Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 1 November 3 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. After examining the editing histories of Phi Beta, Teotocopulos and DishingSevens, I agree with Biruitorul that it is likely that their "keep" opinions were externally canvassed, either through the Elance.com advertisements linked to in the discussion, or otherwise. These opinions are consequently discounted. Among the remaining participants there is consensus that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion because of insufficient substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Sandstein  09:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Mavrody

edit
Sergey Mavrody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems like a typical vanity page, with scant evidence the subject has received any sort of coverage in independent sources. I'm assuming he's distinct from the convicted fraudster who shares his name, although even that guy probably doesn't pass WP:N. - Biruitorul Talk 22:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Bad choice for deletion. He is an established author. There are plenty of independent sources. For instance, this IBM site has a reference to his book: [1], or this British site [2]: it looks independent to me. HTML5 is a hot technology and you gotta be pretty notable to be IBM listed. The article may need some work but it's a good start. You are right though, that he shares his name with that ponzi schemer. Teotocopulos (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine, now let's have some significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources. A couple of listings of his work in the bibliographies of self-published articles don't amount to much. - Biruitorul Talk 04:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a multi-talented hard working person who has accomplished a lot. However I can't find anything in his bio that would qualify on Wikipedia notability grounds. He is a Professor, but an Adjunct, so doesn't qualify under WP:SCHOLAR. He is an author, but just publishing books is not enough we need some coverage about the author and/or multiple in-depth book reviews from professional sources. He has not won any major awards, though he worked on award-winning films such as Bridge (1988 film), but not in a lead Producer or Director capacity. His film art career is interesting since it involves a number of US/USSR collaborations but I am not expert to judge the notability of this, thus we need secondary sources to verify, of which there are none. Maybe this is a case of the sum being greater than the parts, but I can't get past the lack of independent reliable secondary sourcing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Author's publications are cited by peers in the HTML5 field, and he has been a writer, producer, director, and art director for several award-winning short films including Bridge, which itself was the subject of a celebrity-narrated documentary, in which the subject was featured. Therefore, I believe the subject meets WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:FILMMAKER. A citation to a newspaper article has been added that references his film work. Additional independent resources need to be added, but the subject is notable. — Phi beta (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This page is of a notable living person. Notability for WP:AUTHOR and WP:FILMMAKER has been established and improved upon. Also, most all of the references are by reputable third parties. I added several more references for the notable U.S./Russian co-production Bridge including those from the Chicago Tribune[3] and the Los Angeles Times.[4] He also has received notable awards[5] for another film. I strongly vote to keep this page in it's current state. As with all articles, additional references with continue to improve this notable entry. DishingSevens (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did Sergey Mavrody personally receive an award for Bridge or was it for the film? What was Mavrody's role in the film, how central/important was that role? Honest question's as I am not sure. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, it is a film award, actually there are 6 different awards for this film + an award for the related documentary. Typically, a creative executive team on a film set includes Director, Director of Photography (DP), and Art Director (more often now called Production Designer (PD)). According to Wikipedia “Production designers have one of the key creative roles in the creation of motion pictures and television. Working directly with the director and producer, they must select the settings and style to visually tell the story…. production designer collaborates with the director and director of photography to establish the visual feel and specific aesthetic needs of the project. The production designer guides key staff in other departments such as the costume designer, the key hair and make-up stylists, the special effects director and the locations manager (among others)”. So, yes, PD is a lead role (sort of Chief Design Officer). I guess, for that reason Mavrody co-starred in the related “Bridging the Gap” documentary, narrated by Casey Kasem. In addition, Mr. Mavrody won two other awards in a Producer and Director capacity (film broadcasted on WTTW). Teotocopulos (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this may mean nothing, but the three editors arguing "keep" have edit patterns that are, shall we say, unusual. Phi Beta: one edit in 2012 other than on Mavrody, two edits in 2010, everything else 2008 and prior. Teotocopulos: five edits in 2012. Two on this AfD, one on Mavrody's film, two on HTML5 (an area of expertise for Mavrody). One edit in 2011, everything else in 2009-10. DishingSevens: just joined today; seventh and eighth overall edits on Mavrody. Other than one AfD by Phi beta in 2005 (!), this is the only AfD activity for all three users.
  • I'm not making any accusations of malfeasance, but the pattern here just seems a little out of the ordinary. - Biruitorul Talk 00:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having read over his page I believe Mavrody is a notable author. He passes WP:AUTHOR in my opinion. The fact he was given a Genius visa shows that he is admired by his peers (at least in the US anyway). He has also recieved numerous acknowledgements and awards for his work in both film and as an author. The fact that his books have been published in a number of different languages says something in itself to me about the success of his books. I believe this article could do with more references going forward, but in my eyes it is clear he is notable. JP22Wiki (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Biruitorul, good eye. These keep votes are most likely from paid editors. They were contracted on Elance, as you can see here. And it looks like the same Elance user is looking to buy more keep votes, as seen here.115.187.74.73 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monovia

edit
Monovia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete nonsense. The only thing close to a proper reference is a local paper which clearly treats the topic with the respect it deserves, as a child's joke. Even if that report is taken seriously it falls well short of GNG. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the page in under a major edit and is still under construction and deserves not to be deleted ~Huff~ * *Keep (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)— HuffFTW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep It has two reliable sources. I know Harry personally, and I can verify Monovia is not a so called "child's joke". I think this article has right to exist. SaluteChciken (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, of the users who'd !voted to keep the article at the time of my post, all but one were single purpose accounts. And your username of MicronationKing implies that you may be as well...Go Phightins! 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, this isn't the case with MicronationKing, who has been editing topics as varied as North Korea, Barack Obama, and a contender for Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a number of article on micronations. These are a curiosity, where some one has decided to declare independence for a small part of another country. The question is how far most are notable. The fact that it may have featured in a lcoal paper may go nowhere, since they are included to print almost anything they get sent as a press release, since it fills theri columns at little cost. In this case the article does not even suggest independecne has even been claimed. I think the answer is that most are NN and should thus not be allowed articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no substantial sources via Google. The sources quoted are extremely weak.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can't disregard a source because you think it is a "child's joke," I know the leader of Monovia, he takes it very seriously. Plus, he considers Monovia independent. 65.182.245.138 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We did declare a tounge-in-cheek declaration of independence, but I cannot even find any credible evedience that the Northern Forest Archipelago has declared its independence. It has zero references on its entire article. Libertasgov (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Micronations should be assumed to be non-notable unless a lot of reliable sources are provided to suggest their notability. The most reliable source here [6] doesn't even mention the word "Monovia". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That was our former incarnation, the Republic of Libertas. I somewhat understand what your saying, but the NFA hasn't even had a discussion on its notability and it has no references at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasgov (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. "Northern Forest Archipelago doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria; therefore, Wikipedia ought to have an article about Monovia" is not a reasonable argument. I see that someone has already nominated Northern Forest Archipelago for deletion, which is right and good if it doesn't meet the criteria. But the answer to finding an inadequate article is not to say, 'Now there are no rules.' If Monovia is kept, it will have to be because that subject does meet the criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am just stating it's a bit of double-standards to allow one article for so long, and not allow another one. And many Micronations on the list of micronations are barely notable either. I actually think Monovia maybe ought to not have a article, but it seems just to allow it on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasgov (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • stop Hold up! - this AFD is about Monovia. The fact that other marginally (nor not) notable micronations exist or have been deleted or kept is a giant WP:OTHERSTUFF roundabout argument and is completely pointless. It doesn't matter what else exists - each article must stand or fall on its own merits. We need to focus on the content at hand - this article specifically - rather than calling into question whether it is more or less worthy than other articles that have been kept or deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims to notability are weak at best, and there's a lot of fishy !voting here that doesn't help the author(s) case much. §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the only source from a reliable publisher is something that falls into the hierarchy of "bizarre" pages, you've helped to prove that the subject is not notable. After this is deleted, it should be recreated as a {{R from misspelling}} to Monrovia. I came here via a note at WP:AN asking that this discussion be closed, and upon reading the note I thought that it was a disruptive AFD for a national capital city. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails by a very long way to meet the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion. One mention in the "bizarre news" section of a local paper, and a photograph of the schoolboy in question at a gathering of like-minded individuals do not make a proper basis for an article, how much some of the editors commenting above might wish it to be the case. BencherliteTalk 10:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is getting slightly amusing. Doesn't meet notability criteria. There are places on the net for an article about Monovia, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, at least for the moment. Æthelred (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a admin on that MicroWiki actually :) yeah, I can sympathize with you now, could somebody wrap this up now? Libertasgov (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Annex! The 9/11 Raid on Benghazi

edit
Remember the Annex! The 9/11 Raid on Benghazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wish there was a CSD tag for opinionated articles. If there is, I'd like to know. AutomaticStrikeout 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is A10 stretchy enough to cover it? Frankly, it looks like a copyvio (look at that signature at the bottom, just like it would appear in a magazine), although if so I can't find where it was published originally. Morwen - Talk 21:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if A10 would be helpful here or not. As you can see below, I started an RfC that would solve the problem much more completely. AutomaticStrikeout 22:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. In fact, I have started an RfC regarding that. AutomaticStrikeout 22:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added my 2 cents, but they tend to be very... special about what is CSD. Anyway, it's worth a try. §FreeRangeFrog 22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What would be synth, my edit? The remaining text was just the first line of the article. There is no requirement anywhere on Wikipedia to allow blog posts to stand in article space. Please revert your edit, there is no reason to allow this person to post their blog on Wikipedia. You want his blog, move it to your user space. -Fjozk (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment um, I'm not contesting the fact that the article should be deleted, I'm saying that your edit is pointless and disruptive to the AfD. What possible advantage would the closing admin gain from you reducing that pile of nonsense to three words? §FreeRangeFrog 22:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Um, you're saying the closing admin can only judge long articles, can't read histories, can't see that the reduction is worthless, that crap must be maintained on Wikipedia to decide whether it can be deleted en masse, what? There is also unsourced material about living people in there, in addition to the painfully badly written blog-shit. So, what exactly are you saying is your reason for restoring unsourced biographical material about living people, and unsource blog material and an opinion piece to main space, so that we can talk about it here? Really? -Fjozk (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes the notability guidelines for authors. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Campion

edit
Nicholas Campion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to expand on this article (does not meet WP:GNG). He does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC either. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would also suggest that there might have been some COI editing around this person - in the past, I suspected that a couple of SPAs seemed to focus on introducing content that sets Campion in a positive light - but I haven't noticed any recently. Just a heads-up... bobrayner (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that the article presented (until today when I rectified the situation) Campion as simply a historian, but omitted to mention that he was the Daily Mail astrologer and president of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, which, if anything, are the genuine claims of potential notability, as he clearly doesn't pass WP:PROF. It certainly does seem to have been written in a way to present him as an objective researcher into the social phenomenon of astrology rather than a believer in it. Again, this is just a point of information - I haven't yet formed an opinion about whether the article should be kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any source you have added that gives significant coverage of Campion. What part of WP:AUTHOR is met? You appear to have added passing mentions like [7][8]. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added significant coverage of his works, the four reliably published reviews in references 10-14 of this version. (I also added reference 9 but that one only mentions one of his works in a trivial way.) This is not a celebrity gossip site; we don't need significant coverage of who he's dating or whatever. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need significant coverage of him in some way. All we have is citations showing he had books (which is what you have used the references for as well). IRWolfie- (talk) 20:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of his books is coverage of him, no different from reviews of a concert being coverage of a musician. And your description of what the citations show is seriously misleading. They describe what's in his books, rather than merely being a catalog of them, and by being published in major newspapers they show that the works are likely of interest to a broad section of the population. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've not mischaractertized them. I merely am noting that they aren't about him in what they cover. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning, they're not about his personal life? Who cares. That's not the sort of coverage we need for someone whose notability does not rest on the details of their personal life. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't give anything sourced to say about anything beyond noting that he had a book. Which is what you did with the sources. Articles about authors aren't just meant to be book lists. Contrast that with, say, Terry Pratchett. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are losing credibility each time you repeat this falsehood. Boner's review has three long paragraphs of text; Heath-Stubb's has five. What they say doesn't happen to be incorporated into our article yet, but it's there. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to pass WP:AUTHOR, criterium 3 "The person has created...a collective body of work, that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" / criterium 4 "The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention". Cavarrone (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those links in the articles called "review of .." aren't all actually dedicated reviews. This doesn't look like a serious review: Readers roundup. I'd be curious as to what advice he gives Virgos: " Plenty of cultural background along with advice on diet, relationships etc (Virgos apparently … " (No highbeam access). [9] Twelve lines. You can argue for WP:AUTHOR, but that doesn't create sources about campion himself. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:AUTHOR, as demonstrated by David Eppstein. I'm all in favour of ensuring that pseudoscience and fringe theories aren't presented as fact in Wikipedia, but we don't do that by eliminating coverage of people who support such nonsense or by imitating the way that pseudoscientists and fringe theorists ignore evidence that doesn't support their prejudices. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination had nothing to do with WP:FRINGE and all to do with the absence of sources. Mentioning FRINGE, I would note the additional notability requirements that fringe topics are subject to Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may not be enough information about him to get a good or featured article, but he appears to have gained some sort of notability to have an article written of him. As demonstrated by a few others, he passes WP:AUTHOR. Statυs (talk) 22:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, to the nominator, you really don't have to reply to everyone's comments. It's rather annoying, to tell you the truth. Sure, you can have a little debate, but to reply to every single person's comments that disagree with you is a bit much. Statυs (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to everyone? There've been 3 other people discussing things here, not some grand list. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, everyone is three people. Look at that! Statυs (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stop badgering all the delete voters. :) IRWolfie- (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bridger et al.; meets the established notability thresholds, but lately I'm seeing many articles being nominated as part of a wider trend of trying to exclude even any mention of certain whole schools of thought from this website. With arguments in magisterial tones, and hectoring of all dissent to be expected. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was thinking not to vote, but I got interested in the topic and made a little research. My conclusion is that he meets WP:AUTHOR by achieving criteria 3: "The person has created... a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Also, I read some reviews and found that he meets criteria 4: "The person's work... has won significant critical attention." I consider this to be enough to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:11, 8 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skirrow (car)

edit
Skirrow (car) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any secondary source coverage, nor does the article make any assertion of notability. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "Perhaps the least known and most underrated racing car constructor in this country". That is how author Derek Bridgett described Henry (Harry) Skirrow in his book "Midget Car Speedway". If he's the least known constructor and the only two sources I could find were the 2 already in the external links section then I doubt the car has "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. I'm happy to be proved wrong if there are multiple offline references. James086Talk 21:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One link in article refers to a Skirrow car being announced in Autocar, January 1, 1937. Also a possibly-2-page article in Motor Sport, December 1936, if the table of contents here (see: [10] & [11], alternatively: [12]) is to be believed. Further coverage of the Skirrow Special in The Motor, 1968, Volume 133, Page 64: "This is the 1937 four-wheel-drive 'Skirrow Special' which had two 500 c.c. JAP cylinders mounted on a common crankcase. Note the chain transmission and completely unsilenced exhaust system. The steering required only one turn from lock ..." TheFeds 08:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here we go again. "Must have an assertion of notability". What exactly do you think that means? Trust me, it doesn't mean the word "notable" must appear in the article. Car marques generally have an assumption of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the article has to tell us why we should care about the existence of this car. Was it a unique new model, did it win a particular prize or race, was it in a famous movie, anything... this article goes little beyond "This car existed..."ReformedArsenal (talk)
In actual fact, for certain subjects the fact it existed is quite enough for an article to exist on it. This is one of those subjects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 4 November 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Parsons

edit
Lynn Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a British radio presenter. Subject posted this message to my talk page earlier this evening expressing concern about some of the content, and requesting the page's deletion. I posted this reply. As she's not overly notable I'm inclined to think we should honour her request. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete none of the current sources suggest any sort of major impact or notoriety, merely standard coverage of "she is host of X show", and those are primarily by the the network hosting the show or thinly disguised regurgitations of PR releases. The name brings up a lot of google news hits but most are clearly trivial about different individuals. until the project rejects the "anyone can edit anything" ethos, it does not need additional articles about marginally notable living people to try and maintain. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list of job changes taken from online trade rags doesn't demonstrate notability. Nor does the fascinating info taken from her employer's site (which isn't exactly a WP:THIRDPARTY source) that "Her hobbies and interests include Feng Shui, science, the paranormal, English literature, antiques and swimming." First Light (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Aside from this, none of the third-party sources are about the subject, only mentioning the subject in passing. The article fails WP:GNG. Coupled with the BLP concerns, supposedly from the subject herself, it seems best to remove the article at this time. - SudoGhost 02:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are lots of these minor DJ/presenter articles floating around, and I wonder whether we shouldn't bring a few more here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • i dont think _this AfD_ is the place to bundle them. this one has someone claiming to be the subject who also wants the article deleted. in many others, editors claiming to be the subject _want_ the article. different circumstances that should be handled differently. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I haven't bundled them together, and was just mentioning it in the context of non-notable DJs, of which the subject is one. They're all separate nominations. I think to deal with them as one would be problematic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Courtesy deleteNobody Ent 20:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Ambivalent. Nobody Ent 12:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The most prominent news story seems to be this one, about her replacement gig. The rest do seem to be more passing mentions, from what I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PRESERVE. There are enough trade industry stories on her to narrowly meet notability guidelines, and as MF points out, concerns over such things as date of birth could easily be addressed by simply removing such content from the BLP article, if actually necessary, or just placing a fact-tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oh no, please not that "people can ask to have their articles deleted" nonsense again. We emphatically must not care of the subject wishes on that -we have not only the right, but even the duty towards our readers to keep correct, sourced information about her, no matter what she thinks of it. If we bend to external pressures we lose any credibility. That said, the subject is massively notable -there are multiple sources about her and she has been a BBC radio presenter multiple times. There was wrong information about her? Duly noted, problem fixed, let's move on. --Cyclopiatalk 20:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having Googled her, I believe she can be contacted via her agent mentioned here or through her show at Smooth Radio. The far from congenial tone of the posting suggests I shouldn't do it myself, but anyone else is welcome to have a go. As an occasional listener to Smooth Radio I'd heard mention of an interview with Dawn French, which is why I was inclined to believe it could be her. Sadly, I'm informed the gremlins got into her recording equipment, meaning no conversation was recorded, so we'll never know what they discussed. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a bit unlikely to me. Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's certainly an element of doubt, but that's the problem with anonymous IPs, we don't know who the person at the other end is. It could be genuine or just someone pretending to be her. I did suggest contacting oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org (hope that's the right email address for this sort of thing) if there were concerns. I'm presuming she hasn't done so as we would have heard something from them. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A confession I will make is adding 2 possible years of birth (one bone of contention), but instead of the 1998 reference I'd tracked down (see here) I picked up a note I'd made and pasted that in instead. Also, I appear unable to do the math as I was a year out. The rest of the material she had concerns about was added anonymously, so I can't help there. Most of the rest consisted of instances where she'd filled in for other presenters on Radio 2. Fascinating if you want to learn the history of the Radio 2 schedule, but not encycopedic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How are you defining "encyclopedic"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information that's sourced, I guess. A lot of the information was "she stood in for X on such and such a date, then for Y on such and such a date." While it may be true that she did so, we're never going to be able to find sources for it because under most circumstances it's not the sort of thing that anyone's going to report. I think this sort of thing probably happens with a lot of presenters, i.e., that they do a short stint on a radio (or even television) show because the regular presenter goes off on holiday, and someone listening to/watching that show goes to Wikipedia and starts typing. 00:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep So this is only about name and date of birth? That's all? Is her name as presented on the BBC webpage incorrect? If we don't have a source for her birth date, then we should remove it, that's apparent, but i'm not seeing anything more than that. As long as all the information is properly sourced, then there isn't an issue. SilverserenC 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Marginal notability (standard BBC bio and trade magazine blurbs, and 2 name-drops in the Guardian) that requests deletion. Nothing else to see here. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to see if you don't bother to look, certainly. For instance, Lynn Parsons was considered sufficiently notable by the author of KISS FM: From Radical Radio to Big Business (2011) to be included as an example of DJs who made a successful transition from pirate to legitimate radio, along with others such as Pete Tong. There's also a 1998 Sunday Mercury article about Parsons, neither of which were hard to find. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of which are notable, or go towards establishing this person's notability. Keep squeezing that blood from a stone, though. Tarc (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the subject of the article that needs to be notable, not the sources. How many books or newspaper articles does a person have to be mentioned in before they become notable, in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 05:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the Sunday Mercury: I see it is a Birmingham-based paper founded in 1918, now owned by Britain's biggest newspaper group. I'm having trouble imagining why we wouldn't consider this a reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both the sources and the notability are marginal, but that should be sufficient.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are marginal, then wouldn't that be sufficient to fall under WP:BIODEL ? Tarc (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you're going to claim that presenters of nationally broadcast radio shows are "non-public figures". Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will make it clearer. The subject is notable, though not by any great shakes. The sources aren't great, but they suffice. My !vote is keep.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we do keep this, and if she did, indeed, make a successful crossover from pirate radio to legitimate broadcasting then perhaps someone can cite the Kiss FM book as a reference. Having said that, we have several former pirate DJs who made that move. She's won no major awards, and, as far as we know, doesn't appear to have influenced the career decisions of any other presenters who've started in the business after her. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG per source coverage (Sunday Mercury interview, Kiss FM, etc), GNG /BASIC supersedes ENT. Also, looking at the post by the subject (assuming that's actually the subject and not a random IP), it seems to say that article deletion is preferable to misinformation - which is solvable by editing/removing the misinformation. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything left is now referenced, but the questions as to whether it was her deepens. The same IP address made this edit in March 2011, removing some accurate information, and actually adding a piece of information removed as "lies" on 2 November. It may be a dynamic IP, but what are the chances of her inheriting an IP address that was earlier used to edit her article? It's possible, I guess, but the odds against it must be extremely remote. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was rather naive to assume that this IP address had anything to do with Lynn Parsons. And as Nikkimaria has pointed out, no request for deletion was made in any case, so the "courtesy delete" argument deployed above is spurious. Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed so, but I did assume good faith, not least because she's not the most well-known person in the public eye. Had someone claiming to be, say, Barack Obama or Tony Blair posted on my talk page with concerns about those articles, I definitely would have questioned it further. Anyway, given the question over the posting's authenticity and that as I've fixed the issue, I agree both with MF and Nikkimaria on the courtesy delete, so the question now is clearly one of notability. Does she meet the guidelines? I'm not sure she does, but if the vote is to keep then I can live with that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Assume good faith" =/= "Switch off brain". Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The odds are not so remote if that IP belongs to a machine which is used by several different people, or their office is behind some sort of firewall/proxy which makes all internal computers look like they are coming from the same address. Neither situation is particularly rare. Really, it's not impossible to just write her and verify, rather than speculating. I'm tempted to do it myself, but I'm in a bad political position in this debate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm overlooking something, but the sources you're saying have coverage really don't. Kiss FM doesn't even mention her name, and the Guardian is a trivial mention, mentioning her name in passing while discussing a different subject. She does not meet the criteria of WP:BASIC, because she hasn't been the subject of any of those, the only source that is about the subject is an industry news source "Radio Today", and that's it. There are multiple instances of the subject being mentioned in Radio Today, but as WP:GNG and WP:BASIC both point out, that's not sufficient. - SudoGhost 13:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment would someone who has access to the Mercury interview place any relelvent content into the article? The first few paragraphs in the intro provide nothing useful as far as I can see. i have placed the comment from the KISS book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meet guidelines. Are we going to have this debate over radio presenters again? If they are willing to earn a living in a public place then they have to deal with having content written about them in a public place. No offence Paul but you say "not notable" yet most of the article history illustrates that you clearly think so. I sniff a COI.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have edited her article, but as part of a wider improvement of Smooth Radio related stuff because I've been working towards a GA-nomination for Smooth for several months now. I've also edited Simon Bates, Pat Sharp, Mark Goodier and a few others along the way, often adding related references. Before I started there was virtually nothing by way of sources for Lynn Parsons except her Radio 2 biography, a personal site and one or two other bits and pieces. I'm not generally a deletionist, instead preferring to improve articles where possible, looking to establish notability rather than just throwing something in the bin, and I can happily say I've improved this one. On the other hand, she's not Terry Wogan or Chris Evans, so I'm relaxed about whether or not it should be included here. Assuming it was her, and as a major editor of the page, I was happy to honour her request. Is that a Conflict of interest? Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comment that your comment made me think of: I mean, I would be more sympathetic and likely to vote Delete if there was a lot of negative information in the article or something. But since it appears to be just about name and birth date, which is so petty and so easily fixable from the subject's end, I don't see any reason to listen to it. SilverserenC 03:16, 6 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Campfire (video game)

edit
Campfire (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find video game sources: "Campfire (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

WP:NOTABILITY - this is an unreleased and, as best as can be told, never-to-be-released video game. The articles that are used as sources treat the project as significant because it was expected at the time of the article that it would be a released game. There's no sign that this unreleased/non-existent work has any particular impact on the field or the world. Nat Gertler (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 21:23, 2 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Ahern

edit
AfDs for this article:
Adrianne Ahern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A psychotherapist and author. Recently AfDed for notability concerns, the article was apparently speedily deleted as a recreated deleted page. In the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 22, most participants were of the opinion that it should be the subject of a full deletion discussion instead. The DRV discussion contains links that may be of relevance. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  20:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found only two reliable sources: 90-minute PBS show and SF Examiner interview. The PBS show is significant as not many people get their own show "aired on PBS stations nationwide"[13]. But there's a notable absence of in-depth independent sources, which is the requirement per WP:GNG. Am I missing something? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a hopelessly promotional article. If she is notable as an author, which is possible but I think unlikely, the best course would be to delete this and start over. I've refrained from removing the worst of it, so people can see just how bad it is. The Reno article is a straight PR piece, letting her say whatever she wanted about herself with no apparent editorial control, and therefore not a RS. Iassume the other Reno article was essentially the same. If there were not the extensive preliminary record, I would have cut this short with a G11, but we do not need another deletion review. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The blocked user who created it [14] is the same person who built it up [15] and who admitted on her talk page [16] to being the owner of the publishing house that puts these books out. The publisher has littered Wikipedia with very poorly written articles designed to promote the non-notable writers she publishes. So much for background. On the merits: I agree with much of what DGG has said. A hopeless case of WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: Speedily deleted by User:Amatulic. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Maharaj

edit
Akash Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. MBisanz talk 00:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol (novel)

edit
Alcohol (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously proposed for deletion by another editor on grounds "No evidence this meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)." The Prod was removed by the article creator (whose edit history is entirely related to this book and its author) without comment, immediately after adding a large plot synopsis. However having a plot does not in itself make a book notable and it remains the situation that the only reference is one listing mention in The Hindu, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same grounds as the previous Prod. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC) AllyD (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no in-depth coverage of this book. The mention in the Hindu is only a one-line mention and not anything that would show notability in the slightest. Other than that, there are no other sources out there that would show notability for this book that are both independent and reliable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independently reliable sources that cover the book in-depth per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This comment was posted to my Talk page "Need to know why my article is being considered for deletion,however i have updated the article with all information.This a Novel which was released all over the world and also getting popular.If you have time please read the article instead of deleting it first.I believe wiki administrators are interested in deleting the article instead of promoting.Are you paid for deleting the article???" AllyD (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about the book in reliable sources. The Hindu item was just a listing of stuff that was released with no critical information beyond being a simple directory entry. If as claimed above, the novel is becoming popular, then there may be coverage in reliable sources in the future, and then would be the time for creating this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 6 November 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. postdlf (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People's Club

edit
People's Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of clubs deemed by someone (the author, I would imagine) as being 'People's Clubs.' No independent sources back that assumption. A check for sources about the English "people's club" (since I can't read any other language) seems to be all Liverpool forums and blogs about Everton F.C. (a cross-town rival to Liverpool F.C) and their failed attempt to trademark the term. Seems entirely non-notable. Achowat (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Legend of the Ice People. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ice People 4 - Desire

edit
The Ice People 4 - Desire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable novel that fails to meet WP:NBOOKS. — ṞṈ™ 05:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It looks like there might be a language barrier here, but I also want to state that there's a huge article for the series as a whole as well as for a few of the individual entries. I think it might be worthwhile to lump all of them together in one AfD because there seems to be issues of notability for the series as a whole due to the lack of overall sources. Considering that the series has released this year (according to the articles), this might be a series of articles that were just prematurely added.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll correct myself- the series as a whole does seem to be notable enough to have an entry and the series was originally published in the 80s. I'm just not sure that there's enough sources to show notability for the individual entries just yet, but if there is then we do need to update them to show when they were originally published.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio from the blurb on the back, which is reproduced independently here [17]. Also we should get rid of any other articles in this series which consist of nothing more than copyvio+name+publication date. Morwen - Talk 19:14, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Vistabella

edit
Hotel Vistabella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. — ṞṈ™ 07:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's only just not unambiguously promotional too. A good description of a hotel, but not an encyclopaedia article. Interestingly, the French WP has deleted their version as spam, the German under Wikipedia:Was Wikipedia nicht ist, and I can't for the life of me say what the Spanish reason was. I'm going for non-notable here, unless a mass of refs appear. Peridon (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication or evidence of notability That is unless a hotel star rating is taken as innately indicating notability, but I would regard it as just an in-industry rating. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not 'in-industry' - in Spain it's a (regional) government issue (but pretty standard all over). The minimum accommodation must be "Double room 17 m2 minimum, single room 10 m2 minimum, bathroom (bath and shower) 5 m2 minimum, telephone in room, central heating, air conditioning in room, lift, bar, safety deposit box in room." for 5 stars, according to CEHAT at http://www.cehat.com/frontend/cehat/Hotel-Classification-System-In-Spain-vn2682-vst328 (they are the Spanish Hoteliers and Lodgings Confederation in a rough translation). So it's posh but not of necessity notable. With restaurants, it's less of 'never mind the quality, feel the width'. Michelin stars are awarded by professional inspectors (oh, what a job!) and refer to the quality of food and service not to the size of the dining room and whether or not there is air-conditioning. Peridon (talk) 22:36, 3 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climb It, Tarzan!

edit
Climb It, Tarzan! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is wholly unsourced, non-notable film, insufficient information to verify and identify the subject (e.g. Writers of the film, producers, cast, release date(s), gross, budget, etc.). Fails WP:NFILM Mediran talk|contribs 06:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google News provided zero evidence of reliable third-party sources. A main Google search, unsurprisingly, provides videos and other unhelpful links. 20:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)SwisterTwister talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 2 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2014 U18 Sitting volleyball World Championship

edit
2014 U18 Sitting volleyball World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to mention why this event is notable and there are no sources at all in the article. Additionally, it appears that this event is occurring in 2014 and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; however, in cases like this, that is not a relevant reason for an AfD - for example, the 2018 FIFA World Cup article, which of course is about an event that has not started yet (nor have any qualifiers been played for it). As to its notability, I know absolutely nothing about seated volleyball, so can't say whether the article should be deleted or kept. At the very least, however, it needs sources and a major amount of expanding, as it is just an entry list at present. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:41, 29 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete as hoax/lies - it says 12 nations took place in a competition held in 2014, and it's not even 2013 yet? Don't think so. Perhaps a sourced article could be written about an upcoming event. Morwen - Talk 18:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete U18 sports events aren't intrinsically notable even if they're world championships, and I see no evidence that there is enough discussion in independent reliable sources to meet the WP:GNG general notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Non-admin closure. AfD is the wrong forum for merger proposals. To request a merger, see Help:Merging#Proposing a merger.--xanchester (t) 09:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Prince

edit
Diana Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article needed to be merged with Wonder Woman article as even real people do not receive separate articles for aliases. Needed and important overview of the article has been included in the main Wonder Woman page with updates. WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Krogzilla

edit
Krogzilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established through references, and it is not inherited from Cory Edwards. Most sources are primary sources, and the reliable, third-party sources do not contain cursory mentions, not significant coverage. No prejudice against this being a redirect of the series being mentioned on Edwards's page. I don't know much about the significant involvement argument in WP:NF, but I'm not convinced that this applies here. Ost (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's coverage from USA Today as already cited in the article, and also Chicago Tribune here link, and also from Anderson University here link. FWIW it's worth noting there's coverage in the form of an interview at a source called Bubble Blabber, and also Youbentmywookie, though those last two might be more suitable as external links or Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other parts of WP:GNG are satisfied, but I still don't see significant coverage. Only the Anderson University and Bubble Blabber links "address the subject directly in detail", and you yourself question the reliability of the latter. —Ost (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added the Anderson University article as an external link and actually found a second article from Animation Magazine that covers Krogzilla in more detail. [18] Its a fairly short article, but Krogzilla is its primary focus. I added that as a reference. WP:SIGCOV doesn't seem to specify how many sources are needed, but it seems to me that between these, there are at least two independent, reliable sources that cover the series in detail. --Jpcase (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am the editor who created the article and will actually admit that it is not one of the more notable articles on Wikipedia. I do however, feel that it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.
The series was created by a professional filmmaker and features professional actors in the cast. Wikipedia's notability guideline for film (WP:NF) states that significant involvement by a notable person may be enough to confer notability on a topic. I agree with Ost that WP:FN might not be applicable to this article, but I am not entirely convinced that should not be.
Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content (WP:WEB) states that the association of a notable person does not confer notability upon web content. The page does not make any specific mention of online videos, but it does define web content as "any content which is distributed solely on the Internet", and that definition would match Krogzilla.
Personally though, I feel that Krogzilla falls within the territory of both guidelines. It is a series of professionally made short films that have simply been released on the internet, instead of DVD or television. I believe that this is a fairly new way of releasing professionally made content and when the guidelines for web content were written, something like Krogzilla probably was not taken into account. WP:WEB gives the example of a website not being notable simply because it is maintained by a notable person. That's perfectly reasonable, but is a very different situation from a webseries. When it comes to videos, the guidelines on WP:WEB probably mean that the Don't Tase Me Bro YouTube video isn't notable simply because it features John Kerry or that any video of a concert/sports game uploaded to the internet isn't notable simply because it features famous musicians/athletes.
Furthermore, this series has been mentioned by several reliable, independent sources. In addition to those mentioned by Cirt, Krogzilla has been mentioned by Variety [19], the Los Angeles Times [20], Animation Magazine [21], and cartoonbrew.com [22]. Granted, none of these articles go into much detail on Krogzilla, but I feel that different amounts of coverage should be expected for different articles. As I said, Krogzilla is not one of the more notable articles on Wikipedia; it's not a feature film or a long-running television series aired on a major network. It's a series of ten 3-minute-long cartoons that have been uploaded to YouTube. The fact that it has simply been taken note of by such highly esteemed news sources is an amazing feat that should be enough to illustrate its notability. --Jpcase (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Hetherington case

edit
AfDs for this article:
William Hetherington case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the sources on the page are either original research or dead links. Perpetualization (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both the findarticles.com links are dead, yes. So I've corrected one to be a reference to the actual original (offline) article. I can't immediately find out the details of the other one so easily, but it presumably exists. Morwen - Talk 17:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Insight article already in the article is accessible for those with Highbeam accounts. Also see [26], and [27] if you have Highbeam access as two more magazine articles about the case. Add to that the coverage behind other pay walls as mentioned above and we have sufficient coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rohnert Park (album)

edit
Rohnert Park (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability for music recordings per WP:MUSIC. No assertion of importance or references. - MrX 16:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, MrX. I understand that this article is sparse right now. I'm currently working on filling out this article with more background information and references, and I'm going to contest the notability claims. Ceremony's previous albums are widely viewed as classics in the hardcore punk canon, and Rohnert Park is their first full-length release after their tour with AFI. Thanks. Ozhu (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several independent reviews exist as well as some print articles on HighBeam. The article should still assert the album's importance, but otherwise meets notability guidelines. - MrX 01:50, 6 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Cruder

edit
Jana Cruder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). No significant coverage of Jana Cruder in independent sources found at Google News, Questia, HighBeam, ProQuest or General OneFile. There's plenty of self-generated hits at commercial galleries and social media, and some photo credits and acknowledgements, but nothing in independent sources that cover the subject in depth. Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've talked about your hatred of WP:GNG before and your belief of no rules should apply on Wikipedia, but it is still a rule. You have to have independent, reliable references ABOUT Cruder. Having photos of hers does not pass GNG, but shows she is a working photographer. Bgwhite (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. For "significant coverage" we have a mainstream press writeup and (more importantly) clear evidence that this individual has produced a wide body of top-level (i.e. "notable") work. For "reliable sources" I went with as close to the original source as possible. It's one thing to cite a bunch of stuff on Flickr, it's quite another to dig deeper. Is all of this "independent of the subject"? It's pretty clear the subject was published instead of did the publishing, now isn't it?
I have no issue with GNG. There's plenty around here that doesn't make the cut. Evidently I just have a considerably more liberal viewpoint on the matter. There's certainly no need for personal attacks. Faustus37 (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear these "independent sources" are only photo credits. As with Wikipedia:Notability (books), Wikipedia:Notability (film), Wikipedia:Notability (music), the existence of artwork is insufficient. The artwork, photos in this case, needed to have won a major award, have charted sales, been historically significant, etc. Or the photographer has to be the subject of multiple significant articles. Photo credits alone don't cut it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 5 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cuff

edit
Sean Cuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a football player who has not played a professional league match and does not meet the general notability guideline. Note that appearing on the bench is not taking part in professional sport. Cloudz679 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 12:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pipeline (film)

edit
Pipeline (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The status of this film, made by the director's production company, is not clear. IMDb lists it as released in 2007, AllMovie as 2006, and Rotten Tomatoes as 2006, with no reviews; but the production company's website shows it still "in development". The only independent comment I have found was a 2005 interview with the director before it was made. Does not meet WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 2 November 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 Jennifer Aaker. MBisanz talk 00:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions of brand personality

edit
Dimensions of brand personality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really sure this merits a Wikipedia article. Seems like it fails WP:GNG, even though it could be merged (or not) to Jennifer Aaker. SarahStierch (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 October 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, Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Avanesyan

edit
Robert Avanesyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a biographical article of a living person, however, it fails the basic criteria for notability of a person which states that he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. A Google search reviews that the subject is a relatively obscure wrestler who is not decorated in the sport with only trivial coverage. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I took a look at that myself, and the guidelines say at the "highest level." For Greco-Roman wrestling the highest level would be the Olympics. We could have literally hundreds of articles on obscure Greco-Roman wrestlers if we were to include all participants in the Amateur Wrestling Championships and the European Wrestling Championships which occur annually. Also, the lone source in the article to establish notability is of trivial coverage and not primarily related to the subject. Holyfield1998 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - by your logic a runner like Donald Paige who competed at the Pan Am Games, but missed the Olympics due the boycott would not notable. In the absence of specific wrestler notability guidelines, competing at a World Championships is considered a level high enough to pass the notability guideline. The number of articles on "obscure" wrestlers that could be made is meaningless - as Wikipedia is not limited by the number of articles on athletes provided they meet notability standards. --Yankees76 Talk 14:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The main difference between Donald Paige and Robert Avanesyan is that Donald Paige is highly decorated in the sport, being ranked #1 at one point, had set the American record in the sport, and is the subject of multiple published secondary sources so Baige qualifies for other reasons listed. Robert Avanesyan on the other hand lacks all the aforementioned so I do not believe he meets the notability standards. Holyfield1998 (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I myself would say that the World Championships for wrestling is not at the highest level is also an opinion.

Who are you anyway Holyfield? You've been trying to delete everything I edit since you joined two days ago. There's no way someone who has been on Wikipedia for two days knows enough about the rules to debate if an article should be deleted or not. You seem like a sock to me. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Avanesyan's lack of success internationally in his sport does not diminish his notability. He merely needs to compete at a World Championships, Olympics or other major international competition at the highest level. He's done this. Therefore by Wikipedia standards, he's notable enough to have his own article. See also Elis Guri or Cenk İldem. --Yankees76 Talk 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Both examples of Guri and İldem are highly decorated in their sport by medaling (Gold for Guri and Bronze for İldem) so those two have achieved international success while Avanesyan has not. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can you point to me the pertinent Wikipedia notability guideline for wrestlers that says wrestlers who medal in an event are notable, while those who do not, at the same Championships, are not? --Yankees76 Talk 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I wasn't at all suggesting that medaling in those events is what made Guri and İldem notable alone. Both Guri and İldem also participated at the Olympics and a Google search reveal many notable secondary sources about the two. So they would meet notability for different reasons. The same cannot be said of Avanesyan. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wrestling isn't listed on the WP page Yankees linked. But most of the sports accept people who've competed at the World Championships and Olympics. The Olympics are only considered more special because of how media treats it. In the end, the only difference between the Olympics and World championships is that the Olympics usually takes place less often. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no specific policy on wrestling which has gained consensus so we can't just apply the policies of other sports to wrestling as if it is approved policy which has gained the consensus of the community. Note that some sports such as Triathlon require a podium finish at the next highest level outside of the Olympics and merely particpating is not sufficient. As a result, we have to use the general guidelines to evaluate. Holyfield1998 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the general guidelines? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, and the generally acceptable standards says "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." Since the World Championships is a major international competition at the highest level and since there are no exceptions in a specific section for wrestling, Avanesyan passes the generally accepted standards for notability. See WP:ATHLETE. --Yankees76 Talk 16:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is a part of this debate. I myself would say that the World Championships for wrestling is not at the highest level, with the Olympics holding this sole distinction. Holyfield1998 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that's a strawman argument. Any sports World Championships are the highest level of competition in that sport. Wrestling is no different.--Yankees76 Talk 16:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That is an opinion and not policy, there's no policy on Wikipedia stating any World Championships are at the highest level. Holyfield1998 (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you may wish the change the Wikipedia article for World championship then (or maybe nominate that for deletion too). --Yankees76 Talk 16:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks for pointing that out, it should be changed as it is uncited and is possibly written in a POV manner. But again, a Wikipedia article that anyone can write is not policy. Holyfield1998 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that's beside the point. The International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles (FILA) is the sports governing body with Representatives from 174 national federations; and is also the body responsible for supervising Olympic wrestling,. Their World Championships is the highest level of competition for that sport. This isn't opinion, and there certainly isn't a Wikipedia policy required to confirm this. Saying that a World Championships is not the highest level of competition because of a lack of Wikipedia policy saying so is a strawman argument. Note WP:ATHLETE's wording - "such as" the Olympics. Not "only" the Olympics to the exclusion of all other international competition. The Olympics are given as an example. If you wish to present your case as to why the FILA Wrestling World Championships should not be considered a "major international competition at the highest level", you should do so now. --Yankees76 Talk 16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Debating this is the purpose of this nomination no? As for a strawman argument, I could say your same reasoning is an informal fallacy as well. I think we are both firm in our opinions and we have both made our points pretty clear so lets see how this nomination turns out. Holyfield1998 (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ehud Vaks is a very similar case to Avanesyan because he has had little international success but is still notable for political reasons and has at least competed on a high level. Wrestling isn't listed on the WP page Yankees linked. But most of the sports accept people who've competed at the World Championships and Olympics. And Holyfield, stop stalking my edits or I'll get the Admins involved. You are clearly a sock of someone who was banned. Stop or I'll see to it you are banned again. TheShadowCrow (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Vaks case is quite different because he did compete at the Olympics so his notability is not being questioned. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 October 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, MBisanz talk 10:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A participant at an international championship tournament does not equate with participation at the Olympics, in my estimation. That's ultimately the question that this comes down to, does it not, whether or not such participation is sufficient for a pass under the special guideline for athletes? Carrite (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All, please note the wording in WP:ATHLETE "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they: have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." This does not mean that it's Olympics or nothing. Numerous athletes compete at World Championships for their sport, whether it's track, hockey, wrestling, rugby, boxing, cricket, baseketball etc but do not compete at the Olympics for numerous reasons (injury, boycott, poor qualifying results). "The Olympics" in the guideline are merely used as an example, not as the only sporting event that makes an athlete notable. One should consider World Championships and World Cups as a major international amateur or professional competition. Like the Olympics, the highest ranked athletes from each country attend and compete at these events. Also it should be noted that Avanesyan's mediocre placings at these events does not affect his notabilty - he merely needs to compete, or otherwise WP:ATHLETE would say "win" or "place" instead of "participate" (and if it does and I'm missing something, please direct me to the appropriate guideline). Thanks. --Yankees76 Talk 19:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I notice. The question is, does a participant in a so-called world championship tournament of a third tier sporting event accorded an auto-pass under the (ludicrously out of step with the other special guidelines of Wikipedia) WP:ATHLETE? I'm fine with auto-passes for Olympians. This does not rise to that level, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting discussion. Since there is no specific guidelines for wrestling, I checked the guidelines for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) and boxing (WP:NBOX). MANOTE talks about being an Olympic participant, world champion, or "repeated medalist in another significant event", while NBOX says you need to be ranked in the world top 10 or have been in a bout for the world title. Avanesyan doesn't seem to meet either of these criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At the end of the day, it looks like the subject of the article fails WP:N as Mtking stated or more specifically, WP:GNG which states there should be significant coverage of the subject and not just trivial coverage. And as Ymblanter mentioned, this does look like a WP:ONEEVENT case. Holyfield1998 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my comment above, no sources have been forthcoming that demonstrates notability. Mtking (edits) 06:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - after reading through the comments, I think that Avanesyan requires more coverage for him to be considered notable enough for this own article. As of now I don't believe that there is enough WP:RS material for an editor to create an article that would pass a WP:GAN - World Championship appearance or not. While he may be the best wrestler in Israel at this weight category, it appears that his third party coverage is lacking and despite a number of hours wasted I could not even locate his birth date or place. I change my opinion to Delete. Great feedback from all. Thanks. --Yankees76 Talk 15:58, 5 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James Norman

edit
James Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has poor-quality references (most of the links are broken) and the text is self-aggrandizing:

  • "recognized as one of the world’s foremost authorities on calcium metabolism, parathyroid disease, and parathyroid surgery" -- by whom? How long has this sentence been here?
  • "Approximately 2,300 patients a year are operated on by Norman and his team at the Norman Parathyroid Center annually,[3] comprising 11% of all parathyroid operations performed in the United States annually and more than 10 times as many as any other institution worldwide.[4][5][6]" -- he authored two of the three references cited here himself, and the third one doesn't support the assertion.
  • "He has published over 250 peer-reviewed articles in scientific medical journals, books and/or book chapters.[9] He is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons [10] and the American College of Endocrinology[11] and is a member of over a dozen medical societies." -- Lots of other physicians and academics are published and don't merit Wikipedia entries; I have been unable to independenty verify that he has indeed published 250 articles, and the fact that he is a member of the usual professional societies for his field has no bearing whatsoever on his notability.
  • "He has been chosen as one of “America’s Top Surgeons”[12] annually since 2003." -- This "America's Top Surgeons" award is given out by a for-profit professional services directory posing as a consumer organization.
  • "He was awarded US and foreign patents for the techniques of MIRP surgery.[16] He now holds six patents in several disciplines.[17][18][19]" -- So what? I know several people personally who have, between them, dozens of patents. Do they all deserve a Wikipedia entry?

I've read the previous AFD discussion, and at first I tried to fix this article, but it's clear that I can't do that without deleting more than half of it. It breaches the Wikipedia policy on at least three levels -- it looks and reads like an advertisement, it doesn't meet the notability guidelines for biographies because none of the secondary sources are impartial or reliable, and beyond that the sources are either primary or of poor quality. My search for better secondary sources turns up nothing but more material written by the man himself. In the two years since it was nominated for deletion, this article has hardly improved. Rhombus (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is utter WP:SPAM written by the doctor himself. He thinks he's notable because he's a doctor who knows how to use the Internet?? LOLOL. That is such a laughable claim that it makes you wonder how he ever managed to earn any degrees in anything. No WP:RS at all available to establish any notability of any kind. He's hoping that by writing about himself here, he can make a few more bucks while stroking his own ego. That's what these WP:AUTO cases almost always boil down to. At least he had the "integrity" to write his own article instead of paying some wiki-sock-farm hack to do it, which is what a lot of desperate doctors are doing these days. Qworty (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Qworty. Where's the evidence that he wrote it himself? The article was created by "Markslatham", an apparently inactive user, so it looks more like sock-puppetry than "honest" Wikidoctoring. I suspect Rvflyboy is also a sock-puppet. --Rhombus (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Well, you've certainly given us a ringing endorsement for the article. Qworty (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did a lot of ripping out to try to bring the article into compliance with WP:BLP. The article now carries absolutely zero significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. The one paragraph in the middle that might possibly make this a worthwhile Wikipedia article is entirely unsourced. This guy probably would pass WP:PROF if sourcing could be found. Zad68 15:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep. High cites of 1656, 887, 434, 305, 282, 232, 218, 211, 172,196.... albeit with large author numbers in a highly cited area in Google scholar gives a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. If somebody would find WoS citations this would be helpful. I find the prejudicial tone of some of the deletion arguments to be unWikipedian. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Web of Science with "AU=(Norman J*) AND (SH=(LIFE SCIENCES BIOMEDICINE) OR WC=(Multidisciplinary Sciences)) Refined by: Web of Science Categories=( SURGERY ) AND Document Types=( ARTICLE )" gets citation counts of 231, 178, 171, 171, 137, 112, 110, 108, 101... with an h-index of 35. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this info. It shows a very clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Zad68 has deleted the spam. Norman's papers are indeed cited by many other authors. In addition to the third party references, this is sufficient to keep the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I was unable to confirm the above highly-cited Google Scholar citations (there are a lot of people with names similar to James Norman). But these did seem to be definitely by the subject: this cited 304 times, this cited 231 times, this cited 143 times. The first two were abstracts of talks given at a meeting, rather than peer-reviewed articles, but their high number of citations would imply that their peers have accepted them. This is probably enough to qualify him as a leading expert in his very narrow field. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dearth of independent, reliable sources (WP:N), even after the cleanup. And remember that Google Scholar "cite counts" are inflated (WP:Prof#Citation metrics) and do not form a reliable basis for AfD decisions. As far as I can tell, this fails WP:PROF and otherwise fails WP:BIO. Show me the notability. czar · · 08:13, 1 November 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, MBisanz talk 10:42, 2 November 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 HighBAR Ventures. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Thiele-Sardiña

edit
Roy Thiele-Sardiña (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG because there is zero coverage in reliable sources that is substantially about him, let alone to a degree that would lend to a encyclopedic biography. A few passing mentions generally cover another topic entirely, and when this person is quoted, it's always about something else, which isn't significant coverage of this person. While passing mention in a few moderately reliable sources is probably enough to garner a mention in related articles (i.e., companies that might actually pass WP:CORPDEPTH, and where due weight permits), a stand-alone biography is unmerited. Otherwise, his accomplishments fall short of WP:ANYBIO for lack of significant impact as demonstrated by any reliable source; it's hard to see what claims, even those made by press releases and self-publications, are actually significant. Note several of the cites currently in the article don't even mention the subject. JFHJr (㊟) 14:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 19 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to HighBAR Ventures. I've looked around and I agree with the nom that all there's available online are passing mentions or quotes that don't indicate notability of the subject, but his name comes up associated with HighBAR a lot so a redirect seems in order — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 30 October 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, MBisanz talk 10:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Given that virtually nothing links to this article, what would the utility be in redirecting? This name is a rather implausible, useless redirect I think. He's not even borderline notable. That said, consensus may indicate redirecting is the best result in this case. JFHJr (㊟) 20:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects serve not only for internal links but also to assist the search facility, so that readers arrive directly to an article instead of the search results page. I might agree that it would implausible if it had a dab term like (software engineer), but it's just the subject's name, and being somewhat of a public figure it is not unreasonable to imagine that someone might come to WP looking for information on them — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 2 November 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. Withdrawn by nominator, no delete !votes, meets notability guidelines, no point in keeping this open. Although I'm technically involved in the discussion, that would seem to be irrelevant in this case because there are no remaining contentious issues. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breyer horse

edit
Breyer horse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Smells a lot like spam, no references support why the company Breyer is notable enough to have a separate page (besides, any notable content could easily be included in model horse 1292simon (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sorry for the fuss. On the basis of the info above I now realise it should be kept and renamed to Breyer Animal Collections. It would be great if some people could help improve it, it has been in a poor state for a long time. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 21:35, 3 November 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. Many opinions on both sides of the discussion are entirely beside the point and are discounted, but one important principal argument for deletion - that the text is almost entirely unsourced original research - has not been seriously addressed by "keep" opinions. As verifiability and the prohibition of original research are core policies and can't be overridden by editorial consensus, the article is deleted. This is without prejudice to a less deficient recreation.  Sandstein  08:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C++ grammar

edit
C++ grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT TheChampionMan1234 09:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear TheChampionMan1234, can you please, be more specific? WP:NPOV contains about 10 subsections; WP:NOT contains 16 clauses. What exactly is violated? In what part of my article do you see a biased point of view? I am ready to improve my article and more than willing to respond to constructive input. --User:Code-Analysis 12:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC) It is not clear to me who and when can rate an article. Ratings are displayed as grey to me. Is there a page that describes this? (I cannot find).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally unconvincing WP:VAGUEWAVE by the nominator. Article is a legitimate content fork from C++ and can be easily cited to Stoustrup (or, for an alternative point of view, this) - well, maybe not all of it, but sufficient to keep the article. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a week old. Has the nominator made any effort to either improve this article, or to raise the issues with its creator? As it stands, this is far too much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to C++#Parsing and processing C++ source code. This article uses a lot of space to say almost nothing (encyclopedic). Even if not perfect, the section present in the main article already does a much better job on this topic. —Ruud 10:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could potentially expand into a *very* useful article- information on C++ grammar has been spread out across the web and out of date, and this article could be a source of up-to-date information on this important area. The authors have already noted additional areas they plan on expanding. Jeez- don't be so quick to cut down an article in progress! (this AfD discussion should at least be delayed for a year or two). 121.45.218.101 (talk) 07:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Progression of this article is inherently going to be slow because its subject is a little esoteric and finding experts who also know their way around Wikipedia will take some time. The (presumed) expert who created the article just hasn't been around very long and may need some help with citations/encyclopedic style. I am sure the article will be of interest to a good number of people, and very helpful once it is written in a more accessible style. hajatvrc @ 02:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:UGLY, an article may not have sufficient sources, but it can be improved by adding sources. ZappaOMati 03:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And per WP:UNSOURCED, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Volumes exist on C++ grammar but none were cited to support the content of this article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, the primary reasons for deletion are verifiability, notability, copyright violations, and WP:NOT; none of the aforementioned apply here. Go Phightins! 04:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Article is mostly original research. No sources at all are listed. The illustrations are the author's own work to illustrate his original text.
  2. Article reads like a textbook or how to manual which violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and WP:NOTMANUAL.
  3. Article is too technical and detailed for a general encyclopedia. It might become suitable if completely rewritten in accordance with the Manuel of Style similar to articles The C++ Programming Language and C++.
DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 04:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like the creator had sources in the article, but may have inadvertently left them in User:Code-Analysis/sandbox. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted a note on the creator's talk suggesting he move them to the article. I agree, it looks like he just forgot, but I didn't want to do it for him in case that wasn't the intention. Go Phightins! 04:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is notable in its own right. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 20:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While to original deletion rationale wasn't particularly enlightening, most the keep votes here seem equally atrocious. Could those in favour of keeping this article at least give a decent rational for this. Referring to some reliable sources would be more convincing than an assertion from (perhaps not always existing) authority.
    1. I have some doubt about this article indeed being a valid encyclopedic topic. The "abstract and concrete syntax of C++" the "parsing of C++ source code" most certainly are, but we already have a decent start of these topics at C++#Parsing and processing C++ source code and this article is under much vaguer title "C++ grammar".
    2. The actual content of the article is mostly incorrect, incomprehensible or original research ("It contains only the most important information that builds the frame of the language.", "This is why the table below contains 2 separate lines for the number of rules. The first line counts lengthy enumeration as one rule. The second line counts all rules of the section.", "If somebody will carefully type this section of the grammar into a file and try to compile it, this will result in several syntax errors because the text of the standard contains typos.", etc.). This article is so poorly written that I don't see how it could be improved without starting from scratch, or better, by expanding on C++#Parsing and processing C++ source code.
—Ruud 22:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The C++ language is notable subject, but I feel that we'd better off to integrate appropriate bits of this article into C++ or similar article and delete the rest. The article in its current state is so nonspecific that it's almost useless. Improving it is also not an option, I think, because a proper description of the C++ grammar would fall within WP:NOT. There's very little that can be said about the grammar except its definition in some grammar notation (say BNF) and how it is used, both of which are discouraged by the spirit of WP:NOTMANUAL. All in all, I believe an article about C++ grammar would be a very good entry in an appropriate Wikibook, but not here, in Wikipedia. 1exec1 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch to Delete. My original thought, and the reason I voted to keep, was that in my initial read-through I just saw it as very sloppily done. I now see that the page creator links to his website from his user page, and seems to just be trying to sell a product. I agree that it is very manual-like and that in places it seems like it is a bad lecture, but had assumed that this was by accident and that it could be fixed. I agree that the effort should be put into expanding C++#Parsing and processing C++ source code, and think that this should be done under the watchful eyes of those already active in the relevant WikiProjects. hajatvrc @ 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with C++#Parsing and processing C++ source code. There is a lot of stuff which seems unverifiable or overly detailed. But there are a few bits that I wouldn’t want to remove from Wikipedia, like the background on grammars, or the examples (though they could be simpler). Vadmium (talk, contribs) 02:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for everybody who participated. Please, continue commenting, while I will answer some of the concerns here and finish updating the main article in 1-2 days.

The goals of the article (some of them maybe still not achieved):

  • C++ has formal grammars that are presented in the standards (C++03, C++11);
  • These grammars are not directly accessible, except for unofficial (and thus not 100% credible) citations; I can certify authenticity of one of them, but this will be only my honest word.
  • Compilers and parsers use their own grammars (that are often not published at all);
  • There are 2 primary reasons for not using grammar from the standard: extensions/omissions, grammar from the standard is not perfect for using in the parser.
  • To build the C++ parser the grammar is not enough; conflict resolution code is needed. Exact ways of resolving conflicts IS original research and is NOT in the scope of the article.
  • C++ grammar can be used for this and this; It cannot be used for this a and this. Details on "this and this" are either already in the article or not there yet.

I believe these facts are not result of original research; they are not known to everybody while are of public interest. For example look at how this topic is mentioned on www.stackoverflow.com:

Let me put some of my thoughts:

  • Articles on the theory of parsing: Parse tree, Abstract syntax tree, LR parsing, Formal grammar. All these articles contain examples. In 3 out of 4 articles examples are in form of trees. The formal grammar of C++ is designed according to more general theory that is described in these articles. My article also contains an example. Result of processing this example is also a tree. I believe that my tree is not more specific than trees from other articles above.
  • I believe that language of my article is not more academic than the language of the articles above. This is for "3.Article is too technical and detailed..." from DocTree.
  • Articles like Comparison of parser generators, List of compilers. Both articles contain long lists of projects. I think that this article should contain list of references to C++ grammars that are used in existing parsers and/or analysis tools.
  • My own contribution in the area. Yes, I have my own C++ parser. This can be considered as proof of my knowledge and credibility on the subject. Articles should be written by people who know the subject. I do no mention my parser in the article in any way. I am absolutely sure that all material in the article is
    • correct;
    • based on known sources (primarily C++ standard);
    • not biased.

Code-Analysis (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:OR (changed from unreferenced above). Stuartyeates (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to abstain/stay neutral I don't know enough about C++ go make an informed judgment and I was told by someone who is familiar with C++ who told me this is not salvageable. That said, I'm not going to !vote delete just because of that, which leaves me here in the neutral column. Go Phightins! 03:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is not for specialists on C++ grammar. It is intended for those who want to get acquainted with the subject and to understand problems than arise when you deal with C++ grammar. Ans as such, it is quite valuable. Of course, it requires external links, but they were already included. krmm1965 (talk) 4:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — krmm1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete it's too far from an encyclopedia article at this point. If someone wants to radically rewrite this essay/lecture notes into a real article, it can be userfied. Gigs (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear everybody, I see that several comments state that:

  • This is original research. At the same time nobody mentioned any specific place in my article that contains new information that was not known before. Please, point at these places, I will promptly find relevant sources or update the text that it will not look like OR.
  • Looks like a manual. It is not clear to me what is this manual on? C++ grammar? Something else? I was not planning to cover all details of the C++ grammar. The topic is big. In this case it will be a manual.Code-Analysis (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I updated places that are directly mentioned above. Still planning to make major changes.

I've added some tags to help you spot the some problems. As you can see there is almost no part of the article that isn't problematic in some way. Additionally, the article seems to focus too much how your LR parser works instead of describing—based on reliable sources—how notable parsers, such as the one from Edison Design Group, are implemented. —Ruud 22:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to further specify that much of it is written in an essay- or lecture-like style that requires such content to be re-written completely.
This is not how an encyclopedia is written; it is how an opinion essay is written. This is in part why we do not advise that people with a conflict of interest with a particular subject, such as having a direct professional interest in "informing" people about it, create/write articles on it. Sure, people do all the time, but some are better at hiding their conflict of interest than others. What we at Wikipedia refer to as original research is drawing on personal experience rather than taking information directly from established, reliable sources. Personal experience helps, but it should not be the basis of the content. Gigs talked about userfication of the article, meaning moving it out of the encyclopedia namespace so that it can be worked on for the extended period of time that this probably calls for without it being easily visible. I would support this to give you time to read up on the appropriate style of Wikipedia articles, but it still would not guarantee that the article would ultimately be accepted (there are legitimate concerns for why the topic should not have its own article, see above). hajatvrc @ 00:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep, gut, and rewrite badly written article with many problems on entirely notable topic. -Fjozk (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - User:Code-Analysis is the main contributor to the C++ grammar article. He/she runs a website[50] through which Code-Analysis can be hired to perform C++ programming services.[51] That codestructureanalysis.com website has the headings: Home| Services| C++ Grammar | Examples of Analysis | Contacts. The Wikipedia article C++ grammar is derived from the | C++ Grammar | information posted at the codestructureanalysis.com. Annex A of ISO/IEC 14882 (pages 667 and on) sets out a summary of the C++ syntax as a grammar summary, which already is discussed in Parsing and processing C++ source code. WP:NOTHOWTO restricts the amount of details there can be on C++ syntax summary/C++ grammar. I think the article was posted with good intentions by a relatively new user, but not consistent with the way articles are developed in Wikipedia, particularly in a popular topic areas such as C++. I agree with Ruud, DocTree, 1exec1, hajatvrc, Gigs, etc. Delete. User:Code-Analysis, a good way to gain experience in developing Wikipedia articles is to pick any article in Category:C++ and expand by adding sourced information to it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:38, 10 November 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 under CSD:G5 Elockid (Talk) 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K. V. Jacob

edit
K. V. Jacob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person is just a well educated bureaucrat. Most of the edits are done by only different contributors who seems to have a WP:CoI regarding the subject matter and are possibly socks of vrghs jacob. Apart from that I don't see anything here other than him being a mid-level apparatchik. (Harishrawat11 (talk) 09:32, 2 November 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vientiane United

edit
Vientiane United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable. I couldn't find a reliable source indicating that this club is for real. This may be due to a lack of sources in a Latinized alphabet, and perhaps sources in Laotian are available which prove me wrong. However, I had no problem finding sources for other Laotian clubs, making this one dubious. The previous two incarnations (one speedied, one prodded) were created by other users. Konekham Inthammavong, one of the players claimed in such a previous incarnation to be a member of Vientaine United actually plays for a different team, Lao Bank FC. [52]. The article Vientiane United F.C. also has been speedy deleted three times as a hoax. The only club I could find was Vientiane Capital FC[53]. Establishing once and for all whether this team exists and plays in the Laotian premier league may put an end to these creations and deletions. Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a hoax. Delete unless an actual source is provided and I am proven wrong. Lao League claims that it's one of the teams who play in the league: we probably need to find a reliable source for that list, too. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N Dengero (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 2 November 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.  Sandstein  15:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Viola

edit
Humberto Viola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An Argentine captain whose only claim to notability is being killed by guerrillas. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several sources that mention the subject while discussing the time period [54] [55] [56] (more), and it appears that the condemnation of his daughter's assassination effectively brought an end to the retaliation row that the EPR started after the massacre of Capilla de Rosario. It would be feasible to merge to a suitable article if necessary, but the content falls well within Wikipedia's scope, and a standalone article is not inappropriate given the sources available — Frankie (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge). Yes, one event - but a quick GNews search shows that the subject's assassination is still being talked about in Argentina nearly forty years later, and GBooks also produces a number of accounts of the assassination in both Spanish and English which make it clear that it had a significant effect in escalating the Dirty War. No objection, though, to moving the article to, say, Assassination of Humberto Viola (in fact, I'd rather support this) or merging it as a section in a suitable longer article. PWilkinson (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or merge). His death seems to be notable, even if he is not. Still, relevant information that should be kept in this article or merged into another.Alwhorl (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The es.wiki version is more comprehensive and supportive of notability of the subject. Death is a notable event in Argentine history. If must engage in the facade of moving to Murder of .... I guess that's possible too.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's substantial coverage in one book showing in the footnotes. HERE'S ANOTHER, Masters of War: Latin America and U.S. Agression From the Cuban Revolution through the Clinton Years, by Clara Nieto. There was also a retaliation bombing by right wingers on the 1 year anniversary of the subject's death, giving further evidence that this is not a run of the mill killing but rather one with lasting historic or sociological importance. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 2 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tat (consumer item classification)

edit
Tat (consumer item classification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a completely uncited essay about an everyday concept. Lacking citations, the discussion of economic effects must be assumed to be the author's own speculation. I have attempted a Google search, but there are too many terms and acronyms reading "tat". Nothing evidently relevant showed up. I think it is not notable. Stfg (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete? This is weird. On one hand the deletion nomination reckons it is an "everyday concept", which would make it immediately notable. On the other, indeed I can't find anything else on the concept apart from its vocabulary definition and some usage of it in books. The page looks totally like WP:OR now however. I wonder if there is a suitable redirect, if not, let's delete, without prejudice for recreation if sources are found. --Cyclopiatalk 00:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be all for keeping it, if it's a commonly used word/concept, but we need reliable sources to write an article on it, and we can find none. Do you have any? --Cyclopiatalk 17:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look around. The reason I found this page was that during a conversation with an American friend, I used the word tat and he had never heard it before. I have used the word throughout my life and I think you'll find most English people understand the word and it's usage. The thrust of the article is correct, but it needs citation and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.62.85 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, unless there are reliable sources discussing the concept, it's probably better suited for Wiktionary. --Cyclopiatalk 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:16, 2 November 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. Nouniquenames 17:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Meaning of Liff

edit
The Meaning of Liff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally a disputed prod, no longer unsourced, but one source. I am having difficulty finding evidence of notability. Nouniquenames 05:13, 2 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Minds' Australian Tour 2012

edit
Simple Minds' Australian Tour 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent external sources. Fails WP:NCONCERT. LK (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) LK (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now a reliable (official) source... Lurulu (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But not an independent one. The guideline requires that the tour has significant coverage in secondary sources. Mindy Dirt (talk) 14:09, 3 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

5X5 Live

edit
5X5 Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent external sources. Fails WP:NCONCERT. LK (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC) LK (talk) 05:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now a reliable (official) source... Lurulu (talk) 11:01, 3 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Hits + (2013)

edit
Greatest Hits + (2013) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a tour that might or might not happen next year. No coverage in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. LK (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC) LK (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has now a reliable (official) source... Lurulu (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source does nothing to address the reason this was nominated; i.e. notability. Primary Sources cannot verify this. Read the second line in the notability guideline. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:03, 3 November 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 Greydon Clark. MBisanz talk 00:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Sight, Out of Mind (film)

edit
Out of Sight, Out of Mind (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the 5 criteria for notability listed at Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Greydon Clark - Unfortunately, I am voting redirect as a result of the few significant sources I have found. Google News archives provided several results but all of them appear to be newspaper listings, which would support the "cast" details but not significant such as reviews or other extensive coverage. I wish a plot could have been added to slightly improve the article but I'm not familiar with this film. Google Books also provided results that were mainly directories and listing the same content as Google News. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notability requirements say specifically that a directory listing is not enough. General reviews are not enough either unless they are by national criticsReformedArsenal (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "nationally known" is a subjective term, and as such are always open to interpretation. "General reviews" would be enough if they were from sources expected to be those that cover the independent horror film genre. We do not expect nor demand that such be covered by such as Roger Ebert, just so long as they did receive coverage by those sources accepted as reliable and neutral. As the film had releases in other languages, we do better to look further afeild for coverage, rather than limit ourselves to only the problematic find sources set by the AFD template. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was using "national critic" in opposition to "local critic." That is, Jim Bob reviewing it in the Ames, IA gazette doesn't qualify.ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Local" can also be a subjective term... and even then could be used for policy required verifiability of a topic, even if not toward establishing notability. Actual examples would be evaluated individually if/when presented. Looking beyond presumptions is one of the resasons I pointed out this film has had international distribution in non-American countries... and if found and offered, non-English reviews in Italian, French, or Finish would be perfectly fine for us at en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AKAs:
UK video: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[57]
UK video: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[58]
Italy: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
France: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Finland (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Working title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found news coverage in the Washington Times and the St. Louis Dispatch, but it was trivial at best: a listing and a plot blurb in each case. Looking through the other sources, I haven't been able to find anything that would push it past the WP:GNG significant coverage threshold or meet the WP:NFILMS criteria. --Batard0 (talk) 15:09, 25 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 22:34, 25 October 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, Firsfron of Ronchester 03:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Greydon Clark. There appears to be a review here. It doesn't come up when searching the book, but the Google snippet says "OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF HER MIND (1989) * Horror director Greydon Clark is back with a tale of the Kabuki Killer and how this antisocial guy terrorizes Susan Blakely after he burns her daughter alive. Wings Hauser plays Blakely's husband ...". I cannot find anything else of substance, but I do get the impression that it is notable enough and that there could be offline sources from the 1989-90. Redirect to the director's article as per usual practice and in the interest of preserving the information, in hope that additional sources might be found in the future — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 2 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honorary Aldermen of Wolverhampton

edit
List of Honorary Aldermen of Wolverhampton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The grounds for removing the prod tag have to do with WP:CRYSTAL, that is, the author thinks that someday there will be biographies about the people receiving this honor. Delete without prejudice against recreation a generation from now when said biographies are actually published.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking at night is really hard, trust me, Postdlf. Yes, almost every organization/geographic ___location has awards, and most of them are not notable. I change my stance, delete. Period. Buggie111 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if the people were notable, they would not be notable for being honorary aldermen. Entire thing is trivial. Just about any government on any level awards honors. Nothing special about this one.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:CRYSTAL has absolutely nothing to do with predicting the future content of Wikipedia; where did you get that strange idea? Nor do we condition the existence of lists on whether articles for the entries currently exist; what is relevant is whether the articles should exist (because lists of redlinks exist in part to aid in identifying missing article topics) and whether the organizing concept of the list is a fact that it is encyclopedic to index. Steve Dufour is thus the only commenter so far to present a relevant, valid argument. postdlf (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I'm not saying anything about WP:CRYSTAL having to do with the future content of Wikipedia. Where did you get that idea? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I took the author's comment to mean that there would eventually be Wikipedia biographical articles written about the entries, not that there will one day be biographies about these subjects written, printed, and sold in bookstores. If you took him to mean the latter (which I guess is possible, though I think not the most likely interpretation), that's essentially the claim that some day these honorary alderman will satisfy WP:GNG even though they don't now, so see instead WP:TOOSOON. CRYSTAL still wouldn't apply because we're not talking about speculative assertions within the article itself. postdlf (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either way, the prod was contested on invalid grounds: the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED could be invoked to say that any notability an individual may have does not confer any notability to an award or honor that individual might have won. We won't start an article about some little-league highest-scorer trophy just because Wayne Gretzky won it once before joining the National Hockey League. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are no invalid grounds for contesting a prod, nor is there even a requirement to give grounds. All of this distraction is a shame because I think there are good reasons for deletion here, but the signal to noise ratio is off because of all the policy/guideline misinterpretation. postdlf (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • ..."invalid" as in "not gonna hold up at AfD." Do we understand each other now? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • What holds up or not at AFD is irrelevant to whether a PROD can be removed. I think it's relevant to note that PROD was attempted at a subsequent AFD because many editors would like AFD to be used as a last resort, but beyond that it just seems like you're trying to put words in the mouth of someone who isn't even participating here and to no effect because the content is what it is and why a PROD was removed doesn't matter. Which meaning of "biography" did you intend, btw, in regard to your CRYSTAL rationale? postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not per nom; fails WP:LISTPURP as apparently none of the entries are notable so this can't be justified as a navigational index, nor is the award notable so this also fails WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable position, so a list of people holding it is not appropriate for an article. In any case, there;'s no reason to argue over removing a prod--prod is just a shortcut to AfD for those cases where there is no objection. When there is, that's when we come here. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 7 November 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 McGill University. MBisanz talk 00:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for the Study of International Development

edit
Institute for the Study of International Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article. Article fails WP:ORGDEPTH, not having in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. It's mostly self-published sources and trivial mentions, the kind of puffery you see in many articles by paid editors. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible merge to McGill University - Google News archives found brief mentions here, here and here. Former Prime Minister Joe Clark mentions here that he volunteers as a professor. This McGill University news article published last Thursday notes the university has partnered with a law firm for an education program set to occur the second week of November. Google Books, Google News France and Scholar provided nothing relevant. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hi SwisterTwister, thanks for your comments. Of course, anyone can add a few lines to McGill University. The issue here is whether the subject is notable according to WP:ORGDEPTH. Your first four references are passing mentions only. With regard to number four, note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Number five is a self-published source. Bottom line is that these references barely address the notability issue. Logical Cowboy (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google Books, Google News and Scholar provide nothing relevant. It doesn't matter if Joe Clark taught a class there or availed himself of the toilet facilities, because of WP:NOTINHERITED. All of the other mentions in sources are brief and passing. The sources are not actually about the institute. In fact, if you look at the sources, you'll see that they pretty much suck--just a hodgepodge of brief mentions, irrelevant name-dropping, bloggy onanism, and primary sludge. It's really awful. The paid editor who threw this dreck together in fifteen minutes and then charged $225 for it should give his client a refund. You can always tell when you're reading an article by this guy, because the articles are similar in section-heading style, there are needless extra sections to make the subject look more important, the sections are brief and insubstantial, the articles deal in endless trivialities, and the sourcing either doesn't match the text at all or it's extremely, extremely tangential, as is the case with this article. The Wikipedia community has roundly rejected this kind of "article manufacture," as though the articles were nothing more than cheap knock-offs produced in a factory, and the proof is in the rapid and thorough deletions of this editor's subpar work, of which I count at least nine deleted examples [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. (And guess who is often the solitary keep vote in the AfDs? That's right, Mr. Paid Spam himself.) This is the famous "sock'n'schlock" editing style, whereby multiple socks are used to mass produce similarly lousy articles in quick time, with false representations made to the "clients," and the Wikipedia community temporarily fooled into believing that the editor is a disinterested volunteer who wants to build an encyclopedia, rather than a person working secretly and under the table, who wants to cheat non-notable people and institutions as he lines his pockets with editing fees, "article assurance" fees, "article maintenance" fees, and monitoring fees. According to the WP:NOPAY policy, it's legitimate to be a paid advocate if you do it in an upfront manner and follow all wiki policies in creating articles. That is not what happened with this secretly produced article, nor with any of the other articles the guy has spammed us with. Qworty (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "coverage" appears to be mainly reprints of what amount to press releases in low-quality industry magazines. Gigs (talk) 03:35, 7 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helicos single molecule fluorescent sequencing

edit
Helicos single molecule fluorescent sequencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested without explanation. This reads like a paper to submit to a scientific journal, a work of synthesis based on recent original research.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept but we have to work on a couple of things; I am concerned about the copyright of the content. and it sounds like an ad. it is NOT a research article as these machines can (or could) be bought, and we will likely return to this technology in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahogny (talk • contribs)
The above comment has been transferred here from the talk page. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are sufficient sources (though only 2 inline citations). Article doesn't read like a full paper, but like a rather technical person's slideshow explaining an advanced topic to students. This may well be too technical for typical WP readers, but the solution is more inline citations, simplification where possible and more introductory writing. In other words: normal editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 2 November 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. Shenanigans with the AFD tag at the article didn't help, honestly - but the arguments below are persuasive, and no editor has attempted to refute them. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Jones

edit
Antoine Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable living individual (WP:BLP concerns), fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. All Google results found are for different person from Washington DC with same name in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Dynasty record label (subject is CEO) also appears to be non-notable. Asserted recordings are all future-dated events so subject at this time fails WP:CRYSTAL. Additional article about same non-notable individual can be found at A. Jones, both articles are AfD candidates. Shearonink (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shearonink (talk) 23:52, 1 November 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 as A10. This article was created after the original, Antoine Jones, thus virtually useless and a redirect would also be useless if targeting a future deletion. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A. Jones

edit
A. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable living individual (WP:BLP concerns), fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. All Google results found are for different person from Washington DC with same name in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Dynasty record label (subject is CEO) also appears to be non-notable. Asserted recordings are all future-dated events so subject at this time fails WP:CRYSTAL. Additional article about same non-notable individual can be found at Antoine Jones, both articles are AfD candidates. Shearonink (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shearonink (talk) 23:52, 1 November 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. MBisanz talk 00:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cats Dancing on Jupiter

edit
Cats Dancing on Jupiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The status of this film, produced by the director's own company, is uncertain: it was listed among "20 direct-to-DVD movies coming in 2011" by Moviehole.net and "a screening" in November 2011 was reported, but since then, nothing: I have found no independent criticism, and it is not found on AllMovie or Rotten Tomatoes or in Amazon. This is far short of the notability standard of WP:Notability (films). JohnCD (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 00:06, 2 November 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_November_2&oldid=1142634010"