Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 November	6 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep as per WP:SNOW, on the merits. Concerns about the nomination (and nominator) don't factor, as the weight of consensus make the result clear - but such concerns may merit discussion elsewhere. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisgender

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

This article has been flagged for being biased, poorly written and controversial. Cisgender is a neologism NOT recgonised by the scientific community, nor by medicine.

Delete 1, G1 - Patent Nonsense. The term "Cisgender" claims to describe a real, medical, scientific condition, but is not recognised by the scientific community, nor by any doctor in the medical community. It is graduate level pseudoscience, and most literature that exists and which uses the term, excluding Wikipedia, is used in highly controversial activist forums. The article is patent nonsense as it claims to describe a diagnosable medical condition, which has neither been recognised, nor diagnosed by any real doctor in the world beyond the internet. 2. Neologism. While neologism itself is not sufficient criteria to delete an article, it really must be owned that WikiPedia is the only place on the internet (as the term is NOT recognised by the OED, for example, among many other English language reference dictionaries…) that is proporting that "Cisgender" is actually a word with a real meaning. A neologism like "Cisgender" should have a wider hearing, and some credence, usage and authority offline and in the common vernacular, before WikiPedia and its visibility are exploited to promote what is essentially a close minded, activist agenda. Fadedbetta (talk) 21:17, 5 November, 2012 (UTC)
- — Fadedbetta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Insomesia (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has multiple references from peer-reviewed journals. While to the best of my knowledge it is not recognized by medical science, it is recognized by other fields, as the article demonstrates. Furthermore, merely being controversial is not a criterion for deletion, nor is being neologism, as we have categories specifically for neologisms. If you consider it biased, then add criticism from reliable sources. Asarelah (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term "Cisgender" does not describe a medical condition, and it has never been used in such a manner. It is a term used not in medicine, but in the social sciences, particularly in Gender Studies. Fadedbetta commenced vandalizing this article here and has continued with this single-use account project for some time; frankly, I believe Fadedbetta should be banned for this abusive behavior. - bonze blayk (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Fadedbetta should be given another chance. I have spoken to him/her on my talk page and s/he seems to want to sincerely improve the Wiki, its just that s/he isn't sure how to do so. Take a look on my talk page and the correspondence between us. Asarelah (talk) 02:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above nomination and comments were originally posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cisgender, which was the previous AFD for this article (from 2006). I have moved them here. The edit history is still at that page, however. I also corrected for format, and will fix incoming links momentarily. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to reconcile this edit and particularly this edit with an assumption of good faith on behalf of User:Fadedbetta. It is clear that ey have an axe to grind - both are edits are tantamount to vandalism. Morwen (Talk) 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems well-conceived and referenced. Whether cisgender is a medical term of art or not is completely irrelevant. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly significant coverage and discussion from independent reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The "internet usage" section is kind of WP:ORy, but the rest of the article is well-backed by sources. The claim that the article was claiming this is a "medical [...] condition" is an outright falsehood; the article is about a concept in gender studies, and very clear on that. Morwen (Talk) 17:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject with plenty of reliable sources available. Insomesia (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This seems to be a legitimate, notable topic for an article, even if the content or the concept is disputed — in which case it could have tags asserting such, but it hardly qualifies for an AfD. I think User:Asarelah said it best, above: "...merely being controversial is not a criterion for deletion". I'd favor keeping the current page intact, but at the very least, it should be merged into another article. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 08:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After further reviewing the edits the OP made to this article, WP:AGF is difficult, if not impossible. It is disruptive at a bare minimum (and several admonishments have already been put on this user's talk page). 'Nuf said. — VoxLuna ☾ ^orbit_land 08:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Patent nonsense indeed - but not the article being considered. This POV-motivated, policy-irrelevant nomination is clearly not going to succeed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, too many RS to be its notability even considered controvesial. Cavarrone (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across this term in a piece of academic writing, and looked it up. This wikipedia entry came up first, and gave me exactly what I needed to understand the term, it's origins, and sources for further reading. I'm astonished anyone would consider deleting it. It definitely is a term used by a group of academics studying a particular field of sociology. I don't believe the claim is made anywhere in the article that cisgender or cissexuality is anywhere described as a 'medical' term, and I don't see any reason why medics should be privileged over other academic fields (such as sociology) in the creation and definition of terms that are useful in the discussion of social phenomena. Main reason to keep: article is informative and useful and will help other people like me confronted with an unfamiliar term in use by leading academics in a particular field Riversider (talk) 09:28, 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 Keep as per positive consensus that affirms the article's notability as per WP:BROADCAST standards. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KNWC

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

This article is about a non notable subject. The references supplied are linked to the subject i.e. there is no independent coverage, and noe could be found. Apparantly, the only thing of interest to say about the subject is that once it was off the air due to technical difficulties. Op47 (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: There is strong consensus that radio stations (AM, FM, and LP) are notable per numerous previous AfDs and WP:BROADCAST. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BCAST as KNWC has more than 50 years of broadcast history. It's been the subject of sustained coverage by reliable third-party sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], and undoubtedly many more available only offline given the station's 1961 launch). Also, government-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally notable per consensus and years of common outcomes to these discussions. (Does the article need cleanup and expansion? Sure, probably, but that's not a matter for AfD.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above; subject satisfies WP:BROADCAST. Gongshow ^Talk 06:07, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban number

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary definition. A search has revealed nothing of interest to suggest that this article could become anything other than a dictionary definition. I don't think the subject is notable either Op47 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete on grounds of notability. The CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics (Weisstein 2003) does contain a definition of "Eban Number", but that's the only source I could find, despite skimming search results for nearly 300 false positives. Weisstein, in turn cites a web page (http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/eisonline.html) that is currently 404. Cnilep (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 link in question is an old link to the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Deltahedron (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the current OEIS: Eban, Iban, Oban, Uban, Bantu —Tamfang (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak and reluctant keep. Classification of numbers according to arbitrary features of their decimal representation is a staple of recreational mathematics – don't ask me why. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd consider MathWorld and OEIS reliable sources; plus eban numbers are discussed in the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics and in an academic paper. --Cyclopia^talk 13:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wolfram Mathworld and the CRC book are essentially the same source. —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the "academic paper" is in Journal of Recreational Mathematics. Deltahedron (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what doesn't make it academic? Recreational math is still math, it doesn't make it less rigorous. Notable mathematicians directed and contributed to it. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is more, what does make it academic? Is it peer-reviewed? Are the papers in it covered by Mathematical Reviews or Zentralblatt? Is it cited in academic sources? Deltahedron (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. I indeed always believed that it was peer-reviewed, but I can't find proof of it. However it is indeed cited by academic sources: this paper for example is cited 25 times according to Gscholar; while some of these citations can be irrelevant or suspicious, some can be checked to be genuine, and seem to indicate the source is trustworthy. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers seem to pose questions or introduce ideas that are picked up in academic sources. But it is not reviewed by Zentralblatt [5]. Deltahedron (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers seem to pose questions or introduce ideas that are picked up in academic sources. - This, plus the qualified editorial board, seems more than enough to qualify it as a RS, whatever Zentralblatt thinks. If we add Mathworld/CRC/OEIS (counting them as 3,2 or 1 RS), we have enough for notability. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. A completely unreliable source can still pose problems or make assertions that others find worth investigating. The journal's own homepage [6] also makes it plain that it is not covered by Mathematical Reviews either. Where does the "qualified editorial board" claim come from? It's not listed at that web page. Deltahedron (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current editorial board is listed here; it includes several academics/researchers (e.g. Stephen Kahan, math faculty at Queens College CUNY; or Harry Lewis Nelson), plus it included in the past other notable mathematicians as Leo Moser. We do not question the reliability of dozens of much less qualified secondary sources, like every news media, I don't see why a recreational but still serious journal which is routinely cited by mathematicians in academic works shouldn't be enough for us. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks. Actually, you might note that the question was whether it is an academic source. News media, for example, might be reliable but they are hardly academic. Deltahedron (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider a source which is published by an academic publisher, with academics in its editorial board and that is referenced by academics in academic papers as an academic source indeed. Anyway, all what is needed for notability is that it is a reliable one, and this seems settled. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I consider a journal published by a commercial publisher which calls itself "Recreational" to be recreational. As far as notability is concerned, if the only even remotely academic reference is one recreational article in a recreational journal, then the case is far from settled. Deltahedron (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a journal can't be about recreational stuff and academic at the same time. The two things are not mutually exclusive at all. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is clearly more than a "dictionary definition". As to notability, eban numbers certainly seem to be notable; other variants are borderline. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coinbase

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

Prod rm'ed by IP. Does not meet GNG or RS. Two sources are effectively about the same thing (YCombinator), and one of them is trivial coverage. The third is a statement from the company's founder, and is not an independent source. Google indicates aggregated repetition of the same news aside from the company's own site. MSJapan (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP as written. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Blatant promotion piece if you ask me. Midhart90 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Your Lord and Master (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails WP:CORP. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CORP fail. TBr and ley 18:15, 12 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 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Suite Life on Campus

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

Hoax. Lots of fan fiction regarding this further development of the Suite Life franchise, but no actual television productions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Probably too soon, Google News provided nothing and the only relevant links appear to be unreliable forums and fan videos. I also haven't found anything official from Disney Channel or Danny Kallis. It is possible this TV series may happen but we wouldn't know at this time. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced fanfic-like imaginings about an unmade show with no mainstream media coverage. If there was any information about a proposed show referenced to reliable sources then that info could be merged to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody, but right now it's no more notable than Sabrina the Middle-Aged Witch or Alvin and the Dissolution of the Chip-Monasteries. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these articles should be speedy deleted instead of going through the notions of AfD. These articles stink of a fan-made hoaxes. Using the Template:Db-hoax, would have been a more quicker option. QuasyBoy (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I considered that option, but the argument can be made that these are not obvious hoaxes, but rather require a fair amount of research to ferret out the falseness of the information. I have had {{db-hoax}} tags declined by admins in the past on that basis. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trust me, there is nothing to research. The creator of this article, is using Wikipedia as an art canvas for their fanfiction. QuasyBoy (talk) 23:41, 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 00:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Gan Giannelli

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the definition of reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.220.18 (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - All the information and references are accurate and from reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.195.220.18 (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appreciate that it's rare for a Malaysian to play abroad, which could amount to notability, but here it's only at a youth level and there isn't sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:15, 11 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 deleted . By User:Orangemike. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Terhune

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

An autobiography, see talk page. I found a source that says he signed a contract with the Columbus Crew of Major League Soccer but I can not find anything to say he actually played for them. I also can not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about him. GB fan 16:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was with them in 2007. I did not get first team action but was on the reserve team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryat (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep the article is supported by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/United_States_and_Canada_task_force and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Sports_and_games. Plus this article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. Gregoryat (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

just FYI, the project tags are simply notifications to groups of people who generally like to edit certain types of articles and have knowledge about where to look for sources, standard layout procedures for particular types of articles and who may be particularly interested in things like deletion discussions about the article. That an article has one or more project tags slapped on it does not mean anything else and particularly does not qualify as meeting any of the WP:GNG requirements for remaining as a stand alone article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG, and since Mr. Terhune never made his first debut, the article fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Contract with Columbus Crew is listed as a "temporary contract" and he never played a game, thus he fails WP:NSPORT. Most of the refs in the article are primary and non-primary doesn't go into any "significant details", thus he fails WP:GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongly Keep~~ As per there is sufficient coverage of this article by the various sources as provided, and since I made my debut with the Crew in 2007, thus the article meets the requirements. An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NSPORT. Here, I played for the West Virginia Chaos which is a major amateur competition and played division 1 soccer at Marshall University. Further, I played in the reserve league of the MLS which classifies as a professional competition. I won a significant honor by being the Conference USA Defensive player of the week which meets WP:GNG. Thus, the previous assertions to delete the article on all the requirements should be reprimanded for their gross negligence of the requirements.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregoryat (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Only editor !voting to keep is the subject himself, says it all really. Giant Snowman 09:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ satisfies under both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant-snowman negligently reads the statutes and fails to interrupt as give aboveAs per there is sufficient coverage of this article by the various sources as provided, and since I made my debut with the Crew in 2007, thus the article meets the requirements. An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. WP:NSPORT. Here, I played for the West Virginia Chaos which is a major amateur competition and played division 1 soccer at Marshall University. Further, I played in the reserve league of the MLS which classifies as a professional competition. I won a significant honor by being the Conference USA Defensive player of the week which meets WP:GNG. Thus, the previous assertions to delete the article on all the requirements should be reprimanded for their gross negligence of the requirements. The editors don't understand the requirements, that says it really Giant-snowman. Gregoryat (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to !vote twice. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three times actually. I'll strike them. Giant Snowman 16:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, to help clarify the situation and the criteria because GiantSnowman does not know the criteria apparently. Gregoryat (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are, of course, right - in my seven years here I have failed to grasp the notability guidelines that you have mastered in mere days. Apologies. Giant Snowman 20:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I know I am right because I can read and understand statutes and guidelines. Just because you have been "here" for seven years does not define that you know what you are talking about or know the criteria. Gregoryat (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to strike the entirety of his comments. I have changed that to simply striking out the extraneous bolded words. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, and thanks for rectifying. Giant Snowman 16:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please do not touch my comments. Gregoryat (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Severe conflict of interest. Arzel (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article. Someone with a conflict of interest can write a neutral article about a notable subject. I still do not believe this article is about someone that meets our notability guidelines. GB fan 01:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We do not care what you believe in because the fact is this meets the notability guidelines. Gregoryat (talk) 14:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand you don't care about anyone's opinion but your own and anyone who agrees with you. The admin that will eventually close this discussion and decide if this article is kept or deleted will consider all the opinions. So far your opinion is in the minority. The admin will also discount opinions that are not based in policy such as the one I responded to above that advocated deleting the article based on your conflict of interest. GB fan 14:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- In case you have followed the discussion, my statements have been based on policy. Gregoryat (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Don't put personal beliefs on this page only on guidelines which fan fails. Gregoryat (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Follow your own policies then. Gregoryat (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding a bolded word to every comment you make, more information at my post on your talk page. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my dad played reserve matches for Leicester Tigers, does that make him notable? No. The only person voting keep is, as previously stated, the guy whom this article is about. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) we are talking about major sports here and it satisfies the criteria for notable under WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Gregoryat (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major sports? Rugby is not a major sport? Well, I'll be damned. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Its ok Lukeno94, I can help you understand. Gregoryat (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop insulting me as I was clearly being sarcastic. Rugby Union IS a major sport, Leicester Tigers are one of the biggest Rugby Union teams in the world. My dad would still not be notable for having played for their reserves. Likewise, you are unnotable for playing for the reserves of an MLS club - so stop being vain and thinking you are WP-worthy. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't need to insult you because you are making yourself look foolish. Likewise, playing professional with an MLS club makes not WP-worthy. Gregoryat (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you completely and utterly stupid? There are hundreds of players whom sign professional football contracts but never make an appearance because they either weren't good enough (as I'm presuming you weren't), or had to retire due to health/injury reasons before they could play in a pro league. The MLS Reserves league is no more a professional league than the English U21 league is. Also, unless you're being sarcastic yourself, I'm pretty sure the last bit of your comment shoots all your arguments in the foot. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno94 what kind of education do you have, it must not be past grade school. As I can see from your lack of knowledge from your posts, thats why the English National team is a crap team. Gregoryat (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE both Lukeno94 and Gregoryat are reminded that it is inappropriate to call each other names. Additional breaches will lead to users being blocked from editing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author claims this passes WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL but I disagree. Of the 8 sources, two, possible three does not appear to be independent of the subject. Nos 1 and 3 are identical with what appears to be a press release from[7], which isn't independent and thus doesn't count for notability purposes. No 2 appear to be about the same event, and a short notice about someone signing up with a new club doesn't establish notability, only that he signed up. 4, 5, 7, possibly also no. 6 aren't independent of the subject (former clubs), while number 8 is a bio from a charity he is active with as a coach. Therefore, he does not pass WP:GNG has he claims, and as far as I can tell. As for WP:NFOOTBALL; the criteria is either to have played/coached/managed in an international match, or to have played for/coached/managed in a fully professional league. As far as I can tell from the sources and the article in question, he has done neither. The guideline also states that "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." So as far as I can tell, he simply isn't notable, or at least haven't provided the sources needed. Bjelleklang - talk 21:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Well as you stated I do pass WP:GNG as I claim. As for WP:NFOOTBALL; the criteria is either to have played/coached/managed in an international match, or to have played for/coached/managed in a fully professional league. I have played an a fully professional league being Major League Soccer. Thus, meets the requirements of being notable. Gregoryat (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, you need to provide the sources that say so, or show that my analysis of the sources is wrong. The article also need an additional reference to back up the info under "Youth and Amateur" in order to conform to WP:BLPSOURCES. Bjelleklang - talk 07:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources have been provided as to this page for Major League Soccer and nothing really needed for "Youth and Amateur!" Gregoryat (talk) 14:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a link to register-herald.com, which mentions you briefly but it also says The Rage, like the Chaos a young team playing in the Player Development League. To me, this sounds like either a junior or a reserves team, and without additional sources this won't pass any of the two main policies cited so often in this debate. Since you are so certain that you're notable enough, please find some sources for it, or let the AfD run it's course. Nothing will change without additional sources, no matter how much you insist on being notable and on everyone else being wrong about the policies. You've got at least 5 very experienced editors participating in the discussion, and this AfD is nothing special to any of us; we've seen both the arguments and type of article before, and without additional sources it will not survive. Virtually none of the existing sources are independent, meaning that even if I were to be wrong about the register-herald article, the article would still have to be shortened significantly as the currently is no way to verify most of the information in it from independent sources. I hate to see articles go, but without proper references there can be no other solution. Bjelleklang - talk 18:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PDL is an amateur league - most players are college players trying to get some experience/exposure, as well former professionals and as a few who never made it. Giant Snowman 18:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never once stated that PDL is not amateur. Thanks for stating the obvious. Gregoryat (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you claiming to have played in a fully-professional league? Giant Snowman 18:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not claiming under PDL but MLS, if you can read the prior comments!!! Gregoryat (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you never played in the MLS. Giant Snowman 18:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFooty. The MLS Reserve League isn't fully professional. Same for the West Virginia Chaos and Marshall Thundering Herd. Both teams are amateur. Winning defensive player of the week in C-USA isn't notable. An example of a notable award is the Soccer America Player of the Year Award or the Hermann Trophy. Patken4 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not satisfy specific notability guideline (SNG) of WP:NFOOTBALL, and is therefore not entitled to presumption of notability. Article author and chief defender does not understand the requirements of the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, specifically including the meaning of multiple "independent, reliable sources." Comments above by Bjelleklang are right on the money. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The MLS Reserve League is a fully professional league. Good Try Gregoryat (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? It isn't listed here. Patken4 (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MLS Reserve League & Major League Soccer Gregoryat (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Soccer is a fully professional league and is listed on that page. MLS Reserve League is not listed on that page and I have yet to see anything that says it is. So what is your source that the MLS Reserve League is fully professional? Patken4 (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Players playing in the MLS Reserve League are players on contract with Major League Soccer. You cannot play in any MLS competition without being on contract with the MLS. Gregoryat (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being under contract with a MLS team does not mean the league is fully professional. Reserve leagues are usually made up of fringe players from first team and youth or inexperienced players looking for a full contract. Just because you have a contract with a MLS side and get paid a nominal amount to play a match for it's reserve team does not make you or the league fully professional. Patken4 (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not familiar with the MLS, you cannot play a Reserve League game without being on contract. Thus, making it a fully professional league. Gregoryat (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just being under contract with a MLS club does not make you fully professional unless you appear in a fully professional match, which would be with the full MLS club. MLS Reserve League matches can have up to five non-MLS players appearing in a match, which are either academy players or trialists. Neither of these have contracts lasting more than a couple days and aren't considered fully professional, even if they were paid something to compete. Source. You can say all you want how it is fully professional, but the league's own by-laws say otherwise. Patken4 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Your argument is extremely flawed because as you state that your source is the 2012 Reserve League. I played in 2007 and did not have Academy Players. My contract was from May till December which is more than just a couple of days. Gregoryat (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is on you to find the 2007 by-laws since you state it was fully professional. The burden of proof is on you. In addition, both sources that state you signed with the Crew say it was "temporary". Neither says it was a May to December contract. Patken4 (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The burden should be on the editors that falsely say that the league isn't professional if they claim it is not. You cannot say it is not if you don't know then. Please remove your posts if you don't know. The contract was till December and even accorrding to the articles, it doesn't say how long, as every 1 year contract could be temporary then. Gregoryat (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have given a link to the 2012 bylaws and it says it isn't fully professional. Clearly, we've established it isn't today. You state that in 2007 there were different rules, but unless there is proof of this, how can we know? Wikipedia doesn't take people's words as facts. There needs to be sources that are reliable and independent. Until you provide evidence of that, there is no need for me to continue to discuss this with you. Patken4 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- You have clearly not stated your point as I previously stated that the Academy wasn't even established till the fall of 2007. Thus wasn't integrated till later. Your argument once again fails. Gregoryat (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? New York Red Bulls Academy, established 2005, D.C. United Academy, established 2005, D.C. United Academy established 2004. Might want to re-check that 2007 year. Patken4 (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC) (WP:VAND) Do you even know soccer? Gregoryat (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because the USSF academy league didn't start till 2008. Thus, those players only played club soccer under that name. Please check your sources more careful and don't delete my comments from your page. Gregoryat (talk) 06:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that User:Gregoryat is actually the subject of the article, Gregory Terhune? If so, the author has a major conflict of interest and should not even be editing, let alone creating an article about himself . . . . Please see WP:COI and Wikipedia:Autobiography. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Beeblebrox has been very patient and gentle in attempting to explain the deletion process, notability criteria, and conflict of interest concerns with article creator. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been very patient dealing with editors that don't know the criteria of their own posts. Gregoryat (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a player that HAS played in fully pro league, which means that satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG Gregoryat (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gregoryat has not yet provided any evidence that Greg Terhune ever actually played a game in the MLS. Signing a contract with a team is not the same as playing for the team. Neither is playing for a development organization (whether it requires a contract or not) the same as playing for the team. WP:NFOOTY requires that a player have played for a fully professional league, which, for the United States in the time frame of interested, is limited to MLS (and not its development leagues). Since notability cannot be assumed based on WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG becomes the defining policy, and this subject fails WP:GNG by lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being provided various in independent sources satisfies WP:GNG, read the policy again. Gregoryat (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are a number of professional leagues in the United States, but this individual has not played in any of them. Giant Snowman 20:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually I have GianSnowman has proven otherwise as his continues negligence of the issue. Gregoryat (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gregory, can you provide any actual proof that you have played even a single game within the MLS? Not that you have signed a contract with a team, or that you have played for a team's development organization, but an actual game with an actual MLS team. If you can provide proof of such an event in a reliable source, you may have a point to make. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't appear on the MLS all-time roster from back in 2009. Source. The page doesn't exist today, but it still exists at the Internet Archive. Patken4 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
""Comment"" I am looking for the game results. I guess this article should have been written in 2007, thenGregoryat (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I played with him in Indiana and I played in LA, while he was with Columbus. LA Kings 23 (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC) — LA Kings 23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. !vote by confirmed sock struck. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I smell a WP:DUCK. Appropriate action taken. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I smell a loser. Gregoryat (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDan61 lol you to are to funny... Gregoryat (talk) 21:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can this be closed per WP:SNOW or should we wait a week to make it official? Patken4 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looks like the article was deleted but the AfD wasn't close. Can an Admin perform this? Patken4 (talk) 23:27, 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 00:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TestingWhiz

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

First reference failed verification. Second reference is trivial coverage and isn't a WP:RS. Cannot find any better sources. My conclusion is that the subject does not currently meet WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage by secondary sources.--Hu12 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a product that isn't notable. No significant coverage by secondary sources, and a search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 18:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this subject; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 06:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search on High Beam which turned up no articles. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established by sources. - MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref for ISTQB is available at http://testing-whiz.com/whiz-consulting.html. Also TestingWhiz is product of Cygnet Infotech[Affiliated with ISTQB]. In case failure again to authenticate, the content is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeItMind (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a product isn't enough to establish notability. Independent, published sources are required.--xanchester (t) 14:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are unreliable/insufficient to establish notability of this software. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The asoftware has not reached the required levels of notability to hold an article of its own. Maybe if it becomes widely recognized and popular, it may. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:05, 12 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. The "keep" opinions only address the issue of notability, which is not contested in the nomination. They however don't address the more serious problem given in the nomination, namely, that WP:BLPs require reliable independent sources, which are not given in the article (even the two links to the subject's university website are dead). Sandstein 10:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S. Sadagopan

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

person is notable,but article is not referenced and lacks reliable sources can be merged with the IIIT article. Harishrawat11 (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 3. Snotbot t • c » 12:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founder director of a University, has served as Professor at IIT Kanpur and IIM Bangalore, senior member of IEEE. Passes WP:Prof. Salih (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Renowned academic. Head of IIIT Bangalore, a premier institution. Noted speaker. The article could sure use some focussed improvement. Harishrawat11 Please do validate prior to nominating for Afd. If unsure, please ask at the India notice board. Thank you. Arunram (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 5. Snotbot t • c » 15:25, 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 redirect to Fallout:New Vegas#Music. Obvious redirect. The material has already been merged prior to the AfD. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: New Vegas soundtrack

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

Read please the talk page for further details. Abani79 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fallout:New Vegas. Just for future reference, you don't have to make an AfD if you've merged something into an article. You can pretty much just redirect it to the main article. A discussion is nice, but not entirely necessary for obvious redirects and most times stuff like this can be solved by following WP:MERGEPROP. The only thing is that I'd probably try to find something that discusses the songs to use as a source. I know that there's no official-official soundtrack for all of the music (one that you can buy), but it's always good to try to source everything as best as possible.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:44, 5 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) • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Tokyogirl. No need to delete, and it could plausibly stand as its own article at some point if sources were available. --BDD (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout:New Vegas#Music Already established that it's NN on its own, I agree that WP:MERGEPROP (or even WP:BOLDly redirecting) would have been easier/fine here. czar · · 05:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallout:New Vegas, and agree with others, this can be done without a discussion, since it could always be undone later. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:28, 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 ~~SPEEDY~~ CLOSE, only a non-deletion action proposed. If you want to merge something, be bold. postdlf (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mr. Box Office episodes

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

Article violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it only premiered a bit ago. It should be merged into Mr. Box Office, as it hasn't gotten to second season yet. Its simply too soon to have this episode list separate right now. If it is renewed for a second season, it will, IMO, be good for a separate list like this. TBr and ley 19:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The series actually follows an episode model similar to Debmar-Mercury's scripted series (e.g., Anger Management, Tyler Perry's House of Payne, Meet the Browns), the main difference being that Mr. Box Office as well as The First Family, do not have to pass a ratings threshold to be renewed for additional episodes, instead Entertainment Studios greenlit both series for 104 episodes off the bat. To cite "if it is renewed for a second season", as a factor in an eventual re-separation of the list should it be remerged into its parent article is moot since under the program's episode model, both shows are guaranteed one. See this link from The Hollywood Reporter for reference: Bill Bellamy, Jon Lovitz, Vivica A. Fox to Star in Syndicated Sitcom TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 23 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) 16:53, 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 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 redirect to Carrickfergus#Schools and education. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eden Primary School, Carrickfergus

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

Non-notable primary school. No editorial content, really just an infobox. The most this article currently achieves is to echo enough information to fail WP:NOTDIR, but not enough to be an article.

Twice now (one editor) redirected, but the link target is too broad to be much use either. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who redirected, since this is usually the compromise solution for most primary schools (the ones without specific extra claims to notability). I have no objection against deletion of this either, so you can !count this as a Delete or redirect. Fram (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 23 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) 05:25, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Carrickfergus#Schools and education. That target doesn't have much info, but it does at least include the school's name, and someone could add a little information to that section. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:39, 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 no consensus. 2 Delete, 1 Weak keep and 1 Merge doesn't actually give any clear consensus. Suggested re-nomination after 2-3 months. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Rouge Communities

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

No online reliable sources found, PROD contested. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's also a copy/paste of their homepage (not a copyvio though) which doesn't help. Legoktm (talk) 11:21, 20 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) 19:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - You must not have searched extensively because Google News archives provided several mentions, but unfortunately, nearly all of them require payment (particularly the links that seem useful). Google News also provided one minor mention here. Google News archives results briefly continue at the second page. I lean towards keep because it seems the state supported this initiative, the group focuses with improving the River Rouge (Michigan) and contains several communities as members. If these news links had been free, I would have volunteered to rewrite the article. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 22 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) 05:17, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to River Rouge (Michigan). Probably not independently notable: WP:ORG states that local press coverage isn't enough to establish notability, but that's all you get from Google News. I don't see any national sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 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 keep per the consensus reached after sources were found and added to the article. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 14:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mixed Men

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

Book does not meet notability requirements in and of itself, and does not add any substantial information in addition to what is available on the author's article - A. E. van Vogt ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. Added the 1952 New York Times source (behind pay wall sorry). It's significant the novel was reviewed in the NYT in 1952. "Until the decade of the fifties," Robert Silverberg writes, "there was essentially no market for science fiction books at all." The 1950s saw "a spectacular outpouring of stories and novels that quickly surpassed both in quantity and quality the considerable achievement of the Campbellian (1940s) golden age." So I'm giving extra points on the novelty of an early 1950s review in the New York Times of a science fiction book. (Not all the content is in the author article, so we need a merge if Delete is the result.) Update: Sources found by Tokyogirl79 give the book more historical weight, strike ~~weak~~. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:32, 24 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) 05:15, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did find more mentions of the book elsewhere and saw where one of the stories in the book had been nominated for a Retro Hugo. This looks to be one of those instances where most of the coverage never got really recorded on the Internet later on, but I think I found enough for the book to just barely, barely squeak by. I've re-written parts of the entry to reflect on the book's original status as several short stories, so it kind of works as a catch-all for all of the things pertaining to the book and those stories.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviewed in the New York Times and other secondary sources. Nominated for a Retro Hugo. Meets the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 15:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Early "modern" science fiction, now too little known. htom (talk) 05:05, 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 00:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flotilla (novel)

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

I'm nominating this book for deletion because it doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. The article lacks reliable sources and a search does not bring up any in-depth coverage in sources that Wikipedia would consider to be reliable. This is ultimately a non-notable self-published book. It also doesn't help that the article has serious problems with NPOV and at times seems more like a promotional article/spam for the book than an encyclopedic entry. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Del No RS third party coverage. As the article states: "Flotilla is an independent, self-published novel and has not been reviewed by mainstream book review sites". Telemachus is a vanity press. OCLC/WorldCat shows no holdings for this item.[8] The Interior (Talk) 06:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia requires reliable sources (ie. "mainstream book review sites"). If this book becomes very popular through word of mouth it could be picked up by AmazonEncore or some other professional publisher who will put the money into marketing to ensure it receives mainstream reviews. Until then. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, it may become notable in the future, but right now it is not. Skrelk (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I'm the original author of the Flotilla article. I did not write this article to be a 'promotional article/spam' but rather to discuss a novel that discussed many different scientific issues that are getting a greater amount of attention in current events (seasteading and mariculture). As there are no other mainstream novels that speak to these issues cited on Wikipedia, I would suggest that the Flotilla article has a value even if it is independently published.

I cannot help that I used the same format as every other movie/novel that is cited on Wikipedia - perhaps you feel that it is being promotional when I included information to ensure that it read as completely as the entry for Star Wars or Inception.

As to whether this article should be removed because Telemachus Press is considered a 'vanity' press, I cannot speak to this. I do know that they also publish Lawrence Block so perhaps that might be worth considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.122.154 (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to include other external references to improve the effectiveness of the article. I would ask for your assistance in this matter because this is my first Wiki article. Please do not remove it until then.--98.210.122.154 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, even if you didn't mean for it to come across as spam, that's what it looks like- especially considering how little coverage this book is getting in even the book blogging world. In most instances entries like this are usually added by the author, someone they know, or someone they paid to edit for them. I'm not saying that you are someone that falls along these lines (but if you are, you should make that aware since it's a WP:COI), but just letting you know how these things are usually perceived. As far as the format goes, it does follow the basic layout but is still written in a non-neutral fashion. As far as value goes, you'd have to show that it meets notability guidelines by showing that it has received coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, which just do not seem to exist for this book. The book's biggest claim to fame is that the author managed to be lucky enough to get on the air via a call-in on Jimmy Kimmel and that by itself is not enough to warrant an entry. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that this would be considered a reliable source since it's just a phone call into a studio and not really an actual interview. Now as far as self-publishing goes, being self-published doesn't mean that a book can't be notable- Wool is a good example of how big a self-published book can get. It just means that it's far more likely to slip under the radar and receive zero coverage in reliable sources or at all. The odds are stacked against the self-published and indie authors as far as Wikipedia's notability guidelines go. It's unfortunate sometimes, as there are some pretty neat books that I'd otherwise love to add to Wikipedia, but that's the way the rules are. We can't keep an article because it's your first one, or because the book mentions topics that might be notable. It doesn't pass notability guidelines and besides, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) by any link the book, author, or publisher might have to people, topics, or things that are notable. If you really want to keep your work and create a wiki for the entry, I suggest looking into some of the free wiki sites out there such as Wikia and copying the info onto there. This book doesn't pass WP:NBOOK, plain and simple.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also really like you to read over WP:VALINFO as far as the argument of value goes, as well as the page as a whole as far as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me be the first to assure you that I was not paid for writing this, nor was I attempting to write a promotional article. Again, I used other movie/book articles as a guide for tone and reference. After reviewing your comments again, and having read *dozens* of articles about unremarkable books and movies that Wikipedia has no issue at publishing, I felt that Wikipedia would enjoy learning about this novel, which discusses issues of sustainability and emerging technology in a way I've never seen any other book, fiction or non-fiction, discuss.

But ... that's your privilege. I was, until now, a cheerful supporter of this organization. Go ahead and kill my attempt to contribute.

[[User:|User:]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.106.40 (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not really an argument to keep an article and we don't keep articles because someone is threatening to leave. We don't keep articles because its deletion would make you feel bad. Editors on Wikipedia are expected to follow the rules for notability and neutrality the same as any other editor. No one gets special treatment just because "it's interesting" or because someone threatens to flounce off if their page gets deleted. If you see an article that does not pass notability guidelines, feel free to nominate them for AfD. There are a lot of articles here on Wikipedia that exist only because someone has yet to notice it and nominate it for AfD, so saying that less worthy topics have articles is not a valid reason to say that this article should be kept. An article must have coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. This article does not and no amount of "but it's cool/interesting/different" will keep it. That's not how Wikipedia works. And as far as neutrality goes, you may have followed the basic outline for other pages, but the entry still reads non-neutral. It might be that because you are a new user you aren't as used to writing in a neutral fashion. Many have this issue when they first start editing Wikipedia and you might try re-writing the article as practice rather than just complaining. Complaining isn't going to change the rules to where an article can be kept when it doesn't have reliable sources to show notability. Out of all of the rules on Wikipedia, that's one that is highly unlikely to change.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 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 ~~SPEEDY~~ CLOSE, only a non-deletion action proposed. If you want to merge something, be bold. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The First Family episodes

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

Article violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it only premiered a bit ago. It should be merged into Mr. Box Office, as it hasn't gotten to second season yet. Its simply too soon to have this episode list separate right now. If it is renewed for a second season or has much more episodes soon, it will, IMO, be good for a separate list like this. TBr and ley 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As cited with the Mr. Box Office proposed merge, The First Family actually follows an episode model similar to Debmar-Mercury's scripted series (e.g., Anger Management, Tyler Perry's House of Payne, Meet the Browns), the main difference being that The First Family as well as Mr. Box Office, do not have to pass a ratings threshold to be renewed for additional episodes, instead Entertainment Studios greenlit both series for 104 episodes off the bat. To cite "if it is renewed for a second season", as a factor in an eventual re-separation of the list should it be remerged into its parent article is moot since under the program's episode model, both shows are guaranteed one. See this link from The Hollywood Reporter for reference: Byron Allen Casts New Syndicated Comedy 'First Family'. Also, the article mentioned in the proposed merge for this thread should be changed to The First Family (TV series), not Mr. Box Office. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If it is renewed for a second season or has much more episodes soon, it will, IMO, be good for a separate list like this" TBr and ley 20:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 23 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) 05:14, 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, Gongshow ^Talk 05:07, 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 procedural close. Since this article is effectively on the same topic as Bori Relationship, which is already at AfD, there's no reason to have two articles on the same topic with two AfDs. I'm closing this discussion and history-merging the two articles. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tori and Beck Relationship

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

PROD deleted. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG as there is no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All references in article are from the show episodes. Article adds nothing that is not already covered in List of Victorious characters article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bori Relationship for similar article on same subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this AfD hadn't been started, I'd history merge this page into that one and consolidate the discussion. Geraldo, any objections? —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it would be appropriate, I'd have no issues with that. Less work for the AfD reviewers is always good. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:01, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Wood (psychologist and writer)

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

Unreferenced BLP. Notability not clearly asserted in the article. Created by a user with the same name as the article, which may point at self-promotion. With references that make the biographical information verifiable this may become eligible for inclusion. Kurepalaku (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, this fails WP:ACADEMIC. He has Google Scholar links but none go so far as to show that he made "a significant impact". czar · · 21:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems clearly notable as an author, but we need to look for reviews. FWIW, WP:Author is much less demanding a criterion than WP:PROf, one of our many inconsistencies. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you have far more than enough experience of how Wikipedia works to know that just saying "seems clearly notable", without giving any evidence, will not carry enough weight. As for the absurd inconsistency between different specific notability guidelines, this was inevitable once special groups of people started fragmenting the notability criteria by setting up lots of separate guidelines for different topics. In the early days of Wikipedia it was much simpler, more consistent, easier to understand, and, in short, better all round: Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources = notable, otherwise = not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I said that evidence would be needed, and here it is:

for WP:PROF, his honorary D Litt from Nottingham. As for citations, his book Competency-based recruitment and selection was cited 133 times in GScholar, "The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance" has 208 citations;"Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis" has 176; " Competency-based recruitment and selection" has 133; "Five decades of item response modeling" has 103; "Fitting the Rasch model—a heady tale" has 62; "Development and psychometric properties of the Children's Assertive Behavior Scale" 56; (more forthcoming Google shut me down for overusing google scholar--more coming when the let me in again.)

for WP:AUTHOR, his collected papers Measurement and assessment in education and psychology : collected papers, 1967-87 is in over 300 academic libraries, as is his book, How to succeed at an assessment centre ^[1] Two of his books, Assessment and testing : a survey of research and Competency-based recruitment and selection. have been translated into Chinese. ^[2] ^[3] One, Test your emotional intelligence has been translated into both Chinese and Polish

But what i said usually proves wp:author is book reviews, --my previous comment was just a quick note until I found them, Assessment and Testing: A Survey of Research was reviewed in British Journal of Educational Studies, Feb., 1992, vol. 40, no. 1, p. 91-92 and in Educational Research Volume 34 Number 2 Summer 1992; Measurement and Assessment in Education and Psychology was reviewed in European Journal of Education, 1987, vol. 22, no. 3/4, p. 363-365; (more coming) DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the reason we don't use the simplified guideline you mention is that for academics, it would m=be met by any 2 papers of a scientist receiving significant discussion by any two other papers. There isnt a single university associate professor in the us or uk that wouldn't be able to show that. Sometimes what seems like common sense gives a result that is much too broad (or narrow). DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to James, the history of inclusion guidelines is nothing like that that you present. In the early days of Wikipedia there was no concept of notability, but inclusion was simply based on the core content policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. Then various informal guidelines were introduced about particular topics, and only later was the general notability guideline created. Too many people seem to regard the general notability guideline as one of the founding principles of Wikipedia, rather than as a pragmatic guideline to help us decide what articles to include when the question is not otherwise clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this completely unsourced autobiographical puff piece. Qworty (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of evidence produced by DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I have removed the inline external links to amazon.com pages for purchasing his books. Also, sources DGG finds should be added to the article if they are relevant, as it stands the article reads as self-promotion. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate improvement of the article is not a prerequisite of keeping it. Our task at AfD is to decide whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is complete. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 00:59, 5 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 02:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - Per the extensive, well-researched rationale presented above by User:DGG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per availability of references provided by DGG. Celtechm (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding to what DGG has offered, notability for academics is also conventionally assessed by book holdings from WorldCat. Wood's holdings are appreciable, for example: How to succeed at an assessment centre (>600), Competency-based recruitment and selection (>300), Measurement and assessment in education and psychology (>300), etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete very nearly unsourced BLP and promotional autobiography. Involvement of known covert paid editors. If we don't have biographical coverage of the subject, it doesn't matter if he's won 15 Pulitzers. We can't have an article that is verifiable without coverage. Delete per WP:TWOPRONGS, WP:BLP, WP:V and common sense. Gigs (talk) 17:23, 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 merge to Ian McNabb . MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boots (Ian McNabb album)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep currently has one notable source, the classic rock article, but the other two are primary sources.
Merge to Ian McNabb; one source isn't enough to be notable, and this sort of fan-only release, not through an established record label, is unlikely to be widely reviewed or otherwise notable. But it should still get a mention. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; Happy to Secede but i would like the content to remain in the current form (not be condensed) --Jonie148 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:40, 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 02:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Ian McNabb or a new Ian McNabb discography article. Deleting all these articles Ian McNabb articles isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. He's clearly a notable artist, and we should preserve encyclopedic content. A separate discography article with more detail than is currently in the McNabb article might be the way to go. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 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 merge to Ian McNabb. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potency: The Best of Ian McNabb

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:52, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ian_McNabb#Compilation_albums - Aside from that one review, I haven't found anything else to establish notability through Google News or Books. The only relevant link I have found is this which wouldn't be reliable or sufficient for Wikipedia. Although the album may not be notable, it is relevant to Ian McNabb. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Ian McNabb or a new Ian McNabb discography article. Deleting all these articles Ian McNabb articles isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. He's clearly a notable artist, and we should preserve encyclopedic content. A separate discography article with more detail than is currently in the McNabb article might be the way to go. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect the page has a notable source http://www.uncut.co.uk/ian-mcnabb/ian-mcnabb-potency-the-best-of-ian-mcnabb-review--Jonie148 (talk) 09:27, 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 00:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porrorcore

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

Contested PROD — there are zero hits for this in google, suggesting that it is unverifiable and original research. —Theo polisme 01:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - instead of asserting notability, the article actually attempts to assert non-notability - While porrorcore is currently considered an "unremarkable music genre" there is a small but constantly growing dedicated fan base.. Game over, man. Game over! Stalwart111 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a PRODder. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism that isn't widely used. No significant coverage by secondary sources.--xanchester (t) 16:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per article itself. Sideways713 (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sadly. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:12, 12 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 08:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Swede Mason

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG, as there are no reliable sources which discuss the subject in any detail. The article's current references provide only trivial discussion of the mashup, with virtually no encyclopedic information on the musician. I initially prodded the article but withdrew as the subject passes WP:MUSICBIO, since the song has charted. France3470 (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Masterchef Synathaeasia, as his song is surely notable, it charted and received attention by highly reliable sources such as The Guardian [9]. The article about his author is legitimate as he passes MUSICBIO but the current contents of the article are all related to the song (and to its music video), so a moving appears the best choice for now. Cavarrone (talk) 08:35, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:12, 28 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, Vacation9 (talk) 00:38, 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 withdrawn. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zakiya (singer)

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

~~This person doesn't appear to meet any notability guidelines. Just one hit on Google news archive under her full name.~~ Rotten regard Softnow 00:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I believe Gongshow has done enough to retain this article. Rotten regard Softnow 22:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I couldn't find any reliable sources other than that one Google news hit. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've rewritten the article using reliable sources. Between two Billboard reviews [10][11], a brief Allmusic review [12], two charting R&B singles [13], and music videos that received national TV play [14][15][16], I believe the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 21:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A couple of lowly chart placings and a small amount of online coverage, but there may be more offline since this was 15 years ago. I don't see a net benefit from deletion here. --Michig (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[wci-1] WorldCatidentities

[wc1-2] WorldCat

[wc2-3] WorldCat

[1]

[2]

[3]