverage. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Questions (1) Since the consensus here is to delete has WP:Notability (vehicles) been considered? (2) If articles in independent magazines published in three different countries and at least one is recognized in its field, plus a book are not reliable sources then what are (because to meet the Notability criteria for vehicles, I needed to establish the types existence and validity)? (3) If the article is to be deleted can it be returned to user space instead?NealeFamily (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC) And a PS I have no vested interest in Alternative Cars, I was simply seeking to ensure all NZ car makers are included in Wiki in some form or other. If you think WP:COI has been breached I'm happy for the article to be edited to make sure it isn't. I dislike adverts and support the communities efforts to maintain Wiki's integrity, I also appreciate those of you who take the time to critique.[reply]

Keep coverage in 3 different (admittedly specialist) publications from 3 different countries seems enough to establish notability to me. Greglocock (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about a vehicle, it is about a kit car manufacturer. WP:Notability (vehicles) wouldn't apply. Sionk (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - how about if I rename the article "Alternative Cars (New Zealand)" and refocus it on the make?NealeFamily (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that it is close enough to notability to be worth keeping. Okay that's a weak argument I know, so let's call this an IAR play. New Zealand is one of the smallest English speaking nations and therefore New Zealand based corporations will have significantly less coverage in comparison to a US or UK corporation of similar proportionate scale within the economy. Within the context of the size of the New Zealand print media that we use to seek out references I feel this passes the threshold and should be kept. If there were nation based Wikipedia's this would pass the text for nz.wikipedia QU ^TalkQu 18:11, 13 March 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 KLM#Corporate_affairs_and_identity. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KLM Meet&Seat

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

I changed this to a redirect. Creator thinks I should have deleted it instead (see edit summary on reversion of my redirect), so I am suggesting it be deleted as insufficient to stand alone and requiring a redirect to KLM. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I read the edit summary; the other editor thought you should have placed this content into KLM, merging the pages rather than just replacing this with a redirect. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks NG, you are correct. The article was simply obliterated within minutes of its creation, without discussion or even notification, when it was re-directed without saving any of the contents. When I reverted the re-direct the same person nominated the article for deletion. Check if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=KLM_Meet%26Seat&diff=479171239&oldid=479168710 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with KLM. Doen't need a separate article. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KLM. This should only be a small comment in the airline's article. PK T(alk) 23:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am disappointed (but not surprised) that no one has added anything to this article, which is about a novel and interesting idea that may be of interest to many. There is a lot more in the reference which I have not had a chance to add to Wikipedia, for example there is another airline which also added a social network feature. If I wasn't kept busy trying to save content from deletions, I would have more time to dedicate to actually building up this great resource, sigh...

As far as simply merging it into the existing KLM article, I wonder if any of the proponents of the merge idea have looked to see where it might fit in, and what could be done with this category if the article is merged? When I first created this article I thought of including it it in the existing KLM article, but could not figure out how to do it. I hope some of the proponents of the merge will take on this challenge. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment When articles are re-direected as a result of a merge decision in these types of discussions, what happens is that the original article's history is wiped out. No one (other than wiki-admins possibly) can verify that contents have been preserved. Here is an example: Scotia Centre Mall (Saskatoon), where the only remaining history entry I can see says:

(cur | prev) 11:55, 3 March 2012‎ Martijn Hoekstra (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (Martijn Hoekstra moved page Scotia Centre Mall (Saskatoon) to Scotia Centre

Ottawahitech (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the history moves along with the pagemove. Previously there was no content and no history on Scotia Centre (Saskatoon) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to KLM#Corporate_affairs_and_identity. One sentence is not an article, but it can make a small section in the company article. Diego (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the merger with this edit. Diego (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Fitness Institute

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

Pure advertising. The external links lead to recruitment adverts for the organisation. No evidence of any notable encyclopaedic content. Spam. Emeraude (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete for advertising. No reliable sourcing whatsoever. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:SPAM, and WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 12 March 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. Kubigula (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No taking pictures allowed

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

I think this is not an encyclopedic topic at all. The article is nothing but original research. Anbu121 (talk me) 14:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Photography and the law. Delete because it's unsourced OR. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources. Nothing but unsourced sweeping personal observations / generalizations, so there is really no material to move. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Newcomers to Wikipedia are confused by the poorly titled policy "No Original Research." After all, each and every article on WP includes some facts and not others — which is research — and does not lift material wholesale or commit close paraphrase plagiarism from a published source — which makes it original. Yes, EVERYTHING at Wikipedia is technically "Original......Research." So what's the policy that we all agree with but don't really think about too analytically trying to prohibit, you ask? Why stuff like this piece here, precisely — "No Unsourced Original Essays." Carrite (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like the first draft of someone's homework. Very poorly written and I strongly suspect some of it was simply made up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as worthless and unsalvageable, and do so very soon. Don't bother to turn into a redirect, as it's most unlikely that anyone will type "No taking pictures allowed". ¶ The creator of this article is a very enthusiastic contributor of such material as this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Photography and the law. It's essentially original research. Here's an article that mentions the topic: The ins and outs of the burger biz, but the topic per the article's title isn't covered significantly in reliable sources (after performing some searches). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it must be redirected, redirect to "No photography allowed" which can redirect to "Photography prohibited" which can redirect to "Taking pictures prohibited" which can redirect to "Photography banned" which can................ Emeraude (talk) 11:34, 6 March 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 Beam (album). v/r - T P 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK (Meg song)

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

No references does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No in-depth coverage provided and charting at No. 43 is not exactly notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sionk. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Beam (album). Most of Meg's singles are not worth separate articles, so let's consolidate the singles into the album articles. We have all these AfDs going on related to Meg with little discussion of how to best organize the content.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:48, 5 March 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. v/r - T P 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heart (Meg song)

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

No references does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per charting top 40 hit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 06:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sionk. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You discount it being a top 30 hit in Japan?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That will not in itself make this single notable. Sionk (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence provided of notability. Chart position is not a reason for keeping per WP:NSONGS - "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:NSONGS, charting alone does not imply sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 13:41, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 5 March 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. v/r - T P 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precious (Meg song)

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

No references does not seem to meet WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no references to support that statement JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whilst charting on a recognised chart may lead to notability, charting is specifically not mentioned in WP:NSONG. The problem with this article is that it needed tagging for not having references (with a notability tag, if the editor thought appropriate). AfD is a pretty heavy resolution when at least 50% of the entries in Category:Stub-Class song articles are less notable and yet half a dozen entries for this artist get listed for AfD.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point that new editors should be given a chance to improve their articles but, for example, Freak (Meg song) has been tagged since October 2011 without any improvement. Meg's songs are already listed in her own article, which is probably the best place for them. Sionk (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A chart position is not in itself a reason for keeping. Per WP:NSONGS, "notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:10, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage (or any references at all) to demonstrate how the WP:NSONGS notability guidelines are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 23:46, 5 March 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. v/r - T P 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (Meg song)

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

No references does not qualify under WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sionk. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An Oricon listing does not really constitute the in-depth coverage need to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 01:49, 10 March 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. v/r - T P 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freak (Meg song)

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

No references and does not meet WP:NMUSIC JayJay^{Talk to me} 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, though if someone knows enough Japanese to find significant news coverage I'll happily change my 'vote'. Sionk (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no references to support that statement JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references to back up any of the information in the article or verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sionk. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ref to chart position added - David Gerard (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That still does not mean it is notable? JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG - "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:01, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Koh

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

Topic does not have extensive and significant news coverage; not substantial enough. Although Janice Koh is a nominated MP of Singapore, she appears not that notable a figure to be included in an encyclopaedia and the page has very little references Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:07, 5 March 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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 11:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although nominated rather than elected, she is still a member of the national parliament of Singapore and hence passes WP:POLITICIAN#1. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:POLITICIAN point 1 notes that being a member of a legislature "is a secondary criterion", to cover those who do not already meet the primary criterion of not having depth of news coverage. She is a member of a national legislature thus satisfies this secondary notability criterion. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:27, 6 March 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. v/r - T P 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ayani Mega Mall

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

I cannot find sufficient notable independent, substantive, multiple RS coverage of the notability of this mall on gnews or gbooks. Though it does have run-of-the-mill coverage. The article has zero refs, so it of no assistance in this regard. Article was PRODed, but was de-PRODed by Night of the Big Wind. Epeefleche (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess there will be sources out there, but in another then western script. Assuming that there are no sources based on two completely western-world-focused Google-services, is looking at a place where there a guaranteed no sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are sources: [34]. The prior axed information by the nominator, was the clue to identification. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need substantial coverage that is: a) multiple, b) independent, and c) RS. This is not multiple. And it does not appear to be independent. Nor an RS. The website you quote is that of a company that is "Freelance in designing websites, we receive services website creation, web design, website company, website, hotels, restaurants, schools ... etc."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There must be sources is not a valid claim, notability has to be established (see: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES) S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is a content fork of material rejected during discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so dependence on such material does not reflect relevant policy. Unscintillating (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any Indonesian references either, although infrastructure in Kalimantan is subpar (so it could be offline) Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable shopping mall. Keb25 (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it non-notable? You need to explain much more rather than "just not notable". --B music ian 03:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Before says in step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." The nomination makes no statement about the analysis that went into step B6. Had this analysis been reported, subsequent participants to the discussion would have been prepared with an issue that is not now integrated into their conclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It only took me a couple of Google searches to lead me to this picture. Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link is ok, but what I had intended to be there is this picture that shows the megamall from the air. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The size and magnificence of this complex is ~~stunning~~ impressive, obviously a regional [landmark], and one that qualifies for the gazetteer. The [landmark] article states, "In American English it is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance". The pictures on the Google place map are relevant here. More pictures are here. These pictures show that there are other names for the complex, especially "megamall", "A. Yani", and "Ahmed Yani". Note that as per WP:N there is only one notability requirement at Wikipedia, that a topic be "worthy of notice". Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has been cited to show it satisfies WP:ORG. Does it even qualify as a "regional mall" on the basiss of leasable square meters? Original research claims it is "stunning" are obviously irrelevant. Edison (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the previous post, "nothing has been cited to show it satisfies WP:ORG" is technically called an argument from ignorance because it argues from things that we don't know; the sentence also includes a straw-man argument that notability requires that the topic meet WP:ORG, and misses that most of the pictures I posted are associated with a website. And what happened to the previous !vote's report about the Indonesian wikipedia website? As for the question about the regional mall, I've never seen this essay/guideline; but again, satisfying notability does not require a topic to have leasable space; and failing notability brings us to the state of considering alternatives to deletion. A deletion !vote here needs to not only present explanations for why this topic fails WP:ORG, an entry in the gazetteer, WP:GNG, and "worthy of notice"; it needs to then give evidence that in spite of having at a minimum "run-of-the-mill" coverage the topic is so worthless that we not only don't want to use any of the material from the article elsewhere, we don't even want to keep the redirect. Lastly, while I take the previous posting's statement that I have done some research as a compliment, I agree that the word "stunning" was too much, and I have replaced it with the word "impressive". Unscintillating (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Qualities like like the size of something or what a user sees as its "magnificence" are absurd to use to counter a deletion argument that takes issue with the sourcing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Efros

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

Don't know what the references prove other than rumour and scoring for junior teams. Romanian second division is not professional and there is no indication this person has played at a notable level, nor that anything linked here asserts any notability. Cloudz 679 09:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 09:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only club that would establish him notability would be Iraklis. However, he didn't appear for the team, and thus he remains non-notable. – Kosm1 fent 18:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or relevant guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article was previously deleted (under WP:PROD) for lack of notability in 2010, and the new version is essentially the same - no evidence it satisfies any of our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 03:39, 8 March 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. v/r - T P 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Nobel laureates

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

There are three main reasons why this page should be deleted : the first is the lack of notability because, yes, you find websites and blogs talking about that but the only academic paper I found about the number of nobels by country used fractions of prizes and not the number of laureates to rank countries. The second is Wikipedia:No original research, the division of the number of laureates by the population of each country looks a lot like OR and the section about scientific prizes (including economy which is not a real nobel prize) is completely OR. The third is that a more factual List of Nobel laureates by country already exists that doesn't have all the problems of this list and gives the necessary informations to anyone interested about the countries where Nobel laureates come from. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The cited references are good. Though we already have a page List of Nobel laureates by country, this page is tabulated and is much easier to read and get data from. This page is a necessary and improved extension of List of Nobel laureates by country. Instead of the names of the laureates for every country, this page gives simple data regarding the number of people that have won, and presents them in a sortable table. The section "Scientific Prizes" can be improved by using suggestions of Eleventh1. If the column "Nobel laureates per 10 million people" is strictly original research, then that column can be removed. But the article as a whole should not be deleted. More work can be done on it for improvement according to wikipedia standards. Anir1uph (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to user space - This article was moved from my user page to the article space without my permission. There is a reason I created this article under the "Original research" section of my user page. This article was already deleted once before, that's why I took it off the article space. Please restore it to where it was before (User:Pristino/List of countries by Nobel laureates per capita) so I don't lose the history. And don't forget to restore the Talk page as well. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it is done. I guess it solves the issue of this deletion process. Eleventh1 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This information is notable per WP:LISTN as this and other analyses are found in sources such as The Nobel prize (1901-2000): handbook of landmark records. There may be scope for merger into a single sortable table but that is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I closed this initially as Userfied, since the nominator had userfied the article and withdrawn their nomination. Since that has been questioned, I'm reverting my close and retagging the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the countries in the list. While the country of origin/residence is a defining quality of individuals in List of Nobel laureates by country, the opposite is not sufficiently notable for the purposes of a standalone list. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per both Anir1uph and Colonel Warden, a perfectly encylopedic subject with adequate sourcing. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable list of encyclopedic information. The BBC news even covered this subject! Dream Focus 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's International Affairs Association

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

The student association does not meet the notability standards of WP:ORG. The article also does not meet the standards outlined in WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life, in which it notes that it must be the subject of coverage in secondary sources, as well as its scope in operations. Leventio (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Doesn't pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per notability standards outlined above. -- BC _{talk to me} 19:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:48, 9 March 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. 10:49, 10 March 2012 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Abdul Gaddy (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.gohuskies.com/sports/m-baskbl/mtt/gaddy_abdul00.html) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Gaddy

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

Working this one off of WP:ATHLETE. There is no inclusion for college ball for individuals for this, so I'm bringing it here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons also. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While many college athletes aren't notable per WP:ATHLETE, Gaddy isn't one of them. One of the top point guards in the nation, not to mention a top college recruit a few years back. But this article is currently a copyvio from [35] thus should be deleted. For the nominator next time, if you see a bunch of uneven. seemly random athlete statistics in that order, it's probably a copyvio from the team website. Secret ^account 06:21, 10 March 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 Miracles of Muhammad. v/r - T P 01:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad's miracle

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

(Endorsed PROD declined) Article is in violation of WP:NOT (namely, Wikipedia is not a soapbox) and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a recruitment tool or the place to promote one's beliefs. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a sermon, not a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaSH PR0MPT (talk • contribs) 09:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the point of the article. A section about alledged miracles would be fine in the pages about Islam, Muhammad, etc but not something like that. If one of the alledged miracles is notable enough, then it should have an article of its own. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears that this article may be in violation of the WP:NPOV. Also noting the nominator's point regarding the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOTOPINION). Leventio (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced personal essay. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced essay. Article creator has also tried creating this at Muhammad's miracles and tried overwriting Miracles of Muhammad. 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WIKIFY & MERGE with Miracles of Muhammad It does have references, but they just need to be wikified, this article can be turned into somehting similar to Miracles_of_jesus. The Determinator p t c 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with the wikify and merge that Determinator suggested. It's clearly got problems with using a primary religious text, but it's far from the only article with that issue, and the content isn't so problematic that it isn't better to keep it and back up with secondary sources when possible, rather than deleting. I don't see the POV issue - pages on the miracles ascribed to other religious figures aren't considered recruitment material, because it is obvious in the structure and language that these are sourced to religious rather than historical texts and form part of adherents' religious beliefs rather than generally accepted history, and this is no different. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Miracles of Muhammad and integrate the information found here to that article. We shouldn't have two articles like we have now werldwayd (talk) 00:47, 7 March 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. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fetching the carrot

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

No clear establishment of notability, let alone enough notability for its own article. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, potential speedy. I suspect a WP:HOAX. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a load of WP:BOLLOCKS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speed delete as well. Clearly a hoax, now that I've done some more digging. The book in question (The Slave Community) has a history of reliability problems. In addition, the article is cited to page 414 of what just happens to be a 414-page book. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 08:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense, seemingly a hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Show me a piece of rope that can hold a glowing orange (800-1200C) piece of iron without spontaneously combusting! U SO SILLEH! :b BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Google searching the book's content gives no results; almost certainly a hoax. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Is there an administrator in the house? Carrite (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, this is still here? Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Chung's "apparent negative resistance"

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

Does not appear to meet WP:N. Certainly not under the presented name. T R 07:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. With over 700 hits in gbooks and dozens of press articles there can be little doubt of the subjects notability. It is, of course, completely wrong-headed to equate this result with "room temperature superconductors" or "free energy", but neither Chung nor our article do so. Its announcement seems to have caused quite a stir in the popular scientific press (and the internet generally) with many making exactly those errors. Doubtless the article can be improved, but that and the question of the article's title are not best resolved at AfD. Spinning Spark 08:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of those 700 hits, how many are actually about the subject in question. My limited sampling, indicates only a handful which are mostly just yearly abstract collections. That, and the momentary press attention, seem to indicate a classical case of WP:NOTNEWS.T R 12:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, there is a large amount of google noise that needs filtering out, but on the first page of results I am seeing non-trivial articles in The Science Teacher, New Scientist, and Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, at least one of which (and possibly all three) has misinterpreted Chung, or discussed her misinterpretation, in just the way described in the article. Spinning Spark 14:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat telling is the fact that neither of Chung's later books on composite materials reference the paper or mention the result.T R 06:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - there is indeed something odd about the title of the article, but the attested events certainly occurred~~, were well documented, and should be reported here~~. The claims made about the physics varied from Chung's sober remarks to quite wild suggestions in the press, so the article will need to take great care (probably more than now) to state what was observed and to explain the various theories about what happened. The sources currently cited in the article itself are not, to a non-physicist's eye, sufficient, but this can be remedied with better use of the many existing RS on the web. I would suggest a section in the article on the background (the laws of thermodynamics, etc), the experiment, the meaning of the results, the critical reaction. But deletion is the wrong option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Apparently Negative Resistance with Deborah Chung credited in the lead paragraph perhaps? Unless that is the accepted nomenclature for the findings themselves, in which case make this a Keep outright. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to negative resistance given the extent of coverage. If it is to be retained as a separate article, GHits suggest rename to Chung's negative resistance as the most succinct commonly used name for the phenomenon. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose a merge on the grounds of WP:UNDUE and the fact that this effect really is not negative resistance as described in that article (WP:SCOPE), and is the reason for Chung affixing "apparent" to the description. Spinning Spark 14:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is within our power to explain that the effect in this case is only apparent. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having read Negative resistance, it is clear that isn't the same phenomenon at all. ~~The Chung article needs editing, but merging isn't the answer.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Chung's negative resistance based on above discussion. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having "Chung's" in the article name is inappropriate, given that Chung is not the primary author of the paper. -- 202.124.75.135 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article should at least be renamed "Apparent negative electrical resistance in carbon fiber composites" as there is another author involved apart from Chung. The article seems to me to be a media beat-up. The physical situation is very complicated because of the variation of electrical properties over the interface between the fiber braids and there is no reason to conclude that anything fundamental has been measured. It is not impossible to imagine variations in the electrical properties of the interface that would have the effect of reversing the voltage leads and so give the apparent negative resistance. ~~Has the work been published in a reputable peer-refereed journal?~~ Have the results been reproduced by others? The author of the article knows little about the subject when he says "A real electrical resistance requires both the current and voltage to be measured at the same points." That is quite untrue as the gold standard for measurement of electrical resistivity has always been the four-terminal method which measures current and voltage at different places: see any text on experimental condensed matter physics. I am also disturbed that the references in the article seem to be mainly to crank "free-energy" websites. Until the work has been ~~published in the mainstream literature after peer review and~~ reproduced by other workers I am inclined to write it off as junk science. Of course, I am always prepared to change my views on the presentation of sufficient evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC). (There is a great deal of discussion of experimental matters that would lead to the spurious result on the article talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC).)[reply]

Delete. There are not 700 hits in gbooks (searching for the phrases "Deborah Chung" and "negative resistance" rather than for four individual words) but just a handful of hits, mostly very brief and negative. Likewise there are only two news sources (the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and physicsworld.com). The paper (for which Chung is not first author, by the way) is published in an Elsevier journal and has 23 citations. That doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N (there are millions of papers with that many citations). The original inaccurate press release doesn't seem to make for notability either. If kept, however, Chung's name should be removed from the article title. -- 202.124.75.109 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chung's findings were replicated by JL Naudin (http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cnr/cnrexp1.htm) in 2001. It looks like a fringe laboratory (http://www.jlnlabs.org/). The findings are either a) a replicated hoax or b) unexplained. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful research in finding the "reproduction" of Chung's experiment. As you say, it comes from a fringe "free energy" lab and I find it unconvincing. I do not believe Chung's original experiment was a hoax, just a mistake coming from working in an unfamiliar field. There were many similar ones after the discovery of high temperature superconductivity; all of them could be explained away (except to cranks) by faulty experimental methods. However, there is something odd going on in this matter. If you look at the page on Deborah Chung you will find claims, among other things, that she believes that the Dalai Lama engaged in Satanic worship on her campus, with his priests releasing hundreds of demons into the university. The claim is unsourced and probably should be removed. (I see that user:Guettarda has anticipated me on that) It seems to me that Wikipedia is being used to attack Chung and that this present AfD is a snide attack page as it concentrates on one mistake she made (albeit a serious mistake because she chose to invoke public relations outside the scientific mainstream) in the course of an otherwise respectable career. Another reason for deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I'm a little concerned about the bios of both of the people behind this idea - Deborah Chung and Shoukai Wang. Both were created by the same editor, who has no other edits. Chung's bio had some strange, unsourced info that I have removed out of BLP concerns. Guettarda (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is smelling more and more of a Fringe takeover. I watched Chung's video, and agree with Xxanthippe that Chung herself was simply mistaken at the time of the original experiment; since then, the fringe (perpetual motion, free energy) have taken it up as supporting their cause. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell - the sources are weak, most of them press release-type things, a few are sourced to the primary literature, and the rest come from a personal website of a somewhat out of the mainstream sort of guy. Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 7 March 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, G3 by User:Malik_Shabazz. Lenticel ^(talk) 07:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaiera Smith

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

Claim of "rise to fame" not supported by any evidence. Only sourced claim is that her brother is in the NFL. Notability is not inherited. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not notable vanity page written by single-edit user User:Ninabadd, also non-encyclopedic. BaSH PR0MPT (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 March 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. The delete !votes do not take into consideration the new sources added, so the discussion cannot be closed as delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Company

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

refs are blogs and self. advertising. would require a complete rewrite even if it was notable. borderline csd. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources don't demonstrate notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a vanity page by single-article editing user. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Bulk of the article is WP:INDISCRIMINATE posting of album tracks, and the sources are a joke. Sixteen copies of the same forum post. I'm pretty sure forums are never a reliable source. The only other source is the company's own website, something I've always considered in bad taste when citing a business, and only independent sources can be used for assessing notability anyways. Oh wait, and their website isn't even running anymore. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I restubbed the article. The real Korean name is "소울컴퍼니" not "소울 컴패니". If you search in Naver news portal there's about 220 results [36]. Their dissolution got attention in major Korean newspapers like Korea Economic Daily. 61.18.170.159 (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the only reliable sources are saying that the company broke up and not about anything they did, does that make them notable? I mean the whole article would be "This company fell apart, see refs". It is almost like the break up event might be minor notable, but the company isn't. I won't labor whatever the closing admin decides, and these refs do help and seem to be exactly what the IP says, but it still seems too weak. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't just cover their breakup --- there's lots of reviews of their albums and concerts over the years. There is also a very detailed article in Kyunghyang Sinmun from 2008 [37] which covers most of their history up to that point. I have expanded the article with citations to 16 newspaper articles which are directly devoted to the topic of this record label in general or their albums & concerts specifically. Thanks, 61.18.170.101 (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I don't know if http://news.khan.co.kr is a reliable source or not. It looks somewhat bloggish but it obviously isn't a small site, so I genuinely don't know. If there are multiple sources that do pass RS, then obviously it would pass WP:N, the closing admin will have to decide that. You must have done some serious digging to find these. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:51, 11 March 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 Renominate individually. A number of the articles have changed whilst the discussion was in progress and some at least (per User:Paul Erik) appear to have been sourced properly. However there appears to be a huge problem in this area that a number of users are under the impression that appearing in the final of American Idol automatically makes somebody notable. Those people - and there are a lot on this AfD - need to go away and read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO. Wikiprojects do not get to invent their own notability guidelines - all articles must individually conform to Wikipedia policies. Merging and redirecting after that are editorial issues, not ones for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 08:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol (season 11) finalists

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}}.

American Idol (season 11) finalists – (View AfD)

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

See below for the rationale.

Deandre Brackensick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hollie Cavanagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Colton Dixon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heejun Han (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jermaine Jones (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Skylar Laine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joshua Ledet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shannon Magrane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Phillip Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jeremy Rosado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jessica Sanchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Elise Testone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Erika Van Pelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Discussion

Once again, we've managed to attract our annual glut of unreferenced and/or poorly referenced WP:BLP1E articles about each and every one of the Top 13 contestants on the currently running cycle of American Idol. As usual, WP:NMUSIC states that a person is not notable unless and until they win a major music competition. And as usual, that means the mere fact of competing on a reality show does not, in and of itself, entitle anyone to an article except the winner — anybody else has to go on to earn notability the same way as any other musician who didn't win a televised reality show, namely by actually getting themselves signed to a label and releasing an album and attracting press coverage in reliable sources after the show's run ends. Delete all, without prejudice against future recreation if and when some of these people actually accomplish something notable. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 5 March 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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 05:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I renamed the article deleted name as not with a single person, but a group of articles. ApprenticeFan ^work 05:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ApprenticeFan ^work 06:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or make as protected redirects. Nobody here asserts notability outside being on the show. So far, these are all WP:BLP1E and poorly written stubs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Obviously doesn't meet the criteria. Enigma^msg 23:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The proposer of this deletion misread WP:NMUSIC - it says winner or placed, and in American Idol, all the finalists are considered placed, only the order needed to be determined. The finalists therefore qualify under WP:NMUSIC. Hzh (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in American Idol, all the finalists are considered placed Not for Wikipedia purposes, they aren't (and never have been.) Articles on here must follow WP:BLP policies, including (a) the use of reliable sourcing that demonstrates genuine notability, and (b) that notability has to be for more than just one single event beyond which the person becomes a non-notable private citizen again. If any contestant goes on to be a successful musician after their time on American Idol, then obviously they can have an article on those grounds — but Wikipedia has never allowed people to have and keep articles just because they landed in the Top 13, if they didn't go on to accomplish something notable afterward. At any rate, right now most of these articles are either wholly unsourced, or sourced only to a single blog post which lists their names (failing Wikipedia's requirements about substantial coverage in reliable sources). And for a variety of reasons, including the fact that haters and vandals frequently try to insert unsourced criticism or gossip into Wikipedia articles, we have to be extremely strict about insisting on quality sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an American Idol fansite. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I see that you didn't contest my point about your error regarding WP:NMUSIC, and I would take it as your tacit acceptance that a major part of your rationale for deletion is based on faulty reasoning and I hope you will withdraw that.

2) Once we accept that the the basis for creation of these page is based on them being placed, then we can discuss what is meant by "placed" in American Idol. All the finalists are "placed", their elimination gives them a define position. However, if you want something more than just having a placing in the competition, then we can use a criteria that they are rewarded for achieving a particular placing. In American Idol, those who reached the Top 10/11 will join a tour in which they may be richly rewarded (over US $100,000 for each participant in many years). Moreover the Idol tour is one of the biggest tours of the year, for example the Season 5 tour was ranked #13 for the year by Billboard, in which case the contestants would have also qualified under #4 of WP:MUSICBIO because it is a well-covered tour in the media. That also means they are no longer known for a single event, and WP:BLP1E no longer applies to them. If you choose this stricter criterion of reaching Top 10/11, then your rationale for deletion would only be valid for 2 weeks, hardly a good reason for deleting.

3) Your assertion that "Wikipedia has never allowed people to have and keep articles just because they landed in the Top 13" is clearly wrong, just a simple look at the contestant pages of a few past seasons can tell you that.

4) The finalists are sometimes known for other events prior to Idol, for example, Jessica Sanchez this is year was known for her participation in American's Got Talent. Wholesale deletion is completely unjustified in this case.

5) What haters or vandals choose to do is irrelevant to this discussion, otherwise you might as well propose deleting the entire wikipedia. In my experience, by this point, all the contestants would have good coverage in reliable sources that concentrate on the contestant as an individual, so that is not a problem. At the moment many of the pages are just stubs because they were created less than a week ago, being just a stub is not a valid reason for deletion, far too early to complain about their content or sources cited in them. Hzh (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an individual show uses an alternative definition of a standard English word is irrelevant — in standard English, "placed" means, and has always meaned, to finish second (and only second) — and having been involved in the discussions, I can certainly assure you that WP:NMUSIC intended the standard definition of the word, not any revisionist definition that would allow an explosion of unreferenced stubs about over a dozen competitors per contest. And at any rate, familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — as well as the part of WP:NMUSIC which explicitly states that the definitive factor is not "whether person meets criteria X", but the presence in the article, right now, with no "somebody will get to it someday" demurrals, of reliable sources. A person can meet all of the music notability criteria and still not qualify for an article on Wikipedia if they've done it without garnering coverage in reliable sources — and a person can qualify for an article while technically meeting none of those criteria if they've garnered reliable source coverage. The definitive factor is the volume and quality of sources available about the person, not whether you can check specific accomplishments off of a checklist. And incidentally, a post-Idol concert tour billed as American Idol Finalists on Tour does not qualify as a separate event from the show — it's a part of the same event. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm quite familiar with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the purpose of my pointing out the existence of contestants pages based solely on their being placed was to point out the falsehood of your statement that "Wikipedia has never allowed people to have and keep articles just because they landed in the Top 13". That was not the first time you have made demonstrably false statement. It would help the discussion considerably if you had spent some time checking the veracity of your statements so that other people won't waste time discussing something patently false.

What individual Wikipedia editors try to do and what Wikipedia allows on the basis of policy can be, and often are, two very different things. There's certainly a neverending effort to write articles on every single person who gets onto any reality show at all (seriously, we have even seen attempts to write articles about people who only appeared on the show in one of those "backstage peeks at contestants who didn't make the cut" clips) — but Wikipedia's formal rules has always dictated that a person is not notable just for being on a reality show, but must either win it, or go on to achieve sustained notability despite their loss on the show itself. If that message doesn't always get through to individual editors, that's not my problem. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are going on about. I was simply asking you to make sure that what you wrote is accurate, so that we don't end up wasting time talking about things that has no relevance to the discussion. Now you are writing a load of irrelevant stuff about editors, and then go on to make further assertions that I have already shown to be false - it is not just winning, it is about being placed as well. You again repeated what you said before below, insisting the being "placed" means only coming in second, completely ignoring the evidence I have presented (including a link to a dictionary), then simply keep misstating what WP:NMUSIC says, and proceeded to make a ridiculous claim about American Idol doesn't finish until its tour finishes. (Why don't you include the winner's album release? Presumably that's part of your "complete run"?)

I fear we are conducting a conversation where you don't make any effort to understand what has been said, or try to make sure that what you wrote is accurate, or try to evaluate evidence presented, or even to understand the stated rules of wikipaedia. You are just repeating the same thing over and over again hoping that something will stick. Since this is not a discussion by my understanding, I will not contribute any further to this. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. What I'm saying is not inaccurate or irrelevant. Rather, given that I was heavily involved in drafting WP:NMUSIC in the first place and that I've been around Wikipedia more than long enough to know exactly where the consensus is for contestants on reality shows when they come to AFD, I'm quite intimately familiar with what was intended. If you read our article on parimutuel betting, specifically the section on "Parimutuel bet types", you'll see the verb "place" used in exactly the "win, place or show = 1, 2 or 3" way I described — and the fact that you can find another source which uses the word in a different way doesn't change the policy's intent.

At any rate, the winner's album release certainly is part of the same process, but that misses the point: they won, so they pass our notability guidelines and it no longer matters how many distinct events you do or don't divide the process into. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment any further, but your admission that you were involved in drafting WP:NMUSIC must be one of the most amazing thing I've heard. That you have mis-stated (twice, even after I corrected you) that only the winner is notable even when the WP:NMUSIC clearly stated those "placed" are as well, that you haven't demonstrated something that's apparently "explicitly" stated according to you, that you dismissed what most reasonable people would accept as the most authoritative dictionary in the English speaking world as just "another source", while attempting to use terms in horse-betting to justify the term's interpretation in a singing competition, my gast is well and truly flabbered. I have really nothing more to add. Hzh (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm explaining the way the term was used in the drafting of the policy, and the way the term has been applied whenever similar cases have come to AFD; it has nothing to do with my opinion, and whether or not that conflicts with other definitions of the word or not. Whether you agree with it or not, the existing policy and precedent are what they are. I at no point in this discussion misrepresented it at all; I'm merely explaining the state of Wikipedia policy and practice as it has actually been determined by a lot of people besides me. While the wording of WP:NMUSIC can certainly be changed to clarify better what was intended, that intention came from a long discussion involving a lot of people over an extended period of time. If you don't agree with it, then that's not my problem and neither is how flabbered your gast is or isn't. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2) If we want discuss the meaning of English terms, then the use of a dictionary is necessary. According to online dictionary provided by Oxford English Dictionary, you can find the following definitions of "placed":

— (be placed) British achieve a specified position in a race: he was placed eleventh in the long individual race

— [no object] be among the first three or four in a race (or the first three in the US): he won three times and placed three times

I think that is sufficient refutation of your assertion about English usage. Both British and American usage clearly allow "placed" to be more than second place, and British usage permits fourth or more. What Wikipedia means exactly is something for wiki itself to sort out, but as far as the show is concern, although it is an American show, the original was a British show, and the show follows British format and rules, and British usage would be applicable in this case. As far as the show is concerned, being placed means reaching to the finals because from then on the contestants were designated a position depending on the time of their elimination.

In a contest, there are three "positions" one can attain: "win" (i.e. come first), "place" (i.e. come second, and only second) or "show" (i.e. come third). That is the definition that was intended by WP:NMUSIC. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to 'place' in a sporting event only means second place in reference to a horse race. In all other sporting events, 'placing' means to finish within the top three competitors in a race. American Idol is hardly a sport.

3) If you want to invoke WP:NMUSIC, please do so accurately, nowhere does it says that the "definitive factor is the volume and quality of sources available about the person". That may nor may not be in the mind of the editor deciding whether the pages should be kept or not, but it is not for you to assert something being explicitly stated when it is not. All the articles on the contestants now have reliable sources, and nearly all the pages now have reliable sources that concentrate specifically on that contestants.

WP:NMUSIC most certainly does explicitly say that the volume and quality of sources is more important than the mere meeting of a criterion on a checklist — and even if it didn't, other binding Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability and reliable sources, would still override any claim that sourcing didn't matter. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4) It is not for you to simply assert that the American Idol tour is not a separate event. It is a separate event, one is a concert tour, another is a TV show. It is just as different as the albums released by the winner or placed contestants even though the albums came about as the recording contract won as a result of them being on the show (for the winner, that is the prize, just as being on the tour is the prize for getting to the Top 10/11). It is as different as a concert tour by an artist or band to support their album - no one would claim that the album release and the tour are the the same event. Hzh (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complete run of a person's involvement with American Idol, from the first audition to the end of the followup tour, is a single event — because no matter which phase of the process a person happens to be actively participating in at any given time, it's still "being on American Idol". Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Hzh. When they mean placed, it may mean "highly placed." It has always been said when it comes to American Idol contestants, only finalists would have their own Wikipedia articles and that only semifinalists have to go on to earn notability the same way as any American Idol contestant who did not advance to the finals on the show. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia applies policies and notability rules on the basis of what they do mean, not on the basis of what an individual editor thinks they might be interpretable to mean. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you say that, considering the entire discussion you have been asserting what you interpret the rules to be, such as your interpretation to the meaning of "placed"

Keep all per Hzh and Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando per WP:NMUSIC item 9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Additionally, it may take just a few weeks before these singers' other accomplishments reach their respective Wikipedia pages, so deleting an article within days of its creaton is a knee-jerk reaction. RCraig09 (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Avoid Mass Deletion In no event should all articles be deleted as a group. Each article must be individually considered before such a drastic action as early deletion is considered. RCraig09 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deletion policy has always allowed for a group of related articles which have the same content problems to be considered as a group rather than as 13 separate individual discussions; if you can make a credible case that one or more of the 13 already have more properly sourced notability than others do, it is possible to vote "keep this one, delete that one". Bearcat (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specific to Jessica Sanchez I've (1) added a reliable source for America's Got Talent, (2) left the We Are the World-YouTube Edition "WATW-YE" Remake (already adequate sourcing, here and within the WATW-YE article), and (3) added a recent CNN video concerning AmIdol standout performance. Even if other articles are deleted (not sure exactly where your description of "Wikipedia deletion policy" comes from), Jessica Sanchez appears notable as supported by reliable sources. RCraig09 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects - All should be redirected to the main season 11 page until proven notability. None of these has had any notable career prior to auditioning to the show werldwayd (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Werldwayd, and in the future, un-redirect the winner and anyone who goes on to become notable. At the moment, all of them fail WP:ONEEVENT. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do not redirect Jessica Sanchez, as she got an independent career and appeared on another reality television show prior to American Idol. Her wildcard appearance on America's Got Talent has been viewed over 5 million times on YouTube. The runner-up is guaranteed to go on to become notable. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - (Edit conflict) Revise per your comment: redirect all but Sanchez until end of season. At that point, un-redirect winner, runner-up, and any others who go on to become sufficiently notable. Although I'm not sure about Sanchez - is her AGT performance good enough to meet this? Do multiple semi-notable-status-actions confer notability? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the absence of reliable sources, no. Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is all about the verifiability, i.e. the presence or absence of reliable sources that demonstrate her notability, such as newspaper or magazine coverage about her. It doesn't matter if a YouTube video was viewed 100 billion times; its creator or performer is still not notable if those views didn't translate into a reasonable number of actual pieces about her in real media (i.e. the kind with editorial standards.) At this point, Sanchez's article is sourced almost exclusively to blogs and other unreliable media; the few sources that actually do pass muster under WP:RS don't add up to enough significant and sustained coverage to justify an article. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:NMUSIC and as stated by Hzh and Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando.--Arielle Leira (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Hzh, et.al. Also (and I'm new to this so not sure), does placing in the Top XX on the iTunes chart count per anything on WP:NMUSIC? But if Keeping is not possible, there should be no worse than a redirect to American Idol (season 11), as these people are current, and being as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, when someone wants to find out who a person is, they should at least be redirected to the appropriate article. These singers have their songs placed on iTunes as well as videos on YouTube, so there is a reason that someone might search for them. Some of the singers have IMDb pages, e.g. Colton Dixon, although I don't know if that matters for purposes of this discussion. Also, as per Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando, Jessica Sanchez has had several notable instances in her life, so should be kept irregardless of what happens with the others. Scifibookguy (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on whether they recorded it as themselves or as the American Idol cast - at this point, it's pretty much as the cast. In that case, they're treated for that purpose as members of a very odd band, and band members don't inherit their band's notability. The names should be listed on the Idol season 11 page, of course, but the individuals aren't notable for something they did as part of the show until a winner and runner up are determined. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 12:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is informatve after all, and that is what Wikipedia is about, providing information about anything people have an interest in. So, keep them please Vaxent (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes and no. Wikipedia is about providing reliable, verifiable information about notable things. No one is asserting that American Idol is not notable. But the individual finalists are not (yet) notable to merit their own article: informing people about them can and should be done on the American Idol (season 11) page. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think they are notable. The show has a huge number of viewers, a big fan base and devoted followers, which make contestants interesting to a considerable percentage of the population. I agree that American Idol should provide information, but I also beleive Wikipedia should do this job too. One reason is that American Idol would be selective and biased in information they provide, as they want to be appealing. Wikipedia tries to put everything at hand together, without being a fan or an enemy.Vaxent (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia's job is to provide content on encyclopedic topics, not just ones that might be "interesting". There is a difference: would you realistically expect the Encyclopedia Brittannica to contain articles on every single individual contestant on a game show? Knowing the difference between "temporary blip" notability and the sustained encyclopedic kind is a pretty basic encyclopedia-building skill, just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I beleive Wikipedia is now much bigger than just an encyclopeida like Brittannica. It does not follow the rules of those. They have their own limitations, like space, paid authors and etc. If it is possible to put information about every living and dead person on Wikipedia, I'd love it. The good thing is that the information is here, if somebody needs it. 100 years from now, if somebody is doing a piece on American Idol, everything is here. And that is an encyclopedia, and a hell of good one, which likes of Brittannica cannot be, ever.Vaxent (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect. Not notable yet, and the few info we got about them can be merged into the American Idol page. ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 18:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Similar show The X Factor typically will have a page every season for information on the group of contestants in that specific year. See for example: List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8). Perhaps something like this would be appropriate for Idol too. Contestants who then go onto have multiple merits in the future can have their own pages. Contestants on The X Factor UK typically don't get an article until they win, or when they do something after the show.. Regardless of what happens though, I personally think Jessica Sanchez is a different case to the other contestants, and has already acheived ample notoriety to keep her article. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- The X Factor UK is not as notable as American Idol. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 10:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All of these articles now are reliably sourced by references that have significant coverage that are independent of the contestants, thereby passing both WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO#1. Also being a finalist on American Idol passes WP:MUSICBIO#9.

Six of the articles (Deandre Brackensick, Colton Dixon, Heejun Han, Jessica Sanchez, Elise Testone and Erika Van Pelt), passed this threshold prior to the AfD and should not have been nominated as being "unreferenced and/or poorly referenced". The articles were all mass-redirected to American Idol (season 11) within six minutes of each other, then when those edits were reverted by me, the articles were all mass-tagged for deletion within eleven minutes of each other. Therefore, I do think WP:BEFORE was followed since reasonable steps were taken to find reliable sources that could have improved the articles, because I have found them for the remaining seven articles.

I am also disappointed that the article creators, significant editors to the articles and the Idol WikiProject were not notified of the AfD, and I am going to go do that now to hopefully increase both participation in the AfD and reliably sourced information in the articles. Aspects (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Placing first or second in the final show on American Idol meets WP:MUSICBIO #9. Placing in the Top 13 does not. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as in the past ten seasons, it has been decided before that being placed in the finals will get their own Wikipedia articles. Wikiproject Idol states, "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show." There will have to be enough information from reliable sources in order to make a Wikipedia article. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which differs from what I said how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all then create redirects to the show article, text book example of WP:BLP1E. Mt king ^(edits) 21:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikiproject Idol states, "For contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show." Only semifinalists would be the redirects. Only very few finalists in the past ten seasons are redirects. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which differs from what I said how, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In American Idol terminology, Top 12 (or in this case Top 13) is the finals. therefore they are all finalists, not just the winner or runner-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkitekted (talk • contribs) 06:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Arkitekted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Most contestants who made the top 12 or 13 on American Idol have later become notable for other events after their time on the show. The official American Idol website is known to keep track of American Idol alumni. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then the appropriate time to write about them is when those other events after their time on the show have made them notable. This is as much about protecting them as anything else — as any Wikipedia administrator can tell you, it's already a full time job keeping our articles clean of unsourced or poorly sourced assertions about genuinely notable article subjects getting bad Brazilian waxes, or having kinky sex with some guy's unnamed second cousin's barber, or masterminding the Kennedy assassination. The last thing we need, as a rule, is for articles about people who are briefly "notable", but then go back into obscurity and get their real estate license instead, to slip through the cracks and become privacy-invading targets of vandalism because nobody's bothering to watch them anymore — which is why we don't write articles on the basis of a prospect to maybe become permanently notable, but only when permanent, enduring notability has already been attained. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The season 11 finalists do not yet have enough information from reliable sources, and it is too early to decide the fate of these articles. The American Idol finalists are kept on record in the official Website. Very few finalists have faded into obscurity. The articles were started too early without little or no information from reliable sources. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The articles were started too early without little or no information from reliable sources. Which is exactly what I said from the beginning. You know, for someone who's supposedly arguing that the articles should be kept, some of your rationales sound an awful lot more like you agree with me than you do with the keep side. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been transferring a lot of information from the articles into the main American Idol season 11 article. The articles were started immediately after the top 13 was revealed, which is something I would not do. I would wait until the middle rounds of the competition before deciding to start the Wikipedia articles. I am leaning toward the keep side though. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all It clearly states here --> Wikipedia:NMUSIC, that a musician is notable if the performer has won or PLACED in a major music competition. American Idol is of course a major competitions. They may not be ordered yet, but just being in the top 13 can make them a notable individual. The articles has a proper stub. The articles were even proposed for speedy deletion, but was cancelled because all of them are already notable, and the reason why the tag was deleted because "Removed speedy deletion tag since being a finalist indicates the importance or signficance of the singer!" Need a proof? See the revision history of each articles. Igetitcrackinlikebagbag (talk) (UTC)
- Top 13 != PLACED. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Bernoullies (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all because finalists on the highest rated show in America are inherently notable. Plus, they are covered at length in everything from Entertainment Weekly to Vote for the Worst. Just not liking something is not a reason to ruin it for everyone else. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC) - striking per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/63.3.19.129 Dennis Brown (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete too soon American Idol is still running, maybe there are so many surprise like Jessica Sanchez which Reid said She is the best I ever heard for a whole competitions.Gsarwa (talk) 06:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per c. 20 million viewers a week and at length discussions on each contestant in newspapers and magazines on local and national levels in addition to all the internet coverage. Finalists in the TV show with a superpower's highest ratings are notable to tens of millions of people... --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:SNOW. These are bundled together, but they vary in notability and so the contestants are not really all in the same boat as each other. Plus, even some of the deletes acknowledge that at least three of these will unquestionably be kept in a month or two anyway, so no real sense getting rid of them now. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]
Keep for Jessica Sanchez, subject is independently notable, even beyond American Idol (season 11) per WP:BIO. Merge & Redirect the rest of the other AfD Candidates as suggested to American Idol (season 11) unless the individual subject can be proved to be independently notable per WP:BIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to American Idol (season 11) page except for Jessica Sanchez, she has been notable since her stint in America's Got Talent. ApprenticeFan ^work 04:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to American Idol (season 11) I definately think none of these contestants are notable enough to have their own page—however Jessica Sanchez's page should remain, as she is more notable then the rest of them (not only for her performance but her previous work). −Arrekea♥(Talk) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I'm not sure how many people noticed, but while this discussion has been going on, User:Aspects has worked hard to add sources to the articles that were missing them. Take Deandre Brackensick for example. There are articles about him in KTVU, Contra Costa Times, and USA Today. Note that these are not articles about American Idol that mention him in passing; they are articles about Brackensick, even if they discuss him mostly around his AI appearance. To evaluate the sources neutrally, we don't dismiss the coverage based on the way he achieved his notability ("he's only a contestant on a talent show.") It's a "keep" not because of WP:MUSICBIO criterion #9, but because the subjects meet the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. (Also it should be noted that WP:BLP1E talks about protecting "low-profile" individuals. You're not low-profile if you appear on American Idol.) The precedents are clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Murray (2nd nomination), for example. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all per WP:NMUSIC. "Place" means ANY place; all of them will be ranked between first and 13th place in the show. Except for a few early seasons, virtually every past AI finalist has a Wikipedia article; season 11 should be no exception. --RBBrittain (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:NMUSIC. Notability is already established by being in top 12. At most, one or two finalists from earlier seasons do not have WP articles at this point. With there being active work done on the articles, deletion is unwarranted. Also, bungling all these articles together to be voted on as one feels a bit wrong; they should be assessed by themselves if deletion is still being pushed for - but asserting in general that AI finalist entries do not automatically classify for deletion because of WP:BLP1E is a good thing. Kenneaal (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the SPA tag above. My contributions are primarily on NO Wikipedia, but I have still made contributions here as well. I feel the tagging fails Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account#General_test, and would encourage others to review my contributions both here and on NO Wikipedia (same username) before making any decisions on my input having less weight. Kenneaal (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an objective non-voter, I agree you aren't an SPA and removed the tag that someone else put up. Looking at no.wikipedia.org confirms what you are saying. Since it wasn't obvious (they wouldn't be expected to know that you contribute there) I'm hoping everyone will just assume it was a good faith mistake, no harm, no foul, and move on with the AFD discussion. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the controversy concerning the disqualified contestant has attracted news coverage. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — 172.130.252.250 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
kEEP TOP 10 i CAN'T BELIEVE THIS SAME DISCUSSION HAS TO BE HELD EVERY YEAR. THE TOP TEN ARE DOING THE TOUR, JUST LIKE EVERY YEAR. (I removed the very bitey tag of SPA) Now that I have more time, It is standard for all the American Idol seasons to have top ten individual articles. Between the shows themselves which do dig into details about each contestant, their hometown media, including news television, which will give more than passing coverage and national media each one of these people's careers and lives is extensively covered. That they are pop figures is exactly the point, they are covered, and not just in a passing way, by popular forms of media. There are national shows that will feature each exiting contestant as part of a weekly cycle. Most will make appearances on national shows and all will be touring nationwide. There is more than enough for any one of these articles and now people should be encouraged to add useful information and sources to make each article be better.67.164.98.96 (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for consistency's sake. I know each of these finalist warblers gets enough press coverage that you can make a good WP:GNG argument on any of them, some better than others. But I looked at Season 9 and 10 and it seems every finalist has their own article there as well. If we want to have a totally different organizational scheme, I don't care, but let's keep it consistent. These articles are highly trafficked, and we look like amateurs when they are always put up for deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As others have said, each one of these people have had significant press coverage. At the very least, most finalists on American Idol would become the most notable person from their respective hometowns, which in and of itself would make them eligible for an article. Just because an article is not properly sourced doesn't mean that it shouldn't exist. I'm sure we can find plenty of sources to make these articles great. Let's not get lazy now and delete things we don't want to source... Illinois2011 (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except the final two: to another American Idol article Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shabazz Muhammad

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

Delete. Per WP:ATHLETE, "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I'm seeing coverage of Muhammad, but it is neither substantial nor prolonged. Even though he's at the top of a lot of scouts' lists, I don't see him meeting the Wikipedia notability criteria yet. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With all due respect, this is sourced: "the number 2 player by Scout.com, and the number 1 player by Rivals.com." Clearly an elite prospect. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked #2 of the 2012 class by ESPN.com. Carrite (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masslive.com, online version of The Republican, calls Muhammed "The Nation's Top-Ranked Player" in this very non-"routine" coverage dedicated to him... Carrite (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here's CBSSports.com with some more dedicated coverage to Muhammed. Very much independent and very much non-routine. This is a pretty easy call here as one of the top prep hoops prospects in the United States... Carrite (talk) 05:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LOS ANGELES TIMES ran a piece on Muhammed's college plans... Carrite (talk) 05:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL is also pontificating on the prospects of their hometown hoops star. Just because an athlete hasn't played professionally doesn't make them non-notable. I'm only starting the third page of a Google search here, I'll lay $10 right now that 100 independent sources could be mustered if necessary... I will leave that to someone else. Very easily passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateur athletes are not notable enough for Wikipedia. Is Muhammad a great HS player with a lot of press? Yes. Is now the right time to give him a Wikipedia article? No. I'm afraid that WP:ROUTINE fits the bill here. Most of the Top 25 players get the same type of media coverage which makes all the above references WP:ROUTINE. I'm guessing that we need to clearly redefine the qualification for HS athletes as many things have changed an a lot of media coverage is expected on these players making what appears to be extensive coverage but is WP:ROUTINE in my opinion. I did an internet search on Muhammad and yielded results of mostly, statistics, blogs, sports sites, and fan type coverage. Will Muhammad warrant an article once he becomes a college player? Probably so. Is now the right time? Probably not. Jeeves3 (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per "Amateur athletes are not notable enough for Wikipedia." — I'm sure there are many thousands of Olympians who would beg to differ. Mosmof has the correct answer below: while pro athletes are given essentially a free pass, it does not follow that amateur athletes are automatically barred, merely that they have a more serious barrier to inclusion to navigate. In this case, as one of the top of the top prep basketball players in the USA, sources far exceed the mandatory minimum... Carrite (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply here, since the coverage of Muhammad goes beyond recruiting updates, game reports and scouting reports - there's an actual controversy around the subject: NCAA looking into advisers' dealings with top hoops recruit Shabazz Muhammad --Mosmof (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily notable per WP:ATHLETE. --bender235 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Rankings and such aside, this player is currently the center of controversy over his recruitment/amateur eligibility (as tempest-in-a-teacup-y as it may be), and the subject of considerable coverage (seriously, just do a Google News search). The argument that he doesn't qualify because he's "amateur" is a misreading of WP:ATH. The whole point of WP:ATH is not to exclude amateur athletes, but to include athletes at playing at the highest level of the game who don't meet the standard notability criteria. It doesn't apply in this case. --Mosmof (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2012 Naismith HS Player of the Year, among other things. Zagalejo^^^ 00:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Zagalejo.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Zagalejo. He's the national high school player of the year fer cryin' out loud. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per all. WP standards do not peclude HS players from being notable at all, and Muhammad is about the most notable one. He is getting plenty of coverage in newspapers, sports magazines and in US television becuase he is the #1 recruit in America and because of the recruiting controversey. Rikster2 (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Manara Square

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

The article is heavily slanted and would need to be cleansed of political leanings to be of any value. There is an entire section on "The Zionist Occupation". Much of the language here reveals author bias and should be examined thoroughly. RichardMills65 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would like to appologize for any bias I made, altough its not my fault. I read the article on it, a reference of which you can find after every paragraph, that I way I didn't made anything up, nor did I copied and paste it. If you feel that something is not right with my article feel free to minimize to a point that is readable and un biased. I wont recomend deletion, due to the fact that I worked on it for 2 straight days. So again, if you want to blame someone, blame Jewishquaterly site, who puted that biased info in there. I'm shocked myself, considering Jewish Quaterly is an Israeli-American site (as far as I can see), I am surprised that they are biased toward their own state. However, thats not my thing to judge. I'm just a Russian, that decided to join project Palestine, out of boredom and to help Wikipedia project in general!--Mishae (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are more than adequate references to the history and significance of this and User:Mishae should put more of those in and do the references more completely. I'll do a quick NPOV cleanup of some of the language to address those issues. User:RichardMills65 should have at least given User:Mishae a chance to respond on the talk page ands not gone straight to AfD. CarolMooreDC 05:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find some other info but failed, only Youtube and Jewish Quaterly was of value. Others were about Ramallah, but not about the square. I don't mind User:RichardMills65 putting it onto AfD list, as long as I have a chance to respond. I wasn't panicked about it being nominated, I knew there was a huge amount of reasons to keep it, I just don't know what to keep and what to delete. You know, if I would delete an important point, I might get slapped with vandalism, and I don't want that. If youm will clean up, (or at least guide me through) I will be very grateful. A for NPOV, again, I am sorry for violating it, but I have an excuse: The article was so big, that I even wrote only a half of it. The Jewish Quaterly site have the other part, which I thought would be of no value. However, as far as I can see, it would have been better if I would add the other half to it. I will start it today, if possible, I might finish with the whole article by Saturday if not earlier. Another thing, why Youtube videos are unreliable, if they show exactly that place. The same cafes, for example, or the pole, a video of which I have added as of a minute ago.--Mishae (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added nine solid WP:RS (plus a couple youtube videos as supplementary material only). So hopefully that will address the referencing issue. CarolMooreDC 05:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewing the history of the article, there did seem to be some possible issues with bias in previous versions--but it looks pretty close to neutral now. I'm fairly certain that the the political and commercial center of Ramallah is notable, there are a few hits on Google news that could be used to expand the article further (i.e. [38]). Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is very coincidental. I started a draft page for this article a few days before this current one got posted. Here's the draft: User:Al Ameer son/Manara. We could use info from my draft if NPOV is the problem. In any case, there's absolutely no case for deletion. It's probably the most famous square in the West Bank. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I was just about finished updating it I found your draft article and did add one sentence from it. Obviously, add anything important you feel I missed. I pretty much got through all the Books.google sources of relevance. There were quite a few more refs in archives.news.google for the last 12 years or so, but I just ran out of energy. CarolMooreDC 00:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Carl Nivale

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

Fictional personality on a local TV program, does not appear notable. I could find no newspaper or other Reliable Source coverage about this character. (He sounds like fun, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a good enough reason to keep an article.) Unreferenced since its creation in 2007. Article created by the performer. MelanieN (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it appears to cross the verifiability threshold, it fails to reach notability due to a lack of third-party coverage. (This is always tough for local media personalities, especially fictional ones, as the local competition will see coverage as promotion.) Certainly, a paragraph or two could be merged to the WWL-TV article and a redirect created. - Dravecky (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Nobody could really argue he passes WP:ENT. There is not the independent sources to pass WP:BASIC. Hoppingalong (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Gorman

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

Unsourced BLP, it can not be elected for BLP Prod due to age of article. I could not find any significant coverage by reliable sources that help establish notability as per WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People have dug up a lot of sources. This has convinced me that notability can be established for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 9 March 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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - Starred in no notable works. Fails WP:NACTOR.~~ --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sorry for the late response, I should place this discussion in my watchlist, but yes, after looking through your comments one would tend to agree with them. Thanks to MichaelQSchmidt for letting me know. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did find a description of Gorman in the Australian magazine The Bulletin: "Reg Gorman, 70, is putting on a show called Hanging on to Vaudeville. Gorman was once known as 'the atomic comic'. Most of his working life was spent in TV, but it was in music hall that he got his training. In sketches like 'Guzzler's Gin' - in which a 1950s TV presenter gets progressively drunker - Gorman gets laughs throwing his body into increasingly violent contortions. At a time when most comedy is a mouth and a microphone, it is a reminder of an era when the comic had to use every trick in the book to keep the thing working. Most astonishing is an imitation of Roy 'Mo' Rene, Australia's greatest vaudevillian Three centuries are spanned in that homage, our whole comic heritage - held back, for a minute, from time's closing credits." Input from Australian editors would be appreciated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a ref to a national radio interview about his Vaudeville history, but dropped a zero when copying the URL. The AfD nominator didn't try very hard to find the link and instead deleted it, then AFD'd it! It is more than plausable that a 50 year career (see the IMDB list) in acting (mainly support roles, I admit) doesn't get much coverage online as he hasn't been that active in main roles in the last 10 years (ie what is covered well on google) -but having said that, there are plenty of refs on the "news" button at the top of this AfD. Very poor nomination. The-Pope (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is only a single reference currently in the article. Which of the news references do you think establishes notability? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the claim that he 'Starred in no notable works' is wrong. He was a regular character for the entire run of television serial The Sullivans, and that series is clearly notable, being a popular and critical success and winning television awards. His list of cinema and television credits (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0331116/) is extensive - he appeared in many very popular and notable television series aside from 'The Sullivans'. Format (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a notable (notable by wikipedia standards that is) TV show doesn't make him notable himself. The films from IMDB are also minor films (mostly shorts). What were his roles in these series as well. I notice you say that the TV series was popular and critical success and winning television awards not that he was. This isn't an AfD for that show. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a work does not have to written of in Wikipedia in order to be notable. However, significant involvement in them is an assertion toward notability. And a note... many notable topics have not yet found there way to these pages. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His long-standing role in one of Australia's most popular and notable television series is more than enough to establish notability. A trip to a library looking for copies of TV Week from 1976 to 1983 will find plenty of material, not to mention newspapers etc. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The following five sources are some of a the ones found on a search for his name that indicate he passes WP:GNG to me, especially when coupled with Trove results. --LauraHale (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping clear head, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - March 29, 2004, Length: 272 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), Veteran actor Reg Gorman is allergic to alcohol, although you wouldn't believe it it you saw his one-man show THERE are lots of really oddball acts at the Melbourne Comedy Festival from new bright young talents . . . but the older generation can still raise a laugh, too. Take Reg Gorman. He's been kicking around the Australian stage and screen scene for more than 50 years and is still going strong. Naturally he's perfected a few...
- It may sound funny, but comedy just isn't what it used to be - COMEDY FESTIVAL, Sunday Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - March 21, 2004, Length: 558 words (Estimated printed pages: 3), Reg Gorman believes that the old jokes are the best. But then that probably has something to do with his age. For at 70, Gorman is the oldest comic at this year's Comedy Festival, where he is performing his one-man show, Hanging On To Vaudeville. Gorman has been in showbusiness for more than 50 years and is best known for his role as Jack the barman in the television drama The Sullivans. He has appeared in 101 film and television shows, acting with Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and...
- Famous five, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - September 23, 2000, Length: 442 words (Estimated printed pages: 2) The Gormans are a multi-talented show business family, writes CHERYL CRITCHLEY WHEN Charmaine Gorman was seven, she organised the five members of her family to perform in a show together. Most parents would be a tad surprised by such determination, but not Reg Gorman and Judith Roberts. Charmaine, now 23, and her siblings Kate, 30, and Karl, 27, have show business in their blood. Reg, best known as Jack the barman in The Sullivans, and Roberts, who starred in Fiddler...
- Cheers as Jack finds new digs, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - March 9, 2002Length: 240 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) JACK the barman from the long-running Aussie TV classic, The Sullivans, has joined the swelling ranks of empty nesters and bought a central-city apartment. Reg Gorman, who played Jack for six years, and wife Judy have just bought an apartment in the Daryl Jackson-designed Liverpool 16 development in Liverpool St between Bourke and Little Bourke streets. Gorman says the purchase was his second in the CBD, having bought a unit in Manchester Lane some time ago. A long-time Hampton...
- Hitting the boards for kids Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - October 24, 2001 Length: 187 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) THE problem: The Royal Children's Hospital needs about half a mill to buy a machine that could be a life-saver for children who suffer liver failure. The solution: Let's put on a show! That's basically the background to The Last Great Vaudeville Show, which hits the Palais Theatre at 8pm, Friday, November 9, for one show only. Reg Gorman (remember the barman in The Sullivans) is producing, wife Judith Roberts (both above) is directing…
- Making a winner's fist Leader - Stonnington Leader (Melbourne, Australia) - June 15, 2011 Length: 235 words (Estimated printed pages: 1) REG Gorman's had his share of hits over the years, but it seems he works best punch drunk. The Malvern East veteran actor, known to most as Jack in long-running TV series The Sullivans, won Best Actor at this year's St Kilda Film Festival for his role in the short film Punch Drunk. Gorman said he was very surprised by the win: After 65 years of playing characters, getting a leading role was a shock, and an award even more...

Unless I'm mistaken these all seem like minor mentions in the same paper. Can you provide the links as well? Here are the requirements of WP:NACTOR: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. I think this is far from showing that this has been fulfilled. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

confused. Herald Sun, Stonnington Lead, Sunday Age are three different newspapers. Not the same. Herald Sun is the biggest newspaper in Melbourne. "Making a winner's fist Leader" is specifically about him "Keeping clear head" is also specifically about him. I used these few references to demonstrate WP:GNG. All articles are available through Newsbank along with a number more references. WP:GNG trumps WP:NACTOR yes? --LauraHale (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to be signficant mentions by word count, so you are suggesting he is not notable as an actor but is notable for..? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must be remembered that counting words to find "substantial" coverage is not a mandate of the definitions of WP:SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The man been involved in the film business for 50 years in Australia, over 68 peices of work, been involved in some parts of the show neighbours, married to a different Australian actress with over 20 different tv/movie shows. Clearly meets wikis policy for a keep. Ray-Rays 01:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

His work seems to have been mostly minor roles and/or in non-notable shows and shorts. Can you elaborate on "involved in some parts of the show neighbours". IRWolfie- (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to you is not seems to others. His television work, as verifiable to the series themslves, show him as recurring in multiple television series since 1964 to meet WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His roles don't seem particularly prominent in these series, WP:NACTOR requires significant roles. But anyway, I think there's enough material around to create an article where notability is established so I am satisfied. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To answer IRWolfie, he seems to be notable both as a vaudeville comedian, and also as a comedic actor. I don't think that a narrow reading of WP:NACTOR is the appropriate standard for a vaudeville performer with a career that began long before the internet. The Bulletin, Herald Sun, Stonnington Leader, and Sunday Age are all good solid references. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is some articles in tabloid newspapers enough to establish notability? What part of the paper did they feature in as they seem relatively short mentions? IRWolfie- (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tabloid" in some of his coverage means some brief significant coverage, and not the negative gossip coverage that give some tabloids a bad name in the US. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other sources which establish WP:GNG include:
- Complete about and mention in headline:
  - Reg Gorman, Home Magazine (Australia) - March 20, 2004, Length: 771 words (Estimated printed pages: 3), Snapshot Occupation: Comic actor Born: Sydney Educated: Left school in early teens and, being an avid reader, has been educated through books Career highlights: Doing my first show, in 1954, in front of a captive sit-down audience, rather than a club or pub Hanging on to a love of theatre, this seasoned performer is set to tread the boards again 1. Photo I love this photo of my family because it's the only one of everyone together where none of us…
- Picture in article of Gorman that has a caption mentioning him:
  - It may sound funny, but comedy just isn't what it used to be - COMEDY FESTIVAL, Sunday Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - March 21, 2004, Length: 558 words (Estimated printed pages: 3), Reg Gorman believes that the old jokes are the best. But then that probably has something to do with his age. For at 70, Gorman is the oldest comic at this year's Comedy Festival, where he is performing his one-man show, Hanging On To Vaudeville. Gorman has been in showbusiness for more than 50 years and is best known for his role as Jack the barman in the television drama The Sullivans. He has appeared in 101 film and television shows, acting with Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and…
  - Cheers as Jack finds new digs, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - March 9, 2002, Length: 240 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), JACK the barman from the long-running Aussie TV classic, The Sullivans, has joined the swelling ranks of empty nesters and bought a central-city apartment. Reg Gorman, who played Jack for six years, and wife Judy have just bought an apartment in the Daryl Jackson-designed Liverpool 16 development in Liverpool St between Bourke and Little Bourke streets. Gorman says the purchase was his second in the CBD, having bought a unit in Manchester Lane some time ago. A long-time Hampton...
  - Hitting the boards for kids, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - October 24, 2001, Length: 187 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), THE problem: The Royal Children's Hospital needs about half a mill to buy a machine that could be a life-saver for children who suffer liver failure. The solution: Let's put on a show! That's basically the background to The Last Great Vaudeville Show, which hits the Palais Theatre at 8pm, Friday, November 9, for one show only. Reg Gorman (remember the barman in The Sullivans) is producing, wife Judith Roberts (both above) is directing...
  - Club funds to aid kids' caper, Fairfield Advance (Sydney, Australia) - August 1, 2001, Length: 184 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), ST Johns Park Bowling Club has donated $22,000 to the Variety Club's annual Christmas party for disadvantaged children. This is the sixth year the club has contributed to the party making St Johns Park Bowling Club a major sponsor. Assistant general manager Reg Coleclough presented the cheque to Variety Club party project manager Phillip O'Gorman. Mr O'Gorman said 5000 kids would be invited to Darling Harbour's Exhibition...
  - Famous five, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - September 23, 2000, Length: 442 words (Estimated printed pages: 2), The Gormans are a multi-talented show business family, writes CHERYL CRITCHLEY WHEN Charmaine Gorman was seven, she organised the five members of her family to perform in a show together. Most parents would be a tad surprised by such determination, but not Reg Gorman and Judith Roberts. Charmaine, now 23, and her siblings Kate, 30, and Karl, 27, have show business in their blood. Reg, best known as Jack the barman in The Sullivans, and Roberts, who starred in Fiddler…
- Mentioned in the first paragraph:
  - Making a winner's fist, Leader - Stonnington Leader (Melbourne, Australia) - June 15, 2011, Length: 235 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), REG Gorman's had his share of hits over the years, but it seems he works best punch drunk. The Malvern East veteran actor, known to most as Jack in long-running TV series The Sullivans, won Best Actor at this year's St Kilda Film Festival for his role in the short film Punch Drunk. Gorman said he was very surprised by the win: After 65 years of playing characters, getting a leading role was a shock, and an award even more...
  - Secret Agent, Sunday Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - May 1, 2011, Length: 206 words (Estimated printed pages: 2), Actors sell historic unit Actors Reg Gorman (pictured) and Judith Roberts have sold their two-bedroom apartment in St Kilda East's quaint Ardoch development for $740,000. The renovated, ground-floor unit at 8 Ardoch Avenue is in one of Ardoch's historic buildings, built in the 1920s. The oldest building in the estate dates from the 19th century, while newer buildings were developed there in the mid-1990s. Ardoch centres on a grassy expanse, and its residents share a...
  - Get in on the act at Ardoch - PRIVATE PROPERTY, Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - April 9, 2011, Length: 79 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), ACTORS Reg Gorman and Judith Roberts are selling a renovated apartment in St Kilda East's remarkable Ardoch development. Built in 1922, Ardoch is reportedly where Dame Nellie Melba stayed and where Russian spy Evdokia Petrov hid. The two-bedroom apartment at 3/8 Ardoch Avenue will be auctioned at 11.30am next Saturday and is expected to sell for about $700,000. Marshall White Armadale's John Manton is the marketing agent. Gorman (pictured) is...
  - What's On, Leader - Preston Post Times (Melbourne, Australia) - May 19, 2004, Length: 87 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), MORNING tea: Australia's Biggest Morning Tea will be held at 10.30am on May 27 at the East Preston Uniting Church Hall, Highview Rd. Guest speaker/entertainers will be actor, comic and storyteller Reg Gorman and soloist Kath McDonald. Cost $5, includes morning tea and light lunch. SCHOOL invite: Reservoir District Secondary College will celebrate its 50th anniversary on Sunday. Details: 9470 3555. ARABIC speakers: Arabic speaking volunteers are needed for one to two…
  - the critical guide - arts - melbourne comedy festival, Sunday Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - April 11, 2004, Length: 1465 words (Estimated printed pages: 6), It's the last week of this year's comedy festival. What's worth seeing - and what's not. Eurobeat The Eurovision Musical WHERE: Billboard Nightclub WHEN: To April 17 ***½ Some people would argue that the Eurovision Song Contest doesn't need to be turned into comedy - it is already. But that doesn't stop this show from being both funny and a well-executed EuroTrash tribute. Bosnian beauty Bronya (Julia…
  - Keeping clear head, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia) - March 29, 2004, Length: 272 words (Estimated printed pages: 1), Veteran actor Reg Gorman is allergic to alcohol, although you wouldn't believe it it you saw his one-man show THERE are lots of really oddball acts at the Melbourne Comedy Festival from new bright young talents . . . but the older generation can still raise a laugh, too. Take Reg Gorman. He's been kicking around the Australian stage and screen scene for more than 50 years and is still going strong. Naturally he's perfected a few...
  - It may sound funny, but comedy just isn't what it used to be - COMEDY FESTIVAL, Sunday Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - March 21, 2004, Length: 558 words (Estimated printed pages: 3), Reg Gorman believes that the old jokes are the best. But then that probably has something to do with his age. For at 70, Gorman is the oldest comic at this year's Comedy Festival, where he is performing his one-man show, Hanging On To Vaudeville. Gorman has been in showbusiness for more than 50 years and is best known for his role as Jack the barman in the television drama The Sullivans. He has appeared in 101 film and television shows, acting with Nicole Kidman, Meryl Streep and...
  - The Aussie's are coming - HIGHLIGHTS, Sunday Age, The (Melbourne, Australia) - March 5, 2000, Length: 1701 words (Estimated printed pages: 7), Critic's choice Ballykissangel: Eureka Sunday, ABC, 7.30pm *** MELBOURNE gets a passing mention in tonight's Ballykissangel, with Australia's Judy Morris guest-starring as one of the city's goldmining company executives. Morris plays Laurie Woskett, a woman who approaches Brian Quigley (Tony Doyle) to tell him her company will pay half a million dollars to buy his family's stake in an Australian mine that goes back to the years of…
- Other newspaper references found via Trove:
  - "Pete Smith". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 28 October 1981. p. 160. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)
  - "SULLIVANS' STAR STEPS ON STAGE". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 3 September 1980. p. 19 Supplement: Your TV Magazine. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)
  - "Andy's back in tune". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 27 May 1981. p. 29 Supplement: TV WORLD. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)
  - "How the Stars will spend their holidays". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 30 December 1981. p. 16. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)
  - "Harry Guardino's Australian dream". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 8 December 1971. p. 17. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)
  - "Special deal for Sullivans' US payments". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 12 November 1980. p. 186 Supplement: Your TV Magazine. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)
  - "Sullivans in the swim". The Australian Women's Weekly (1933 - 1982). 1933 - 1982: National Library of Australia. 17 February 1982. p. 110. Retrieved 9 March 2012.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: ___location (link)

There are more available sources that help establish WP:GNG but I don't want to spend another 10 minutes looking. --LauraHale (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per meeting of WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Not yet in the article, we have him as recurring characters in multiple television series.[39] most recently as Harry Patterson in 26 episodes of Fergus McPhail. While it seems that articles on Australian television stars sometimes get short shrift on en.Wikipedia, we have multiple articles offered as sources which give signifcant coverage, and even many of the lessor are suitable as long as they address the subject directly and offer some detail about his work. Notable to us, as shown by the multiple proffered sources, is perfectly fine with en.Wikipedia. While understanding the nominator's concern that the article was unsourced when nominated,[40] such lack has proven to be addressable[41] and the article improvable through use of available sources. We usually prefer not to delete stub article on notable topics if issues can be shown as addressable through regular editing. And kudos to User:LauraHale for her astute WP:AFTER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty satisfied that an article which establishes notability firmly can be created now. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the impressive research by LauraHale above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 12 March 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Regale

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No indication of wp:notability. The only source is a press release. "Weak" is because the article is only 4-5 month old and may just need better editors. It's a real company and the article is at least partially encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. This business makes sparkling fruit juice products. Unfortunately, I only find directory listings and press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its not an advertisement but has some historical valueRachelskit (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News search shows several RS discussing the company. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you actually look at those sources? There are press releases and trivial mentions in lists of drinks/foods, or mentions of events where this was offered as a beverage. This beverage exists and people have consumed it, but there is no significant coverage there. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't go beyond the payblocks for the news archive sites, but the summaries appeared to be references to the company by editorial staff of print newspapers and the like. Without asserting anything they may have said about the company, it at least appears to me that there is RS coverage of the existence of the company. While the WP:CORPDEPTH is slim (from what I can see), there is some breadth of independent third-party coverage. It at least indicates that the company has attracted notice of third-party sources, which is the standard for WP:CORP. --Tgeairn (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 05:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Last relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:56, 5 March 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. There are sources which indicate this person has sufficent notability to meet our inclusion criteria. The article, however, could do with tidying up and expanding. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bikram Grewal

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

No evidence of genuine notability either as a writer or ornithologist, no real biographical content, just seems designed to promote his book Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the stub after someone presented the book to me. He does seem to be a known figure in Indian ornithology circles (see the cited interview). I have cited his book on several bird articles i edited around then. I do have some interest in birdwatching, but do not know or e-know or have any connection with Bikram Grewal, or with anyone else associated with the book.

However, I despair with all the time wasted on dealing with non-encyclopedic admin issues on wikipedia; i wish one could be left free to edit content. Every time I see a "new message" link on wikipedia, i shudder. For instance. one could have spent this time to bring up the article from stub level instead...

I find myself severely unmotivated re: editing wikipedia content compared to my zeal about 4-5 years back. Sometimes I feel - let THEM go ahead and do what THEY want ... am I becoming part of the non-wikipedia masses? mukerjee (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A handful of citations of his books (h-index of 4). Several mentions in news sources, but only passing ones. I can see no evidence of notability. The cited interview appears only to be a video clip. Perhaps the article creator can use local knowledge to provide some evidence of notability? If not, why was the article created? -- 202.124.75.162 (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am aquainted with the subject and will recuse myself from this debate. The creator of this article does not need to be singled out in any way. The key question is - can the article be developed ? Are there sources - conforming to Wikipedia:Notability_(people)'s "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - the interview with Bittu Sahgal, a coauthor in some works would fail the test of "independence" here. One could contact Bikram and people who know him and add information but that would lean towards OR or worse with BLP violations. The WP:Scholar guidelines are unlikely to be applicable in this case. The guidebooks written are largely recompilations of existing information, not original research with the exception perhaps of the "atlas" of Delhi-Haryana birds - which was a collaborative effort. I am sure however that a case could be made for notability when a biography or autobiography is published. Shyamal (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Actually, Shyamal, if you know something of the subject's notability, then please don't recuse yourself. It's not forbidden to write about something you know about; it is only forbidden to use your own brain as a reference. The notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. If WP:Scholar doesn't adequately cover all types of scholars, we can do one of three things: either take the issue to the people (which I think AfD is a fine start for that in some regards, although a wider audience should be sought), be bold and make new guidelines to fit the situation that works with (and not against) the existing guidelines, or drop back 10 yards and punt this to WP:GNG (and sue me for mixing bird watching and football playing...). What could the guidelines be for guidebook writers such that it would be consistent with GNG and WP:Scholar? Would Bikram fail or pass those guidelines? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment And Mukerjee, please don't despair. One thing to remember is that this has nothing at all to do with what any of us thinks of you, nor of what we think of Bikram as a person or a birdwatcher. It has only to do with what we think of Bikram's notability. And frankly, I commend you for being bold and writing a stub for an author you have a little familiarity with. Collaboration (which successful wiki editing is) is a very hard task, especially when it is of the more organic kind (vice structured). It takes significant energy to continue. Taking short and long breaks to rebuild those energies and maintain an interest are important. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That all said, I don't think an adequate case has been made (either in the article or here in the discussion) to warrant keeping the article. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 11:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite easy to find coverage of the subject, e.g. Call of the Wild in The Hindu. Warden (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is primarily about the Uppalapadu Bird Sanctuary. It doesn't say much about Bikram Grewal, though. It mentions his book A Photographic Guide to Birds of India and Nepal, and seems to imply that he's a recognised expert (but doesn't explicitly say so). Not enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It concerns me that the main evidence for notability in the article is two interviews with Bikram Grewal himself. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interviews published at reliable independent venues do establish notability, since they are in-depth coverage and they have been reviewed by the editorial policies of the third-party media that published them. These references by two independent sources are enough to meet WP:GNG. Diego (talk) 10:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep primarily on the basis of the article in The Hindu, one of our two usual English language RSs for India. For something like this, I don't see what else we can go by. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Cool Killers

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Has no sources and has been tagged since 2009. It mainly consists of a VERY long Plot section. No significant coverage in Google News. Is occasionally mentioned in some crime books. Bbb23 (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found a few sources and have added them to the article, one of which is by a notable crime fiction author.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep. It could definitely use more fleshing out and biblio-love, but there's a lot of books out there that talk about this book and are written by people I'd consider to be authorities, such as university faculty and crime novelists. The majority of them are university press books, which suggests to me that this book (and Hines's work in general) is discussed regularly in classes. At the absolute least this would be a redirect to Chester Himes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

The two "reviews" are very brief (and I added that to the article, in all fairness), but I can't see what the books say. I'm just thinking about how "significant" the coverage is. I'll let others weigh in, but, regardless, your work improving the article is appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep: Noticed that it's being as part of a bundle called "Crime Novels: American Noir of the 1950s" by the nonprofit publisher of classic American literature, Library of America, which, while not exactly a news source, appears to be at least somewhat notable and independent (why else would they include it as one of 5 books to represent the decade's crime novels?). --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 08:59, 5 March 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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Adventure (Meg song)

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

Not notable enough. See WP:Notability (music) Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 17:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I have also put most of the other songs/albums up for AfD JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its position on the Oricon charts. St Anselm (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With only 2,000 copies sold and charted for two weeks really suggest notability? JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSONG - "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Suriel1981 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 March 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, B music ian 01:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for above error in signing. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 02:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Maverick (Meg album), which reached #20 on the Oricon chart.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONG. Insufficient third-party coverage to justify a self-standing article. Track listing s can easily be incorpoated into the albumn article or artist's main article. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 10 March 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. All created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so criterion G5 applies. — foxj 15:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chez Isaac

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

Contested PRODs (with no explanation given). Each fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:02, 5 March 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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 01:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability, fail GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or relevant guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedily for copyvio in the case of Ince. Virtually the same text is at http://www.thechels.info/wiki/Rohan_Ince and their copyright information says "TheChels.info © 2010 TheChels.org - All Rights Reserved. All Media © The Respective Owners. The Official Chelsea FC Website can be found at ChelseaFC.com.". Their article was last edited on December 25th, 2011, and the base of it dates from much earlier. Apart from that, the thechels version says he plays for "Chelsea's Academy team" which puts him outside the required level here. As the other two are written in the same style (redolent of the football programme), I have no doubts that they are also copyvios of thechels.info. (I must confess that I thought 'Chez Isaac' was a restaurant when I saw it in the listing...) Peridon (talk) 11:22, 6 March 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 Caparezza. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ricomincio da Capa

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

No sources or coverage of any kind.--WTF (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[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 March 5. Snotbot t • c » 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Caparezza as it seems unlikely this album is independently notable, unless someone can find chart evidence to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect - per WP:NRVE "...evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity..." ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:25, 6 March 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.