Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 October	25 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Afrikan Black Panther Party

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

I tried to find references beyond the sites which are directly supportive of this type of political movement. The founder is mentioned at Prison Radio, but the movement gets practically no mentions. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no news sources and the references in the article do not seem to be reliable third party sources. - Mr X 01:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be the project of a guy named Rashid who's in jail and is protesting the conditions there. I could find no evidence in a search of any coverage in reliable sources (the only results were some self-published material and a website/blog of questionable reliability and independence). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. --Batard0 (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest possible impediment to inclusion for all political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology — much like we default to auto-keep for towns, rivers, high schools, and professional athletes of confirmed existence. This is the sort of information that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you want a policy-based rationale, chalk it up under WP:IGNOREALLRULES — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Bearing in mind that my view here remains a minority perspective at this time, sources to follow... Carrite (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of a prison hunger strike in Virginia by party leader Rashid Johnson in the San Francisco Bay View. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A piece on the NABPP, "Black Revolutionary Communism Today," in the political journal Upping the Anti, issue 13. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb on a Washington, DC art exhibition accompanying a book release by Rashid Johnson. Carrite (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make some interesting points about inclusion, and I would be in favor of keeping this content if it caught the notice of even one small independent news organization. The first reference that you listed (above) was written by Rashid, the second is of questionable editorial integrity (may be good - I just don't know) and the third seems to exist solely to promote the book. - Mr X 18:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. I'd oppose Carrite's idea for political parties since people are creating a great many non-notable political parties every year. No need to open the floodgates. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is about a fringe organization. "A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is." The organization is not notable with no coverage by independent reliable sources. I agree with MrX that none of the sources mentioned above is independent and reliable. The Black Panther Party objects to the group using the name.[1] Like Carrite, I favor inclusion of all significant political parties but this article gives undue weight to a few people who have done no activities that might make the group a political party. Note that Rashid Johnson is truly notable; Kevin 'Rashid' Johnson, incarcerated criminal, is not. This article does not belong in Wikipedia. In the unlikely event that the group becomes notable, an article will be created then. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 23:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - What references are in the article are not enough and I cannot find enough in Reliable Sources to pass WP:GNG. Nothing in Goolge news archives and only minor mention in anything in Google books. Hoppingalong (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much notable as I also do not find enough sources to make notable. TruPepitoM Talk To Me 11:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:StephenBuxton under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LVK Doss

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

Likely non-notable person. The article reads like a resume. The only references are IMDB and an online video in which he is listed in the credits. - Mr X 23:03, 24 October 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. Spinning Spark 17:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Raunchous Brothers

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

Seems like a flash-in-the pan musical ensemble, which probably self-publishes their music. I was unable to find any news articles establishing notability. References seem to be self-publishing websites. - Mr X 22:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I was going to nominate until I saw you already had, delete--Go Phightins! 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not established due to sources being self published, the discog site is not suitable for establishing notability per WP:GNG. A google search did not come up with anything either.Righteousskills (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if a band is to be deemed notable they should at least have a few news entries. I can't find anything that they didn't have a hand in publishing. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two passing mentions in news results, one of them an unreliable source and the other a likely joke article that predates the band's formation. Only blogs and other minor coverage turns up in a Google search. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. --Batard0 (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google News archives provided one irrelevant result but Google Books found better results here but both won't provide relevant previews and are insufficient. Considering there isn't an official website or appropriate profile for The Raunchous Brothers, this suggests they haven't been significantly successful and it seems they haven't been active recently. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find enough evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fox Christmas television episodes

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

Seemingly non-notable list. Specific in scope, but very inclusive and abundant in extent and with no references. - Mr X 22:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:IINFO looks controlling. There's no real attempt made to justify why this list is in fact notable, it's just an indiscriminate list of Christmas television episodes from a particular broadcaster. Most of these shows already have pages and there are plenty of places to find television episodes that are notable in culture for their relationship with Christmas, this is just other context reshuffled with a dash of WP:OR for flavor. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily meets WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Not even an attempt by the article creator to list the network's Christmas specials, and there are sure to be many episodes on this list which are just regular episodes with a tree in the background and 'Happy Holidays' at the end. Nate • (chatter) 01:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information. No sources are provided to indicate that differentiating Christmas episodes of television series by the network on which they appeared is a notable method of distinguishing them, or that Christmas episodes on Fox are a distinct topic from Christmas episodes on ABC or NBC or CBS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the editor also created an article each for ABC, CBS and NBC's "Christmas episodes", of which the original research seems to be "Christmasy title+December airing date=Christmas episode". MrX should consider adding those articles to this nom for the same reasons. Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not appropriate to add nominations to an ongoing AfD discussion, but someone could start a new one for the remaining group. - Mr X 12:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which applies to plot summaries, lyrics databases and statistics. Purely from the meaning of the term, it is also not indiscriminate. In fact, it seems it was quite carefully put together. The real issue, in my view, is that it's not notable. Under WP:LISTN, the subject must be covered as a group of things. I'm not convinced that such coverage in reliable sources exist after doing a search. There seem to be program listings some years for Christmas shows, but these are mainly on unreliable sources and in any event don't amount to significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia; I can't see any encyclopedic purpose to grouping together all Christmas episodes that happen to have aired on the same network, regardless of the show or time period. A list of all notable individual Christmas-themed episodes or specials would be a different matter. postdlf (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see why it is here. Corn cheese (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cummins (I, Braineater)

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria in WP:MUSIC. I find very little in the way of reliable sources that discuss his musical career in any depth; most of what I find are lists of gigs, etc., and anything useful is restricted mainly to local (Vancouver-area) media. Kinu ^t/_c 22:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinu you need to relax, you've deleted allmost everything I have added to wikipedia. PLEASE STOP. Content cannot be added to articles if you keep deleting them arbitrarily. Jim Cummins is known more for his art than for his music. You need to allow for time to add content to the subject.

T.S Ghost 23:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TSGhost (talk • contribs)

Submitted something for AfD is not an arbitrary deletion; it's putting it in front of an audience for consideration, and if it gets deleted it will not be just on Kinu's say-so. It looks as if Kinu went beyond what was on the page, did some investigating himself, and found the results wanting. You can certainly counteract that by putting some appropriate sources here, ones which indicate Cummins's notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, it fails to meet any if the criteria of WP:BAND. There are only two local (Vancouver, BC) news articles, and one is of questionable reliability. The article seems to have a fair amount of content, but little of encyclopedic values, such as, for example, his birth year. - Mr X 00:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails both WP:Band and WP:ARTIST not to mention WP:GNG. There is little there to substantiate claims of notability. The article is wholly unencyclopedic but if we were to edit out the inappropriate cruft -- such as the enormous photo -- there would be little remaining. freshacconci talktalk 14:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this person to establish notability under any of the criteria that might apply (general, music, art). What coverage I could find is minor and and / or from marginal sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; what research I did failed to locate sources indicating notability. Article author claims that subject is known more for his art than music, but article includes little coverage of said art, and no objective claims that even rise to sufficient notability even if they were documented. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I researched thoroughly about this, but sources are scarce. Also, it looks like they don't have much recognition and contribution to society. TruPepitoM Talk To Me 12:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's an article at straight.com, but this is not a reliable source. There was also at one point a story in the North Shore News, although it's now a broken link. In any event, it looks like a small-ish publication with limited scope. There's also coverage at Bloodied But Unbowed, but it's an interview and is thus a primary source, not a secondary one. There's also something about surfboard designs, but it's also not a reliable source and not suitably independent, as the site is showcasing his boards in an exhibit. There's an article in a newsletter called Vanguard, although the reliability of this is somewhat suspect. There's an article in Artmagazine from 1981 in which he's mentioned. Some other similar coverage exists, but nothing that would qualify as significant from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. --Batard0 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resonance Kota

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

A non-notable cram school - the article is written like an advert. Biker Biker (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are several third party references and the institution is almost certainly as notable as all of the grade schools we already include in WP. The article does need to be rewritten though. - Mr X 00:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Agree with Mr.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Article has some neutrality problems, but it has received sufficient coverage by secondary sources. The subject has been covered in a Times of India article and an Economic Times article, with more trivial mentions in The Hindu and The Calcutta Telegraph. Meets the general notability guideline, but only barely.--xanchester (t) 20:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G7) at the request of the only contributor. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Habib

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

per WP:POLITICIAN, un-elected candidates for local office are probably not notable unless they pass WP:GNG, which I don't believe Habib does Go Phightins! 21:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that rule of Wikipedia. Sorry. I have put the request for speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elecguy47 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naik Foundation

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

All sources in the article are either primary, only mention the group in passing or have nothing to do with the foundation. Many of the articles are about someone named Naik (I assume the foundation founder) buying bookstores in various countries. I have not been able to confirm any information in the article. I also had to remove a few very sketchy looking links, one was not even a website, just an IP and a port. Two obviously related single purpose accounts have been editing the article, almost looks like the article creator forgot his password. The notabilty tag was removed and all the bookshop links were added by the second account. One of these accounts also upload the logo claiming they own the logo, indicating self promotion. Ridernyc (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, all of the references listed are either irrelevant to this group or insufficient and my searches through Google US and India provided nothing useful. This foundation certainly has a noble cause but it would need a complete rewrite with appropriate references. Considering the first external link that the article lists is Marathi, it is certainly likely any useful sources may not be English or Internet-based. SwisterTwister talk 22:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per SwisterTwister. Irrelevant references seem to have been added to lend notability to the subject. - Mr X 01:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Most of the citations are either self-published and unreliable or trivial mentions. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organisations.--xanchester (t) 09:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. News results include this article in Express India, but it appears to be about a similarly named but different foundation. I could be wrong, though, because it apparently operates in Gujarat. Nothing significant turns up in web results. Nothing in books. Having said this, I realize that there could be significant coverage in non-English sources. If such coverage can be shown to exist, I may change my stance provided that it's significant. For now, though, fails WP:GNG and WP:NGO. --Batard0 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 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 00:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aldorlea Games

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

There are a lack of sources establishing notability (RPG Fan, Jayisgames do not appear to be reliable). Gamasutra only posted a short press release by the developers. Gamezebo has reviews of games made by the company, which appears to be reliable, but a couple of game reviews by one website don't seem to be enough to support notability for the developer. 92.15.200.197 (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer The above nomination was copied from Talk:Aldorlea Games [2]. As it appears to be a good faith attempt to nominate, I am completing the nomination process on behalf of the IP editor. Due to the discrepancy between the time the nomination was made and the time I'm listing it, please use the time of this comment for closing purposes. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:01, 24 October 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) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found. Individual gamers like "Casual Gamer Chick" are not reliable sources. - Mr X 01:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Interviews [3], [4], [5], [6]. Looks like quite a few more out there as well. Plus,any awards the games won are awards the company won for producing said game. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: To address the nom's basic claims: RPG Fan is reliable and Jayisgames is "situationally reliable" per WP:VG/S. In addition, Gamezebo is also an RS. It looks to me like there are multiple RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange, although there's a tick next to RPGFan, the discussions linked don't support a conclusion of reliability, unless I've missed something. 92.15.200.197 (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good catch. The edit that marked it as an RS was this one. You might want to contact User:Axem Titanium to see what he meant by "+confirmed" (i.e. where was it confirmed?). I'd also bring this up in WP:VG/S talk to get it cleared up because not all of the reliability determinations there have proper rationales and that should be corrected. -Thibbs (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any independent, reliable sources to back this up other than the few Gamezebo reviews (all from the same writer), which aren't enough. And the interviews are not particularly reliable—nothing to establish notability. There's also a large amount of link overloading, but it doesn't help the core WP:N issue. czar · · 16:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are 5 reviews of Aldorlea games (3 Stars of Destiny [7] - Millennium [8] - Asguaard [9] - Sylia [10] - Moonchild [11]) on Gamezebo from 5 different reviewers, plus 3-4 previews and 2 interviews. Why are you not saying the truth? There are also several press releases (not just "a small one") from the company published by Gamasutra [12][13][14]. And several interviews, previews and reviews from reviewfix [15] [16], Rampant Games, Gamertell [17] [18], truepcgaming [19] [20], RPGamer [21] [22], RPG Watch [23], Jayisgames, Gamersdailynews [24] etc. The company also has several reviews and interviews on RPG Fan which is considered reliable for many other entries on Wikipedia - so why not here? Objectively RSes are all over the place, in fact the article could use an update. If you are going to delete this, then you should delete about half of the indie developers on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure that re-prints of press releases qualify as independent sources in establishing notability. Also, can you show examples of RPG Fan being considered reliable for "many other entries on Wikipedia"? 92.15.200.197 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is this [25] more notable for instance? Gamezebo, RPG Fan and some other links. Just like here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - This game was "kept" using as RSes articles from... RPG Fan, Gamezebo and Jayisgames. Check out the contibution by Someoneanother 10:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC) and how it convinces everyone and tell me why the contribution by 88.209.88.183 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC) is any worse, in reality it cites far more sources and yet 92.15.200.197 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC) still doesn't find "it's enough".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Eternal_Eden Another game that uses RPG Fan and has no better reliable sources either, most of their sources are the same as Aldorlea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Kimori Here is a game that doesn't have 10% of Aldorlea's press coverage and importance, is not even commercial, and yet I see no deletion process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Night_Trilogy

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixJamesWatts (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established with several articles from Gamezebo, RPG Fan, Jayisgames, Big Fish, Groupees and countless others. Also was at the London Game Festival [26]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FelixJamesWatts (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Gamershell (which is considered reliable) published a lot of stuff about Aldorlea such as [27] or [28]. With Gamezebo and RPGamer both considered reliable as well as per WP:VG/S, that already makes 3 different sources, 4 if you consider RPG Fan whose tick in WP:VG/S was removed just now (convenient but not very fair) and 5 with Jayisgames as "SR". That's not even counting all the other "uncharted" sources such as Gamertell or Reviewfix (which seems to show up a lot as a reference [29]). Also several articles on jeuxvideo.com which is easily the biggest gaming site in France [30][31] [32]. There are plenty of RSes for this. The page just needs a facelift with the appropriate links.
- The sources you cite are press releases or capsule descriptions of games. Neither of these rise to significant independent coverage, in my view. --Batard0 (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's a review of sourcing:
- A press release discussing new games. There are quite a few press releases and announcements, which don't qualify as reliable sources and must be ignored here.
- There are a some reviews of its games, like this. I judge Gamezebo.com to be sufficiently reliable for the subject at hand, but this review (and others) focus on the games, not the developer, and as such do not amount to significant coverage of the developer. The notability of games is not conferred upon the company that develops them per WP:ORGSIG.
- There are no mentions in book results.
- In the web results, there's an interview with the founder here, but there's very little coverage of the company itself outside the text of the interview, which is a primary source because it's the founder talking about the company. There's little else of any significance in the web results.

All in all, there's not enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. --Batard0 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please clarify the following: aren't notable games made by a company a proper way to demonstrate notability? Most links here are about the games themselves but how else is game making company supposed to be notable other than through their games? Additionally, I recall countless Wiki articles about gamemaking companies focusing mainly on the games they produce (which seems logical). If anything Aldorlea does have a fair lot of interviews compared to other indie companies. This really needs clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.104.131 (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reading WP:ORGSIG, where it discusses inherited notability. I grant that it doesn't talk directly about companies inheriting notability from their products, but the spirit of it seems to be that companies don't inherit notability from notable things associated with them. I think what the guideline is getting at is we'd like to see coverage in reliable sources of the company itself, rather than its products, subsidiaries or people associated with it. There's a difference between a major article about Ivory soap and a major article about Proctor & Gamble, the company that makes it. The former article might be about how great the soap is, with a passing mention of P&G as its manufacturer. This doesn't give us much to say about P&G, other than that it makes the soap. The latter article, on the other hand, may discuss P&G's corporate history, management, future plans, etc., and says a lot about P&G that we can use in an article. It shows that people have taken notice of P&G, and hence that P&G is notable. That's how I understand the distinction in the guidelines. Hope that helps. --Batard0 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thanks for your reply. However I have to insist as I see a matter of double-standards then. Case in point, how is this any different for most of these small companies. For instance HanakoGames [33] The sources are objectively no better. A couple of interviews (Aldorlea has them too, in bigger quantity and more reliable, including one from Erin Bell who is notable enough to have her own Wiki page [34]) and a line about a reward in 2007 but Aldorlea was at the London Games Festival in 2012 which seems to me a bigger sign of notability. In all fairness I can't see how AldorleaGames is not fulfilling the notability requirements if HanakoGames (and the many similar articles on Wikipedia) are.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.104.131 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'd have G4ed it myself: none of the issues from the original AFD have been addressed.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARTPOP (2013 album)

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

Reasons for deletion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JovanMonster (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title fails Wikipedia criteria for capital letters (Form and document creation#Capital Letters) and albums (Wikipedia:NALBUMS).
There's already an existing article - Artpop, but it's currently a redirect to Lady Gaga.
The most of the content is unconfirmed + unsourced. Jovannn (talk) 20:41, 24 October 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 October 24. Snotbot t • c » 20:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature speculation: any encyclopedic content is already covered elsewhere. Although starting your AfD request with an entirely invalid argument (bad capitalisation) isn't a good way to get support. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seconding Colapeninsula's points. Any brief bits of encyclopedic content found in the article is, at this point, pretty much drowned out by the fancruft. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, obviously significant if only RELIABLE information is included. This could be a stub as there is enough information to keep this article afloat. The information can be merged with Artpop and this page can be deleted. Not to be included on her main page, but Artpop as its own article.--TV (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep it. Gaga fans need a wikipedia article plus there are other artists whose albums have yet to come out and they have their articles not deleted. Does it have to be deleted even though it will be even more relevant a few months from now? - JJS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.160.204 (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly reduce and merge, for the reasons stated by Colapeninsula.- Mr X 01:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little info here is reliably sourced; when a standalone Artpop article is deemed appropriate, I would just go ahead and use this early version as a starting point. Gongshow ^Talk 06:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There's no need to redirect, the Artpop page already redirects to Lady Gaga. Not much to merge either.--xanchester (t) 09:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This album already has an article in the incubator at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Artpop. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARTPOP. Cliff Smith 00:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's time to bring it out. There's enough info on this subject to create a decent article. A LOT of artists have "John Doe's third album" instead of the actual title. TV | talk 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll quote my own comments from the article's talk page, after I put a PROD tag on the article which was later removed; "A quote from the relevant standard, which is found at WP:NALBUMS: "Generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". I think there is more information here than for most unreleased albums, but there's still no release date." Time enough to remake this if and when the album is released. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for speculation. Mt king ^(edits) 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already an Artpop article that has been changed to a redirect.Tay ^(uhoh) 01:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fear (2013 film)

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

Per Wikipedia's policy on film notability found here, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The article lacks reliable third party sources stating why the production is notable. Holyfield1998 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks notability and references. With such a modest budget, it may not even finish production. - Mr X 01:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A well-stated case that it fails WP:NF, and I can't find any evidence that the production is notable. It's an odd one in that it is asserted that it finished filming but has not been released, so it's somewhere in the middle. But a search of the cited quote from a critic at the end turns up no results in Google aside from the Wikipedia article, which raises doubt about its verifiability. I also can find nothing searching the name of the film crossed with the director's and actors'. This may be a small production that has attracted very little notice, if any. --Batard0 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twingo snooker

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable game. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is the only contribution by this Wikipedian, with an account set up almost immediately before the article was written. It is both non-notable and a very low-quality article - and I wouldn't be surprised to find the user is a sockpuppet or some other kind of abuser of Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like a game somebody made up in the car. Definitely not for Wikipedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's funny. But WP:ITSFUNNY. Not a single reference on google books, google news or google. Indicates it may be WP:MADEUP. Misses all notability guidelines by a long way. --Batard0 (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. No sources. Reads like, and likely is, something someone made up one day.--xanchester (t) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination, also quite frankly, I don't see the notability in Car cricket. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 13:30, 27 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emi Fujita

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

Does not meet notability requirements according to Wikipedia:Notability (music) ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No details of any kind of success or recognition after the duo's sole hit. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 22:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable outside the duo. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to Oricon, she has three solo albums that have charted, one of which peaked at #27 and remained on the charts for 11 weeks. See here. WP:MUSICBIO states that "A musician ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria," with one of those criteria being "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Since it does not specify a particular position on the charts, I think she has cleared notability requirements. After only a brief search, I have also found a number citations of her as a solo artist in RS: BS Asahi (nationwide satellite TV), the Yomiuri shinbun, Yomiuri again, Shiga hochi, Ameba, etc. Michitaro (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable coverage by Michitaro. Also, her songs charted, so that works for me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources to show notability. 1.112.77.29 (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)— 1.112.77.29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 17:32, 24 October 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 October 24. Snotbot t • c » 19:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro, passes MUSICBIO and GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is a charted musician. However, the article needs a large amount of expanding, more sources and generally bringing in-line with a standard Wiki article - as does the related article of Le Couple. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michitaro, trusting the translation from Japanese is correct and that there is a charting album. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, and additional sources appear to put it past WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 18:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Jovi outtakes

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

No sources at all to back up claims. Has had tag since 2011. TV (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has no sources whatsoever, has very poor grammar (the article name itself is grammatically incorrect...), and things like demo versions are not remotely relevant anyway. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the unpublished songs listed here aren't notable enough to be included in the articles about the various albums, they certainly aren't notable enough for a standalone list. And it has no sources at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, ultimately violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is unencyclopedic. Also, unreleased songs aren't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Ha dg er 00:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has become well-referenced during the course of this discussion, invalidating the early deletes. Spinning Spark 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Lennon–McCartney songs

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

No significance to keep this article. Also no sources. I suggest merging information with their own articles. TV (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has no valid sources as previously stated, and it's actually to do with the Beatles, not John Lennon and Paul McCartney separately in the first place based on its one source, which is hardly reliable... Lukeno94 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Songs they wrote together for the Beatles were credited as Lennon–McCartney, so I don't get your comment that "it's actually to do with the Beatles." Were you confused on that point? postdlf (talk) 15:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the main articles are too large, and this is more than merely fancruft. Even their unrecorded songs were important for the development of modern popular music in the western canon. Bearian (talk)

But are you missing the point that there's ONE source and it's Blogspot? Which isn't even a source and should actually be removed right now. TV | talk 19:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Believed to have been written based on one unreliable source makes this too unreliable for WP. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 20:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most of the other "Unreleased XYZ" articles up for discussion, this topic appears to be notable. No reliable sources were present in the article at the time of this nomination, but it seems that a good amount of coverage (not mere directory/database listings) exists, particularly at Google Books. I've attempted to expand the article incorporating some of these references. Gongshow ^Talk 11:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 12:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Sissel Kyrkjebø songs

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

No valid sources at all. Most of the titles link to covers and not any of Sissel's own material. I had to research to find out what this article was about. It seems that all of these songs were ONLY performed live? What's the significance of this article? TV (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination - it's also set out like a Wikipedia category, not as a valid article should be. A completely irrelevant mess. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A song performed is not notable, nor is a list of performed songs, performed by X does not increase that notability. A list of songs is not notable in itself - especially a list which is no more than a index, no answers as to when and where, who wrote it. As there appears to be no requirement for a List of songs recorded by Sissel Kyrkjebøthen the interest and notability of this list is established as zero. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with related discussions, WP:WAX aside. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:N and WP:FANCRUFT apply here too. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Cher songs

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

This list contains no sources and has had a sources tag since 2009. This is unreliable and not needed, and also a mess. TV (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a complete mess of an article, it has no real relevance to Wikipedia. The most worrying thing is that it appears in the Cher template... Lukeno94 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A song performed is not notable, nor is a list of unreleased songs, performed by X does not increase that notability. A list of songs is not notable in itself. As there appears to be no requirement for a List of songs recorded by Cher then the interest and notability of this list does not appear to be established. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:FANCRUFT. Dubious and unsourced. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ITM Power

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

Previously deleted, and I still don't see any notability. Yes, it has a contract with the UK Government, but how does that make this small company notable? All I see are a few press releases around and some stuff from the local news; not significant enough. Yes, there are a lot of reference. But this seriously fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There are so few good sources that I just can't see enough notability in this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep First of all, I'd like to explain why this was nominated. I was asking TAP to review it for DYK. He then proceeded to file an AfD. OK, right, ITM Power is reasonably notable in my opinion. WP:CORP is the policy that applies to this article. As proved by the many references in the article, it meets the opening sentence of WP:CORP that says"A subject is generally notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources..." It is pretty clear that there is no inherent or inherited notability gained by the subject. All sources seem acceptable, and I really can't see how this doesn't meet WP:CORP W.D. (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The green energy contract with the British government makes it notable, in addition to the numerous 3rd party sources that already exist. Legoktm (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per W.D. - any company with such clear links with the British government is clearly notable. Article does need expanding if possible though. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure where "strong links" to government come from - and I don't see that at WP:CORP as a notability criteria. I see a small company with a few press releases printed and local coverage. Nothing to say there is anything notable about it. I have asked W.D. for what specific WP:CORP criteria it meets without response - the first two references given are clearly from press releases, the third and fourth are explicitly press releases, the fifth is a directory entry, the sixth is another press release, the seventh could be the basis if other good refs can back it up, the eighth mentions the company in passing - not significant coverage, the ninth is another press release, the tenth might be significant or could be another press release not as clear cut as some of the others, the eleventh and twelfth are not significant coverage, the thirteenth and fourteenth are basically the same, and the last is a primary source. While there seems to be a lot of sources, there are very few good sources so fails WP:CORPDEPTH. noq (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The first two sources, which I see no idea how you can address together, do not seem to be based on press releases nor be press releases themselves (at least not the latter source). To write an article about a company, triggered by a press release does not in any way make it a press release or even be purely based on a press release. The third is not a press release, it is a reference to said person as a non-executive director. As for the fourth, if the London Stock Exchange news service isn't a reliable source, then that is pretty weird, I also note that it is not a press release. The fifth, is an entry with information on the company, so I don't see how that isn't reliable. The sixth is record of a speech made, not a press release. I'll finish this comment later, I have to go now. W.D. (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing in the first two reports looks very much like an edited press release - The first appears to be derived from an announcement from the Carbon Trust on 31 July, the second seems entirely based on quotes from the company, the third is an announcement of the appointment of a director which does nothing to support notability, neither does the directory entry in ref 5, the sixth is a speech from the company hosted on the companies own website -a primary source and no good for establishing notability. noq (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this [35] count as a valid source? If it does, it does clearly state their links with a governmental scheme, plus the largest sustainable energy project in the UK. A few other articles I found on the internet that aren't just press releases: [36], [37], [38]. I'll leave it for the more experienced Wikipedians to decide whether these are valid enough sources. I'm still sticking with my keep view from earlier. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Star is a dead link. See WP:NEWSORG. The Star, and many other newspapers are all unreliable. Things like the BBC are reliable, and possibly The Daily Telegraph or The Guardian. The Daily Star, along with The Sun are the least reliable sources I can think of. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a dead link because I goofed with this link. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- namely per the the green energy contract w/ the British government, as well as per W.D.'s comments. Theo polisme 11:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can something be notable just because it has a contract with the UK Government? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to badger. I meant that specific contract -- and what it entailed... not just any run of the mill project. Theo polisme 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; You had me at The Economist. There is a bit too much PR in the references, true, but the ones that are for reals Reliable Sources would easily be sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. Company has been given detailed coverage by the Economist and the BBC. Meets the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organisations.--xanchester (t) 23:08, 25 October 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 Bow Group. MBisanz ^talk 00:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Harris-Quinney

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

Fails WP:Bio. Being chairman of a Conservative think tank and publishing a few papers does not make him notable. Tiller54 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about Notability (academics) @SmithAndTeam (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet criteria. Putting on an exhibition for Churchill, writing 2 articles for websites and being part of a think tank that publishes an article of ideas for the Conservative Party does not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Tiller54 (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criteria for WP:AUTHOR WP:BK and WP:ACADEMIC, see Phillip Blond, Tim Montgomerie.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.55.207 (talk • contribs)

Hello 77.226.55.207 - I believe you mean "Keep" but wrote "Comment" following the lead of the previous poster. So I went ahead and changed your probable intended position accordingly, feel free to change back if this was not your intention. -- Green Cardamom (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 6:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Keep He is chair of Bow Group, the oldest Conservative think tank in the UK. It's current President is Prime Minister Sir John Major, so it's a venerable elite institution among British conservatives. According to WP:ACADEMIC #5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" -- I'm reading "and research" as a proxy for think tank. We don't have WP:THINKTANK but if we did surely it would mirror WP:ACADEMIC in this regard, since schools and think tanks both engage in research and publishing papers. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the body of research that would befit the 'named chair' analogue. Working for a think tank does not an academic make. EardleyC (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the Chairman or Director of a notable think tank, which the entry is, is very different from just working for a think tank.

Keep For those with intimate knowledge of UK Politics the Bow Group's body of research is vast and directly influences the Conservative Party and therefore Government of the United Kingdom, the Chairman of the institution publishes and has a hand in authoring or editing every document and article produced, in addition to WP:ACADEMIC there is strong cause to say the role is in effect also one of a political figure WP:POLITICIAN User:Bluese7en

Delete - Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR and especially not WP:POLITICIAN. Should re-direct to Bow Group. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Presents cause for WP:THINKTANK entry under which entry would certainly qualify. Otherwise it falls somewhere between WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.214.60 (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Being chairman of the Bow Group doesn't seem to be that much of a distinction; it appears to be a rotating post which gets passed along every year, and the list given in our article is full of red links. Outside of that he seems to have no real footprint other than the blogosphere; indeed I'm not sure that those references aren't all from the Bow Group itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Notability is not inherited. The Bow Group is notable, but this individual has no coverage outside of his capacity as their chairman. For similar reasons, and from a different side of the political aisle, Olaf Cramme was redirected via AFD to Policy Network, where he serves as director. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ranjodhpur (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entry has clearly written and made contributions outside of his role as director of a think tank, and there is no reason why the article should not qualify even if he had not. The Bow Group is a major UK think tabk and the role has cinsiderable influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.233.44 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Some coverage is in: Evening Standard November 9, 2011, Telegraph May 24, 2012, Mail July 8, 2012. The Wikipedia article appears to be written by looking at Harris-Quinney's resume and reporting in Wikipedia what Harris-Quinney has done per his resume. Between Harris-Quinney's life events and Wikipedia, there needs to be independent reliable third-party sources covering Harris-Quinney's life events. Without those, there's no direction on what to add to the Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ben Harris-Quinney was on BBC news today discussing prison reform in the UK, why would the entry be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEQ7 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "He was on the BBC News channel" doesn't fulfil notability requirements... unless you're Guy Goma. Dcfc1988 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 5 of the 7 votes to keep come from newly-created accounts who have never contributed before or unregistered users who have also never contributed to wikipedia before ... I wonder if any of them know Mr. Harris-Quinney or work for the Bow Group... Tiller54 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be worth noting that Tiller54 initiated the request to delete the entry and yet vandalises it 3 or 4 times a day in removing valid citations and information. Upon review of this discussion and the entry's edit history it is clear that the user Tiller54 is operating with a motivated bias to remove / vandalise the entry in question. (I am re-adding this comment after the deadline as it was removed by Tiller54 but was originally posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.214.49 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.214.143 (talk)
Keep: Topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:08, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology of California

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

Article is an unnecessary content fork and contains major overlap with other better, more well-developed articles such as California, Geography of California, Climate of California, and Deserts of California among others. This article also seems to have little to do with the concept of ecology, and mostly consists of a annotated list with a lot of links to other articles. Darkest tree (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator). Adding to the above, here is my more detailed comment from the article's talk page:

On 2012-10-23 I added the PROD tag to this article to propose its deletion. I feel that it qualifies for deletion for a number of reasons. First, it is an unnecessary article whose content is better covered, and covered more specifically, in articles such as California, Geography of California, Climate of California, and Deserts of California. This article seems to be little more than an expanded list. It also doesn't discuss "ecology" hardly at all, which is a dated, nebulous, and vague subject area to begin with. I don't feel that "Ecology of California" is a good subject for an article or a good title for an article that attempts to cover the subjects in this article.

Also—California is such a large state with such a massive diversity of biological communities, climates, terrains, and eco-regions, that it would be nearly impossible to bring all those subjects together adequately, under the heading of "ecology," without creating a huge amount of overlap on other articles that are already well-developed.

The concept of geography much more adequately covers the subject matter that this article seems to be trying to back itself into. The Geography of California article (to which this article links in its see also list) seems to be off to a much better start of covering these topics, and doing so in a reliable and verifiable fashion. While the Geography of California article lacks much info on biota, that is also a legitimate ___domain of geography. The discussion of bioregions (which seems to be the focus of this "Ecology of California" article) would be better discussed as a subject of geography.

Tellingly, the first paragraph of this article invokes "bioregionalists" and a poet as authorities for this article, to define...what exactly? Geographic areas? Now we're talking about geography again. It seems this content wants to be part of a geography article to me.

Also, the article only has two citations and a relatively short (though chronologically long) edit history. Rather than engaging in a drawn-out attempt to draw editors to make more citations and references for this undeveloped article, I think it would be best to just delete it. I myself am not going to spend time developing and finding citations for an unorganized, undirected article like this that clearly has little importance on Wikipedia. –Darkest tree (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Geography of California as the nominator says, it seems to be principally a fork of this. Mangoe (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. Well, this is a mess. Geography, climate, and ecology are not equivalent concepts. It is totally reasonable for us to have an article about the Geography of California, which discusses deserts, mountains, rivers, and lakes; to have an article about the Climate of California, which discusses temperature ranges and precipitation; and to have an article that discusses the ecological communities and, broadly, living stuff in the state. The problem is determining where content about ecoregions and biomes should reside. Well, that's one problem -- another is the state of this article, which is poorly cited, and fails to describe ecoregions in terms of their WWF-assigned descriptors, for example. In any case, currently the "biology stuff" is here, at Ecology of California, and Natural history of California redirects to it. Environment of California is a parallel article in even more decrepit condition, that purports to be about human alterations of the environment, but really does include a lot of pure geography fluff. Making matters worse, to the extent that these by-state articles exist (by and large, they don't), they're at Environment of State (and that's what the navbox template expects). I think my preferred plan would be to merge to Environment of California what can be salvaged here, destroying the weird distinction that article currently holds (and absolutely not merging it to Geography of California), then fixing the problems there. In fact, the information in the applicable category tree (Category:Environment of the United States by state or territory and subcats) strongly implies that's what should have been going on all along. Whew! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Geography of California. The article's content would fit comfortably in Geography of California. Miguel.v (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. I've gone through the criteria for article deletion and cannot find an applicable criterion. This article is not a WP:Content fork: it dates back to 2004, pre-dating Environment of California. This article does not strongly overlap Geography of California, because that article divides the state into geomorphic provinces, while this one attempts to divide it into ecoregions (albeit poorly). Thus, I oppose merging into Geography of California.

I propose Move to Ecoregions of California, placing it in the existing category Category:Ecoregions of the United States by state. We can then clean the article up by using and referencing the CEC and WWF ecoregions. I'm happy to help do that: this topic is encyclopedic, and the article is salvagable. I'll start the research now. —hike395 (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Later: went through and cleaned up the article, added 18 references, removed fluff. This is just a start: the work on the article is by no means finished. After researching and working on this for a couple of hours, I really do think that this is an encyclopedic topic that deserves its own article (however its named). Any overlap with other articles is covered by WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Keep (again). —hike395 (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I like the idea of moving to Ecoregions of California, since that seems like title that more aptly covers what this article is trying to be. But I still think an article on the "Ecology of X State" is far too vague of a concept. Darkest tree (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ecology is not the same thing as geography. Tdslk (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, ecology is not geography. And this article, as written, is not about ecology. I don't know what an article about the ecology of California would even look like. If you read the parent article Ecology, it's not just about ecoregions, either. It's a very broad concept that I find to be awfully vague, and I have trouble with the concept of articles on "Ecology of X State." The main ecology article itself calls out links to no fewer than 42 other main articles on or related to the concept of ecology. How can we then possibly attempt to cover these 42 (give or take) sub-subjects adequately at the state level? Are these things not better off in other, more specific articles? Wouldn't a developed article on "Ecology of California" be little more than an annotated list of other main articles? If this isn't a WP:CFORK, what is the (bad) opposite of a content fork? This article would be it. Darkest tree (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and many thanks to Hike395 for the improvements to the article. The article in its current state is encyclopedic, well sourced, and not duplicative of any other article (or of the sources - I checked a couple to make sure there's no copyvio). I would be OK with a rename to Ecoregions since that appears to be the preferred existing term. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. hike395's improvements (and the multiple California entries in List of ecoregions in the United States (WWF)) make clear that this is distinct from both geology and climate. Whether it should be titled ecology or ecoregions or whatever does not need to be decided within the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and encyclopedic, and the article has been expanded and cleaned up.--xanchester (t) 23:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while this article may be fragmentary and not well focused, the subject of the ecology of california, like the environment of California, is extensively discussed, though the boundaries of such discussions are not as precise as the state boundary itself. Still, its a recognized topic in academia, so keeping an article with this name and focus is fine. its definitely NOT geography of cali, or climate. I wish there was a natural history of California as well (its now a redirect to this article), with ecology a sub article from that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved by User:Hike395 compared to its state at the time of nomination for removal from the encyclopedia. It currently has 21 sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Northamerica. This is easily notable, and has been improved greatly. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 29 October 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 Football in Tuvalu. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the Tuvalu Games

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

This is a wholly unreferenced article that does not indicate why it is notable. A google search shows effectively no third party reports on the Tuvalu games themselves, let alone the football competition. The winners of this do not seem to progress to any form of continental competition either and I am not able to find any source to substantiate the results given, which form the vast majority of the article. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is just like the other tournaments, a relevant tournament. The tournament carries also the name Tuvalu Cup. This Article has existed if since January, and if it has been not relevant, it will remove already its. And this is the source :http://www.tnfa.tv/pages.php?page=53 --Klant01 (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This response is not suitable as an argument to keep the article for the following four three reasons:

1. "It is a relevant tournament" is about as clear a version of WP:JNN as it is possible to have. One of the issues with this article is at no point does it show why it is relevant or notable.

2. "The tournament carries also the name Tuvalu Cup" statement is unsourced and is not even mentined in the article itself. There are also three other cups in Tuvalu which all seem to have identical entry criteria (i.e. everyone), namely Tuvalu Independence Cup, NBT Cup and Christmas Cup. If it is indeed the national cup of Tuvalu then it is inherently notable, but this must be shown to be the case.

3. As stated in all the other deletion discussions you have responded to, please try to avoid using the "It's been here for ages so should stay argument". This is completely irrelevant and is specifically one argument that editors are asked to avoid here.

4. That source is a primary source and does not confer notability of the competition. ~~Also, that link does not even appear to mention the Tuvalu games at all, it is about the two players coming to VV Brabantia.~~ Fenix down (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 19:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. soccerway has this cup which tells me it'S probably the main cup in tuvalu right now. it could need work though. -Koppapa (talk) 19:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem with that is that when you look at the menu here and expand Tuvalu, it is simply referred to as "Domestic Cup". Both the FA and League Cups are referred to as domestic cups, so I don't think it is safe to make that assumption as that website provides no criterion by which the official national cup can be deduced concretely. In addition that website is also clearly incomplete. On the same link if you expand Guam, you will see just the domestic league, but on rsssf there is clearly a national FA Cup.

It would also seem odd to me that there are three other standalone cups all with seemingly identical entry requirements and one, the Independence Cup, which has been running much longer than the Tuvalu Games, yet a tournament within a multi-discipline games would be the official cup. That just doesn't make any sense to me. However, if someone could provide a source to show this is the official cup, then that would be fine. Fenix down (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well in absence of a OFC Cup winners cup, you wont find any info on which the most prestigious cup is. The island only has eight clubs, so they surely all play all cups. All are organised by the Association, so they are all "official". -Koppapa (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you not? If the competition fulfills WP:GNG that is exactly what I would expect to find. If you go to the official website, it is the last to be mentioned here and the competitions are not mentioned in the order in which they were founded, so it seems very unlikely to me that this is the official competition, merely a competition that may be organised by the FA but one that exists within a larger event. I feel I have to say that while I accept your comments are made in good faith, they rest entirely on assumptions. Can you please show where sources indicate that this is the national cup competition and if you cannot do this, please provide sufficient third party sources on this competition so that in your mind it fulfills WP:GNG, that is all that is being asked as currently there is a wealth of information on football, competitions and players in Tuvalu that is completely unreferenced and at no point can reliably show notability. Fenix down (talk) 08:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just saying each of these four cups is a "national cup", as all teams in the country compete in them. I'm aware most likely all four of them fail GNG. -Koppapa (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Football in Tuvalu - no evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 09:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know the football in Tuvalu complete good. For this reason say I also, that it is just like the other tournaments. Organised by the TNFA. It has been since this year for the men, women and also B teams. It is an important football tournament on Tuvalu. --Klant01 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that there is any doubt that you are the main source of knowledge on Tuvaluan footbal here, but unfortunately, as I noted here, we don't rely on editors' knowledge, but indepenant, reliable sourcing. a redirect to Football in Tuvalu does seem to be the best result as it is a nationwide competition, but still appears to be one that has trouble asserting its own individual notability. Fenix down (talk) 22:26, 18 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) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Giant Snowman.--Charles (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Tuvalu Games (Tuvalu Cup) are just like the other tournaments a important soccer Cup. It has been set up in 2008. The Christmas Cup in 2010. It is the only cup on Tuvalu where also women have a tournament. --Klant01 (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Football in Tuvalu or Tuvalu Games, or both. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noted in third-party sources like Soccerway and WorldSoccer.com, but such coverage seems routine and trivial and doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Looks like all content here has been boldly merged into Tuvalu Games by MozzazzoM (talk), so supporting merging into that seems unnecessary now. Sideways713 (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment If we're going to delete this, we really ought to delete Football at the 2012 Tuvalu Games – Men's tournament and Football at the 2012 Tuvalu Games – Women's tournament... Sideways713 (talk) 11:57, 31 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AirportWatch

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

NPOV, notability, WP:NOT Petebutt

I have nominated this article as i feel that it needs to be assessed for notability and particularly for neutral point of view and also assessed in the light of [[WP:NOT}}(talk) 13:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears notable (members include GreenPeace, Friends of the Earth, National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and more) and it was mentioned by the BBC on 13 Oct 2012[39] and then in the Guardian on the day this proposal for deletion was raised.[40]. The organisation has issued briefings in July and September this year so is clearly still operational.[41] I am not clear what bit of WP:NOT is applicable. Also, NPOV is not a reason for deletion, but rather for improvement. It may be useful for people to review the parallel discussions on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plane Stupid questioning the same reasoning by the same petitioner on the same day for an article about an aviation protest group. PeterEastern (talk)

Keep - Clearly makes notability, although it needs some work to expand it and so on, these are not reasons to delete articles on notable subjects. As long as the subject is notable we fix them, not delete them. Also at the point of AfD nom it didn't seem to have any NPOV issues that I can see. - Ahunt (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of solid book hits show notability. Mangoe (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reiteration of earlier keep. The reasons for it's deletion are given above as non-neutral POV and WP:NOT. I have also just noticed that the proposer explained on talk:AirportWatch his reasons for claiming NOT, which were that WP was not 'a soap box for any politics let alone looney left politics'. Should notable articles not stay regardless of their politics, be they looney left, looney right or entirely reasonal? Would it not sway the balance and usefulness of WP to get rid of all the articles describing 'looney' organisations, or even worse to get rid of only the 'looney left' articles? Is there any evidence that it is 'looney left' anyway and how would one prove that? PeterEastern (talk) 20:52, 24 October 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 Stansted Airport#Proposed developments. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Stansted Expansion

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

NPOV, Notability and WP:NOT Petebutt (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are quite a few news sources and while some of them are just local press, so maybe not significant coverage, there's at least three or four that have enough depth to demonstrate notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly merge to Stansted Airport#Proposed developments. The activities of this organization are significant to the airport, but I'm unclear whether there's any substantial material justifying a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability the one bbc reference makes not mention of the group but does mention other campaign groups. MilborneOne (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is significant coverage on pages 116–117 of Williams Morris and the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings by Andrea Donovan (Routledge, 2007, ISBN 9780415955959), as there is on the very many other reliable sources found by the Google Books and Google News links automatically supplied by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Arxiloxos. Not notable for a standalone article.--Charles (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviewstreet

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

was nominated for speedy a long time ago, and declined (by me!). On further review, I think the company probably does fail notability (corp) and so am nominating for afd. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 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) 15:25, 17 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) 17:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has two notable sources, but they are very brief mentions, essentially noting existence and little else. I'll invoke WP:CORPDEPTH here. The depth of coverage is not substantial so it needs more to pass WP:ORG.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources are not substantive mentions. Ultimately WP:GNG and WP:CORP do not appear met. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:55, 24 October 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 Andreas Whittam Smith. MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy 2015

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

This reads like a blog or advertising piece, which is against our policies. This is a political movement without much prominent coverage. There is no prominent campaigns outside the Internet. There has been no election results so far, so they fail our policies on political parties. The article is not neutral, and has the look of an advert. doktorb _words^deeds 08:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On balance I would keep; I have seen worse-written initial articles with a greater degree of self-promotion and they claim "A dramatic step forward for Democracy 2015: Adam Lotun to stand in Corby by-election on November 15" The Independent 9 October 2012 to be fighting their first election at Corby (although I do not believe they are registered with the Electoral Commission so Lotun will appear as an Ind on the ballot) Nedrutland (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Alas search results are not linkable so you will need to search it yourself; the party was registered on Oct 10 based searching the Electoral Commissions database. However, having seen worse-written articles isn't a good reason to keep, nor is having one candidate stand for election. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now -- It is too early to tell whether this will prove to be a significant initiative or a damp squib. This can only be assessed in 6-12 months. I cannot believe that the Electoral Commission would allow the name, for what seems essentilly to be trying to becoem a 4th or 5th force in British politics. I suspect that like most "independent" parties it will sink with little trace. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:27, 14 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) 15:31, 17 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) 17:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - The article as it stands is a soapbox and not an article actually about "Democracy 2015". That is potentially fixable with a rewrite. Looking for independent reliable sources, all I can find is coverage from the Independent which in this case is not very independent as Democracy 2015 is the brainchild of Andreas Witham Smith, founder of the The Independent as noted in this article. I've seen no notice taken of this in other reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - I think CoffeeCrumb's suggestion of a redirect is workable. There is no mention of Democracy 2015 at Andreas Whittam Smith right now but that can easily be fixed. -- Whpq (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As noted above, the article isn't really about Democracy 2015, it's essentially an argument for why Democracy 2015 should be instituted, with the subject of the article barely getting a cameo. Andreas Whittam Smith is notable, however, so I think it should be a redirect rather than delete (and there's no real content as of yet to merge). There's more of an argument for having a section about Democracy 2015 within Smith's page, but there really aren't enough in the way of independent sources for page to itself at this point.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:18, 24 October 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 00:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Reid

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

A self-published author of mystery novels. She sells only thru Amazon. No independent, reliable references about her except one that I found from her hometown paper. Prod was contested on the removal of the promotional Amazon links and her sales rank on Amazon. Bgwhite (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Not sure I know the voting format...) It didn't occur to me to save a screenshot of when the first book, Loose Ends, reached #1. However, here are rankings today of the first and last books in the series, which ought to make it clear that she sells a significant number of copies. These are Amazon-generated rankings, not author supplied rankings, taken from the book pages whose urls I have noted with them.

http://www.amazon.com/Loose-Ends-OReilly-Paranormal-ebook/dp/B003Y5H8IK

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,695 Paid in Kindle Store

   * #7 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Fiction > Genre Fiction > Horror > Ghosts
   * #7 in Books > Literature & Fiction > Genre Fiction > Horror > Occult
   * #7 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Fiction > Genre Fiction > Horror > Occult

http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Promises-OReilly-Paranormal-ebook/dp/B0091K78NC/ref=sr_1_2?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1351184824&sr=1-2

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,076 Paid in Kindle Store

   * #33 in Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Fiction > Genre Fiction > Mystery & Thrillers > Mystery > Women Sleuths
   * #35 in Books > Mystery, Thriller & Suspense > Mystery > Women Sleuths
   * #72 in Books > Romance > Fantasy & Futuristic

Also, from ireaderreview, "Top 100 Indie Authors for August + 46 Authors to Watch" http://ireaderreview.com/2012/08/13/top-100-indie-authors-for-august-46-authors-to-watch/ She has estimated sale figures for Terri Reid for the month of July 2012 as 7,620. It's clear from other posts that she figures out the estimated numbers, they are not author-supplied. I sent her an email asking how she does that. (I believe amazon does not publicly release sales figures for competitive reasons.) Trudyjh (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Trudyjh, book sales figures and best-seller status are not considered "notable" (by Wikipedia definition). WP:AUTHOR is the most stringent Wikipedia definition of "notable". Or it can meet the WP:GNG definition of "notable" which is easier. Basically need sources that discuss the author, like newspaper articles etc.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposed deleter has twice removed the ref to a newspaper article because it also appears in a blog. In fairness (perhaps he or she is not aware that bloggers sometimes write for newspapers, for example, the paid blogger Sheila Lennon writes for the Providence Journal) I have restored both and even left the blog ref in first place ahead of the newspaper.

There are numerous sources that discuss the author. However they are mostly blogs. Are we restricted to fast disappearing paper sources for notability? If so, that is behind the times. For example:

Terri Reid sells 60,000 ebooks first year: http://jimthewriterb.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/terri-reid-sells-60000-ebooks-in-her-first-year/

Meet the author Terri Reid http://dawnrachel.com/meet-the-author-terri-reid/

Newbie's Guide to Publishing http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/guest-post-by-terri-reid.html

Trudyjh (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are from blogs or an interview. They don't meet the requirements of being reliable, independent references. The "newspspaer article" you say I keep removing is a few sentences and then says "Read more here". Clicking "Read more here" takes you to a regular blog, not a newspaper blog. The regular blog's link is still in the article. In cases like these, you use the primary source of the information, not the references that says "read more here". Bgwhite (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong DELETE. She fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No WP:RS whatsoever to establish notability. The article's author apparently has zero idea of how Wikipedia works, despite having been around here for quite some time. That is very odd. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's great that Reid has managed to do well through self-publishing. There's probably more opportunity these days to make a living writing without needing the support of a major publishing company. However, the question is of inclusion in Wikipedia and for there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources. There is some local coverage, but we need coverage of wider scope to establish inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The person fails WP:AUTHOR and the more general WP:BASIC. Over half the article is about the book series, not about the author, and the book series also appears to fail notability under WP:BK. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:33, 31 October 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 A Motley Vision. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Larsen

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

A book publisher and blogger on Mormon subjects. He worked for book publishers for 20-years before starting his own company. The "publishing ventures" and "online ventures" section includes companies/places he as worked for with some "online ventures" started by him. Refs in the article goto the blog sites he writes for, a review of a book that doesn't mention him and and external link that is maintained by Mr Larsen. Unable to find any reliable, independent refs. Prod was contested as "...it seems to me that any journalist or critic or commentator (etc) who is frequently cited in WP articles in order to establish notability must also be notable. Or else why could we cite them to establish notability." Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a starting point, can you address that argument? It seems valid. Thmazing (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) Doesn't matter. We play by WP:GNG. You need independent, reliable references that go into detail about the subject.

2) As you are well aware, as you put many of the Kent Larsen references in the articles and you wrote this article, they are all referencing something said in a blog. Last time I checked, a general blog is unreliable and should not be used as a reference. Looking at the first 5 listed (skipping over another Real World using the same ref).

The Real World: New Orleans Reference used is here. Sorry, but that is not a reliable reference as he just "summarized" info on the blog and never wrote anything as he copied the info provided. On Wikipedia, you are supposed to use one of the refs listed, not reference the blog. This reference should be removed from Wikipedia.

Surrender Dorothy Reference used is this and does the same thing.

Brigham Young University–Idaho Reference used is this and does the same thing.

Stan Kenton. Hmm, didn't know Larsen was a jazz band member in the 30s

Josep Carles Laínez Reference used is this. It is a book review in a blog that was given the book and made some money for doing a review. Not sure how many reviews were out there that reviewed a book written in a dead language and the first published in that language for over 100 years. My sister-in-law puts book reviews on her blog. Should I start referencing them to get her a Wikipedia page?

Now, please add independent, reliable references that go into detail about him and then this AfD becomes dead. Bgwhite (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to start a fight, my goodness. I was asking a question. (And, incidentally, I'm as amused as you by the Kenton thing. I had not noticed that incoming link.

As a matter of Wikipedia strategy (and as I see you are a gnome yourself, I'm sure you'll sympathize with this), I don't always begin with a brilliant article. I often start with something stubbish, then incrementally approve it, expecting that other gnomes will step in and assist the process. Which happens as often as not.

(Incidentally, I recognize the reasons for nominating articles for deletion and am not debating the legitimacy of the process---I've seen many articles become worthy through the process. I just hate when it happens when I'm the only person working on a nascent article and I have many IRL obligations pushing down at the same time.)

Your points on the aggregate nature of the links are valid. I would like to make one counterpoint however, viz. things must become commented upon and analyzed and discussed as well as reported upon in order to become notable. And A Motley Vision, contrary to your assertions, does not make money on its reviews. In fact, it goes out of its way to avoid even the appearance of such. Check out the site and see for yourself rather than making assumptions based on the fact that the book reviewed was publisher-supplied. (Which, it's worth noting, is common industry practice. You think the NYTBR pays for it's books? PW? Kirkus? Any major review outlet / newspaper? The answer is no.)

Also worth replying to is your sister's-blog comment. Best I can tell, you're not terribly familiar with the Mormon ghetto of Wikipedia, because I doubt you would make that comment about a book review on Gawker or BoingBoing which are also blogs. If I could be so bold, do some link-following around Mormon articles.

Since I first put the article up, I've added and clarified a few more things and will continue to do so. I have a few more references I've been meaning to work in, but haven't gotten to yet (my gnomelike incrementality can be a liability is situations such as these). But I have added some. Which is why I feel confident in making my vote as it appears below.

All that said, there is a bit of an issue with WP:GNG. Best I can tell, we have a loop problem here, where general notability requires significant coverage and the definition of significant coverage is that which provides general notability. Which isn't helpful for me in trying to figure out where the line is between significant and insignificant. For instance, can significance build over time or does it take some sort of critical buildup over limited time?

Also, favor, could you provide some links explaining your comment on general blogs? I don't know what a "general" blog so I don't know how to address your comment.

But thank you for challenging me. When I decided to write this article, I gave it a 25% chance of being challenged, and although I find the process tiring, I'm convinced it makes us all better Wikipedians.Thmazing (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Larsen is a significant loyal-but-unofficial commentator on Mormonism, for which role he has shared an AML Award and has been sought out by the press. He is also a visible participant in several notable-enough-for-a-Wikipedia-article projects. Thmazing (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to answer WP:GNG. Significant coverage in GNG is cut and dry... without independent, reliable refs about him, no article.

It says straight up that on their page that A Motley Vision made money on book reviews up until 2011.

According to [42], Larsen has made 65 posts in 7 years. How is he significant commentator when he barely writes and there are no references about him?

Do not make the "I'm a poor Mormon" excuse. I am a Mormon, so don't use bigotry against Mormons on Wikipedia for an excuse. When one one implies I'm a bigot and Wikipedia is too, I'm done talking to you Bgwhite (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOODFAITH---I never claimed bigotry. Please read more carefully.

Also, read AMV's disclaimers more carefully. They never made money off their reviews, even though they did, for a short time, link to Amazon through the Associates program. Reviews were never paid for as you seem to be implying. (Note my use of the phrase "seem to", evidence of my attempt to exercise good faith.).

I am not trying to antagonize you. Please invite some other administrators into this discussion if you feel I am being unfair or hatey or something. That is not my reputation and I would rather remain unsullied by such complaints.

Back to the topic at hand, I'm not clear that significance is defined by volume. I would say it's more defined by attention paid. That I think is what we should be discussing on this page. John Kennedy Toole only ever wrote one book.

Attempting to engage in politeness,

I remain,

Thmazing (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like you're talking past each other. Thmazing is interested in a larger conversation on notability and Bgwhite is judging the merits of this article by the current standards. I agree that the references supplied for Kent Larsen don't meet the current standards for notability and I think he is a poor test case for expanding those standards, but I'm baffled at the antagonistic turn this discussion has taken and I hope that the larger conversation can continue productively. Katya (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no deadlines, I am going to disengage for now. I may swing by and add to the article now and then, but I think it best if I try to stay out of this discussion. At least for a while. I will assume good faith re those here now and those who may arrive later. One great thing about Wikipedia is that we don't have to do anything on our own. Thmazing (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to winner of AML Award per WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". That's enough for a Keep. Granted this award may not be well known to non-Mormons, but since the author is notable for being Mormon and writing on Mormon topics, the Mormon award shows him to be a notable Mormon writer. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject of the article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are either related to the topic or do not cover the topic in sufficient depth. There does not appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources related to the subject winning the AML Award, suggesting that this award is not well known and significant enough to meet the spirit of this secondary guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO says the award has to be well known, which it is among Mormons. It doesn't say in-depth coverage of the subject in relation to the award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From two lines above ANYBIO: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." If the subject does not meet WP:GNG, then there is not enough third party coverage to write a verifiable article. WP:ACADEMIC qualifies its award clause with "at a national or international level"; maybe ANYBIO needs to clarify the sort of award likely to indicate notability as well. VQuakr (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, if you believe the award is not notable enough, these are just our opinions. I believe it's notable enough is my opinion. (re: national/international, surely it must be? Mormons seem to be in many countries and retain their culture sort of like Amish). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct to A Motley Vision as his only claim to notability is as one of the authors of that blog, and it's the blog that won the award. Bondegezou (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As discussed above, the sources covering the subject are uniformly problematic; they are either unreliable under WP:RS, not independent or both. I accept that he has won an AML Award, and do not contest that it is a significant award among Mormons; I wish I could say it should be kept on this basis, but the WP:ANYBIO guideline does not allow us to interpret it as significant, in my view. The guideline says, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." If it were the intention of the guideline to specify a significant award within the field or culture in which the person is primarily known, that would have been written in it. In its absence, we must interpret this to mean a significant award from the perspective of society generally, which I would argue this is not. Delete for failing WP:GNG without prejudice for recreation if the subject becomes notable in future (and better sourcing is available). --Batard0 (talk) 07:51, 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) 17:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete His name is incredibly common, and indeed I suspect some of the other people I get hits for are more notable. But in any case he does not inherit notability from the blog, and I cannot find any other important trace of him. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 24 October 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. Despite keep and delete votes being roughly equal here, the rationale to delete is somewhat more convincing. While there is some demonstrated coverage of this individual, both sides agree that the coverage is not terribly significant. In addition, the coverage does not describe any particularly notable events in this individual's life (i.e. events that would satisfy WP:NACTOR). While it is true that WP:BASIC says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", it also says, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." This is a case where the collection of trivial coverage does not seem to establish notability. Once the films have been released and covered in reliable sources, notability can and should be reevaluated. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thulasi Nair

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 7. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability established by the reliable independent sources in the article --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's in 2 movies that haven't even finished filming. MiracleMat (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Which guideline says that actors whose film haven't been released should not have an article in Wikipedia? There are multiple sources from national newspapers to establish notability. --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted above. (Personal attack removed)MiracleMat (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the daughter of someone famous isn't sufficient. Maybe if and when she has an actual career. --Calton | Talk 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural closure Here we go again. How can this closer justify closing the DRV without an explanation, allowing no due process time for editors to escalate the unexplained closing, and then start an AfD discussion without an explanation? This is not a new problem, this nominator has a history of such nominations. This is the editor that added something called "the procedural nomination" to the guideline without a discussion. But notice that this is not a "procedural nomination", its just a nomination. Not adding the words "procedural nomination" doesn't change the fact that if there was no one willing to make an AfD nomination, there was clearly no need for a discussion, and so there was likewise no need to start without someone willing to make an AfD nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am relisting it, because there was a consensus to do so at the DRV. If people at the DRV say "relist at AfD," there there clearly is a need for a discussion. Also, where is the claimed page where I inserted such a provision? I have searched Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions, Wikipedia:Deletion process, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy to no avail. The "relist" provision has been on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Discussions ever since its inception in 2006. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/L'CHAIM_Vodka. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a WP:ATA for DRV closures, do you agree that this DRV closure would be listed there? As for the assertion of a consensus; where is the consensus for one admin to close without an explanation, allow no due process time to review the closing, and start a new AfD again without an explanation? The only editor to comment about a possible procedural nomination (me) said, "we don't need a procedural nomination that again fails to analyze the alternatives to deletion." Given that the editors chose to allow that perspective to go unchallenged, where is there consensus for a procedural nomination? Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If editors say there is a need for a discussion, but there is not an editor willing to prepare the community with WP:ATD analysis in an AfD nomination, then I think that what was said about the need for a discussion carries no significant weight and can be disregarded. Unscintillating (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question: Which guideline did I insert a "procedural nomination" provision into? All you did was link to another AfD in which I did the same thing, but that cannot remotely be construed as having "added something called 'the procedural nomination' to the guideline without a discussion." Additionally, your viewpoint is entirely unsupported by long-standing consensus. You do have a point, though, so bring it up on WT:DRV if you want to get rid of procedural nominations. As of now, however, we must follow the procedure as written. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references, among others, in the Times Of India, Deccan Herald and the The Hindu are in reliable sources. Taken together, the multiple RSes provide enough material for a start-class article, which is what the non-trivial, independently and reliably sourced, requirement of WP:GNG is. We also need to be aware of the FUTON bias. The subject is at a place where internet coverage is low, and her films are non-English. The amount of coverage we see in the online English press points to far more coverage in the local and offline reliable sources. How many films she has acted in is not a criterion; nor does being the daughter of an actress make her non-notable. Her age makes the WP:BLP issue more significant, but looking at the edit history of the article so far, that seems manageable. Churn and change (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm looking at the content in the sources and none of them are really worth including. TOI, Balcony beats, TOI are mere one para gossip style items. This TOI one is also a gossip style interview (and interviews are not independent anyway). Deccan Herald another one para gossip item. This Hindu article is the only full length news article reference and even here she is merely mentioned once (the article is not about her). We shouldn't be keeping articles merely because someone has been mentioned a couple of times in a newspaper, whether the paper in question is the Times of India or the New York Times. --regentspark (comment) 13:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines in WP:BASIC are clear: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The only bar is the mentions be non-trivial and I think that is met here. There is more here, and that newspaper Mathrubhumi is a credible local-language one. And you are completely ignoring the Futon bias issue (a lot of this stuff shows up many pages down in a Google search not because they lack credibility, but because they don't do SEO stuff, and often the core content is non-English). If something is in a reliable source, it is by definition not gossip. The name of the director, her sister's name, which grade she is in at high school, are all facts. Also, yes, I agree relisting doesn't seem productive; it is the same people in the DRV arguing the same issues a second time around. Churn and change (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think FUTON is an issue here. If she completes a film and is reviewed in reliable source, you'll find something online. She hasn't yet done that (and, because "the future is uncertain and the end is always near"Jim Morrison , may never do so). All we have here is a few mentions in newspapers which many people have and the possibility that she will be in films that are produced and then released. We should not be anticipating notability but that's what is going on here. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are not bound by our WP:CRYSTAL rules. They have ended up creating notability by covering her assuming there is a chance she will be famous in the future. The coverage is not in depth, but neither is it trivial. It exists in multiple, independent, third-party sources, with enough facts present to support a start-class article. That meets WP:BASIC. Churn and change (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The TOI and other sources presented as establishing notability are trivial mentions at best. WP:BASIC may allow for the combination of less in-depth sources to establish notability, but I don't think this argument is entirely persuasive in this case. Even in combination, they do not amount to significant coverage, in my view. Having said all this, I allow for the possibility that there may be sources in other languages that I do not have the capacity to investigate, and if such sourcing exists (and it's reliable, significant and independent), I'll be in favor of keeping the article. --Batard0 (talk) 07:16, 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) 17:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her debut film Kadal. Though significant coverage is not present as editors have pointed out, we still do have sources from national newspapers, and more than just trivial coverage. So, since redirects are cheap, we can go with this alternative. The redirect can be undone once she releases her debut film, satisfying WP:NACTOR.
Weak keep: Yes, WP:BASIC is met, and the topic just passes notability. And no saying of how much more coverage she would get if she gets so much even when she hasn't completed one film. Secret of success (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple non-trivial mentions in national newspapers, as you mention, then WP:BASIC says it is a keep. There is no need to meet WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR to the letter if WP:BASIC is done. Also, as per the FUTON bias, if a subject in a place with fewer online sources has borderline notability, we should lean toward a keep. Churn and change (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have to be that way. The definition of trivial is very subjective, and in my opinion, is restricted to a few passing mentions which do not give encyclopedic information. But significant is not the exact opposite of trivial, at present the only info we can verify from sources is about her yet-to-release films and some mentions about her early life. These wouldn't be sufficient to even create a stub article and plus, WP:NACTOR gets in the way (it is incorrect to say that other guidelines can be dismissed if basic is established, because basic demands the minimum). Hence, to make a compromise on both sides, I suggested a redirect. Secret of success (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That last statement is the disconnect. WP:BASIC is not a minimum; it is sufficient. It is not necessary to meet WP:ACTOR or any other guideline once WP:BASIC is met. The section says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published . . ." The additional criteria are "OR"s. As to the stub size of the article, one is allowed to add material from interviews to the article (though that can't be used to establish notability). Churn and change (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, sorry about that. Based on a better look, yes, the article does meet WP:BASIC and since it sufficient, I opt for a weak keep (weak because it lies on the borderline of notability and non-notability in terms of significant coverage). Thanks. Secret of success (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say if online English sources provide borderline notability, then considering she is acting in non-English movies and in a place where offline reliable sources dominate, we should lean toward a keep to adjust for the FUTON bias. Churn and change (talk) 01:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems to be established by the refs available. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Batard0. No inherited notability from mother or sister; neither of the movies have even premiered yet. Perhaps userfy it so once one of the films premiers and generates some additional coverage, it can become a standalone stub. Go Phightins! 22:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose userification, since this objection is not based on actual analysis of the sources; nobody is claiming inherited notability, and premiering of movies is not a prerequisite for notability. Churn and change (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at alternate ways the subject may be notable because it doesn't pass WP:GNG; I am saying that once a movie premiers, there's a chance it'll gain enough coverage to warrant an article at that time. Go Phightins! 22:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC, which I believe the subject's coverage does pass, is sufficient and requires no additional criteria for support.Churn and change (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree with you there. Go Phightins! 23:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with which part? That her coverage passes WP:BASIC, or that WP:BASIC is sufficient? If it is the first, I guess we have to leave it at that. If it is the second, I would like to know why you think so. Churn and change (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think the coverage passes WP:BASIC. The notability guideline is pretty clear that passing WP:BASIC is sufficient, so whether or not I agree with it is fairly irrelevant. Go Phightins! 23:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The coverage is merely social in nature. So and so has been signed by such and such for this film or that. When the film is made and commercially released (many don't get there), then we can discuss notability. --regentspark (comment) 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Tenchi Muyo! characters. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Takebe

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

I tend to be on the inclusionist side when it comes to fiction, but I draw the line at separate articles for minor characters. Those should be included in thew list of characters. Old merge tags suggest that this is one of several articles that have been proposed to be merged to (non existent at this point) List of Tenchi Muyo! characters. I think this is a good idea, and I hope this merge ends up with such a list being created from the articles nominated here: Asahi Takebe, Kazuma Kagato, Hiwa Takahashi. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator is not actually proposing deletion of the articles, then I suggest a speedy keep under WP:SK#1 ("The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging"). AfD nominations are for when an article cannot be salvaged in any way. It is not the place to propose mergers or other non-deletion actions. —Farix (t | c) 23:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop wikilawyering. I am proposing a deletion, with the compromise outcome of merging the content within a list. This is a valid proposal, just like a Merge vote would be. The articles, IMHO, don't meet notability in a stand alone format, which leads to this deletion discussion, but could be saved through a merger, and saying this does not invalidate this AfD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Piotrus, I think Farix's comment is in no way wikilawyering. Your original nomination makes no indication that you think deletion is an acceptable outcome, instead stating that you hope the content will be merged into a list. If your preferred outcome is to have a merger, then you should not have created an AFD, but instead should have merged the content (or started a merge discussion if you think merging would be controversial). While merging is one possible outcome of a deletion discussion, it is not correct to start an AFD in order to propose a merger. On the other hand, if your preferred outcome is for the articles to be deleted without being merged, but a merger would be acceptable to you as well, then starting an AFD was appropriate (but I don't read your comments as preferring deletion). Anyway, if you would like these articles placed into a list of characters, I would recommend you withdraw this AFD and get to work merging things into a List of Tenchi Muyo! characters. Personally, I strongly support the creation of a List of Tenchi Muyo! characters, but I'm uncertain if the characters you have listed here are significant enough to the franchise to be included. Calathan (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - All right, let me be clear. I think both deletion and merger are acceptable. Since a meger has been present on the target articles for years, and nobody cares to do it, I am escalating this to deletion. PS. I mention merge in some of my AfDs, like here, and it never was a problem before... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator articulates an appropriate merger, which invalidates deletion as an acceptable outcome per WP:ATD, since he admits his objection can be fixed through regular editing--to wit, a merge. Why not just do the merge and abandon the AfD? Character lists for notable fictional franchises are pretty bog-standard. Jclemens (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in this case, the nominated articles are really minor. I am here because I am not sure if they even deserve any serious mention on a list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Uncited. - personal commentary - not notable - Youreallycan 05:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't find any reliable sources that discuss the subject with any depth; Is anyone able to do a search for sources in Japanese? If we want to keep, we'll have to establish that independent, reliable sources have taken note of the subject. --Batard0 (talk) 07:54, 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) 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tenchi Muyo!. Some of the content of these article are salvageable for a character list when it is created. The redirect will at least preserve the past contributions and allow a future editor a bases to work when they create the character list. However, the nominator really hasn't give rationale as to why deletion is better over other methods, such as merge or redirect, beyond the fact that they are neglected. The fact that no one has not gotten around to creating the character list and merging these articles into it doesn't mean that deletion is a valid option. The fact is, there is no deadline to merge articles so long as there is still a valid reason to merge the articles. Editors should not be "escalating" merge proposals to deletion proposals unless there are reason that a merge is not an appropriate outcome. —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tenchi Muyo! per TheFarix. It's better to leave it as a mention in the article's character section in order to not give undue weight to too much fancruft, and also since these characters aren't the subject of much reliable coverage. If the character list becomes long enough, then it can be split off. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Tenchi Muyo! characters, I think Redirecting this will just prolong the process, might as well get the character pages merged now to avoid any more AfDs with the character articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above into a List of Tenchi Muyo! characters, without prejudice to recreate any character if it can be proven worthy of a separate article.--十八 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FORM (magazine)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for media. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the long list of contributors, no sign of independent notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge/redirect to American_Institute_of_Architects#Magazine. Unable to determine reliable sources because "form" is such a common search term, and there are multiple magazines named form. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A search through google and the news archives didn't produce any evidence of coverage of the magazine itself in reliable sources. Hence it fails WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 05:18, 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) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything regarding this magazine. Corn cheese (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Light Games

Adding articles:

(Find video game sources: "Dark Light Games" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Find video game sources: "The Gardener (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

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

Non-notable video game developer. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as non-notable developer/game/novel not passing WP:GNG at this time - no multiple independent broad coverage sources found for any of the topics. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent, reliable sources available for any. All fail GNG. Not notable. czar · · 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindi Bach

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

BLP - reporter with no notability FunkyCanute (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 11 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) 17:05, 17 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) 16:27, 24 October 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 00:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stevan de Geijter

(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 the article's creator due to Mr. de Geijter's function in the Tuvalan FA, which does not confer notability, and on the age of the article, which is completely irrelevant to notability Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stevan have been remembered football in Tuvalu started up. What a very important step is for the Tuvalu National Football Association. Article has now existed since April, if Article would be not relevant, then it will remove already rather become! --Klant01 (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The age of the article has not bearing on notability per WP:LONGTIME. WP:NSPORT does not cover his position with the Tuvalan FA, and he has not received significant coverage because of it meaning WP:GNG does not cover it either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, is not notable either because of his footballing career or his work in Tuvalu. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no indication of importance, WP:CSD#G3 hoax/joke JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Beatty

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

No other articles link to this article. Subject is not notable. Scholar search shows no peer-reviewed articles published in journals. No significant news articles. Nothing significant about this subject. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that he's one of the world's notable fowl scientists. Qworty (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. After removing what looks like attack or hoax content (e.g. "presenting his findings to his parents", "poultry thermodynamics"), the only thing left is that in 2006 he was a student who went to a conference. That's not even close to enough. Tagging as A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu HD

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

article lacks notability and references. 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Article lacks notability and references. I attempted to find reliable secondary references to no avail. This is part of a series of short lived defunct sub-networks. Not seeing the notability to have it's own article.--0pen$0urce (talk) 14:09, 24 October 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 October 24. Snotbot t • c » 14:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect, or merge. Not notable on its own. My first suggestion was to redirect to Voom HD Networks#Channels. That brought up the bigger issue - all other articles linked there are in similar shape. Exceptions are UltraHD, which looks to me to be about a different topic, and Monsters HD, which has some length but most seems non notable. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I just think this article doesn't meet the requirements to be freestanding or even exist. The Monsters HD is full of a lot, and I do mean a lot of unreferenced fluff such as a long list of Movies it aired. Only 1 questionable reference.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article should not exist, just think the others should go as well. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is where I stand, not notable, lacks references.--0pen$0urce (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben

Template:Grand Princely Family of Gutleben

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

No reliable source coverage of subject or "princely court" - fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's not a head of some country, just head of a humanitarian organization. That organization gets no results at Google News archive or Google books, other than its own website. He appears to fail WP:BIO. His organization does not appear to have a Wikipedia article and does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not even head a humanitarian organization. I mean, yes, the website claims that the Order does humanitarian work, but it also claims to be sovereign under international law. Websites can claim a lot of things. By all indications, this is actually more like a micronation, styled after the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, and without even the tenuous sorts of sourcing that aspiring micronation articles generally provide. Technically, Template:Grand Princely Family of Gutleben should have a discussion at TFD rather than here, but in the interests of minimizing bureaucracy, it can almost certainly be deleted when this article is. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And delete all the additional Gutleben articles which have now been bundled with this nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obscure head of an obscure organisation that claims to be an obscure micronation. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The citations listed in the article are self-published and not considered reliable. The subject does not meet the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 17:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-existent nation. Not a prince, grand or otherwise. No independent coverage, not even in unreliable sources. Churn and change (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no sources to confirm the existence of his alleged princely house other than its own website (which has minimal content), the subject appears to be non-notable and his princely claims appear to be unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete all the additionally nominated articles which similarly lack independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following entries added to original nomination of "Alexandre, Grand Prince of Gutleben" at this point in the discussion: "Grand Princely Family of Gutleben," "Joëlle, Hereditary Princess of Gutleben," "Sovereign Princely Order of Gutleben" and {{Grand Princely Family of Gutleben}}

Delete all. Same logic applies to all the articles. Churn and change (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. DrKiernan (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Dear, This organization is a humanitarian organization, active in the world. Titles of nobility are present on official identity documents (passports ...). SPOG-CP (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Regardless of what this organization is or does, we need to be able to find information about it in reliable independent sources in order for it or its leaders to have a Wikipedia article. This is necessary so we can verify the claims about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Credibility is not enhanced by the fact that all of these articles were written by a new account with SPOG in its name. —Tamfang (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear, I am the biographer of the family. The family was asserted that titles of nobility are listed on the birth certificates issued by France.SPOG-CP (talk) 13:12, 26 October 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 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of crooners

AfDs for this article:

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

This one went up before and closed as no consensus. Want to clean this up but really I would not even know where to start. The term crooner itself is very vague, fluid and meaningless. I wouldn't even know how to source this or create inclusion criteria. Someone added Christopher Cross, I think most would agree he is not a crooner, but I also would not be shocked to find some reporter somewhere once may have used the term in relation to him. I just think this is far to vague and inclusive a term to ever make a meaningful list. Ridernyc (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, it does sound an intrinsically indefinable list criterion, unless it's simply a pejorative (any singer someone can't stand). "List of Easy Listening singers"... no, it's never going to work. Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as it's not merged. I only created this list because editors insisted otherwise on having this list on Crooner. Garion96 (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this meets the requirements for a list. Crooner does have a specific definition, although it's a little subjective, since this isn't science and not the arts. Merge if need be, in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Roodog2k (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to suggest some realistic inclusion criteria? Simply sourcing someone referring to the as a crooner will not work in this case. I'm all for lists like this and spend my time patrolling and cleaning up many of them, in this case though I have no clue where to start. Ridernyc (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with this: 1) Male 2) Singer 3) Backed by full orchestra, big band, or piano. 4) That sings songs from the Great American Songbook. I'm sure there are sources that can be used at Rolling Stone or allmusic.com or other non-primary sources when addressing whether a specific singer is a Crooner. I agree it's a bit more subjective for my taste. Roodog2k (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a bigger mess than it looks like at first, and even that's a big mess! There's nothing like inclusion criteria. There's no firm definition of the term to base inclusion criteria from. Sometimes we get around that for these sorts of lists by demanding that each entry be appropriately cited to a reliable source assigning the description. But here, the term has both contemporary and historical use as a pejorative in parallel with its more positive connotations, and that opens a whole new set of sourcing and inclusion issues, especially given that at least some of the listed folks are still alive. I think this is an excellent example of why not every valid article which describes a category of people should necessarily have a corresponding list of such people. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Crooners are/were a legitimate style of performance, hence having a Wikipedia article crooner which mentions several crooners. The list should probably focus on the heyday of the crooner in the mid 20th century, rather than including people who were once called a crooner somewhere (possibly as abuse) but have little in common with that tradition. Similar problems exist with many artistic and musical genres, but they're not insuperable. Whether individual people belong or not can be debated on the talk page and handled with editing (and I encourage people to edit the list). The advantage of a Wikipedia list is that it is possible to include comments beside each name on the list to add dissenting opinions, to say if someone was only a crooner for a certain period in their career, if they denied being a crooner, etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to do all this work, similar things were said in the last AFD and none of it came true. Ridernyc (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see where this fails WP:LISTN or WP:LISTPURP or any other guidelines. The inclusion criteria can easily be settled on, I think; how about "This is a list of people who have been identified as crooners by multiple reliable sources."? These people have been covered as a group in a significant way in reliable sources, such as this book, thus meeting the LISTN criteria. The fact that the list needs significant improvement is not a proper justification for its deletion. It's not harmful in the sense that it's not an advertisement, copyvio or has BLP issues, so should simply be kept and improved over time. See WP:RUBBISH. --Batard0 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

again similar promises of how easy this is were made 2 years ago. No one who is actually willing to do the work thinks it is as easy as the people who keep making these claims. Want to put your money were your mouth is do some improvements to the article while the AFD is still open? Ridernyc (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOEFFORT. postdlf (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable spinoff of the Crooner article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Killin

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

Fails WP:NGOLF. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Mais oui! (talk) 09:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the author removed the Prod I had added, but without edit summaries or expanding/improving the article to clearly identify the subject's notability, so we must assume there is none to establish. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, got to agree...my google search yields nothing. Go Phightins! 23:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PiBang Linux

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

Non-notable software package. Article is self promotion created by the softwares creator. Ridernyc (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as long as this is taken care of through CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The CSD was declined so this AfD is back to being "live". - Ahunt (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet notability requirements. Sources all affilated with project, not independent as required for establishing notability. Conflict of interest. Yworo (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears the software never received any significant third-party coverage as I only found one Linux blog, lffl.org. Considering it was released this month, it may be too soon. SwisterTwister talk 19:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Far too soon for a Wikipedia article on this Linux distro. It lacks any reliable third party references and searches for any turn up just a few self published blogs and open wikis that were apparently edited to specifically to support this Wikipedia article. At the present it fails WP:N as a non-notable Linux distro. In a few years, if the software continues to be developed and it attracts the attention of third party reviewers, then it would be time for a Wikipedia article. Right now, without any independent refs, we have nothing with which to build a Wikipedia article, other than the software developers own opinions to work with. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. No news stories found, a web search reveals only promotional materials and unreliable sources; misses WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT by a wide margin. Delete, of course with no prejudice for recreation if it does attract significant coverage in future. --Batard0 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful content to the Raspberry Pi article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Caucasian mythoepic alphabet

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

Artificial, apparently recently invented script, no signs of notability or independent reliable coverage anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title might not get you anything because it was generated by Google translate, originally as "mythoephic" (neither occurs in the OED, so I don't know where Google got it). — kwami (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intended for mythopoeic perhaps? —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original Russian appears to be "мифоэпический алфавит" (mifoepičeskij alfavit) according to the two webpages cited, and the "эпический" part does translate as "epic". But in any case, the question is rather moot, since the whole thing squarely falls under WP:MADEUP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book is listed at the Abxaz Internet Library.[43] (Check under 'D' for 'Daur'.) Daur is Adyge, not Abxaz, but evidently someone there thought it worth including. I don't have a problem with it, as long as we're clear that it's a recently constructed script. BTW, I moved the article to "Mytho-Circassian script", following the single English source that's been presented. (And correcting their transcription: evidently they don't know what "Mifo-" means. They also call it "Ancient Adyghe", but IMO that is misleading.) — kwami (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been supplied that this recently made-up alphabet satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a place for publicizing things one has made up. Edison (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an example of WP:TOOSOON. The script was recently created, and there's little coverage of it. It might be more widespread in the future, but until then, the subject doesn't warrant an article.--xanchester (t) 01:21, 25 October 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 00:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blog Torrent

AfDs for this article:

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

Blog Torrent is abandoned. Last relise of the software was 7 years ago and the website [44] no longer contains the Blog Torrent software. In my opinion Blog Torrent is no longer notable. The artical did however survived a nomination for deletion in 2006: [45] Runarb (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Runarb (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, software is apparently defunct. No reliable 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. The 2006 AfD failed to turn up any reliable sources, and the article was apparently kept because requirements for sourcing were more leniently enforced at that time in wikipedia's history. Dialectric (talk) 00:54, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you !=voted "delete" because the site is now offline, or because it is "no longer notable," please go read WP:N, which says "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Please abandon the notion that we function as a directory of the best products currently for sale. Looking at Google Book Search for "blog torrent," there are some instances of coverage. See: [46]; there appears to be some coverage at [47] but it is in the nonviewable section. Google news archive has significant coverage at [48]. There's more significant coverage (in German) at [49]. There's similar coverage (in French) at [50]. There's similar coverage at [51]. (caveat: Those with language skills should see if all three derive from a press release). I would not be adverse to merging it to BitTorrent (software) or the article comparing BitTorrent products. Edison (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability even by wikipedia's loose standards of notability--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, great job at research by Edison (talk · contribs), above. Notability does not go away once it's been established previously. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An early source coverage is Los Angles Times December 20, 2004: "Downhill Battle, a Worcester, Mass.-based independent music group that has developed its own BitTorrent-based software called Blog Torrent, says the technology is much more than a tool for swapping copyrighted movies and software." Just before that was some decent coverage: InfoWorld Daily December 10, 2004. That was followed by a mention in Associatged Press June 28, 2005. After that the blog "Torrent Freak" came out,[52] but that appears to be a different topic from Blog Torrent. Along with what Edison found, the topic appears to meet WP:GNG. Blog Torrent is abandoned, so using Wikipedia to promote the Blog Torrent isn't an issue and provides a good history reason to keep the article. I added the above links to the article talk page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Valley Little Athletics Centre

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

fails WP:ORG. mostly primary sources of athletics australia. very limited coverage in gnews and trove. these hits mainly confirm it held events. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam from coi editor (quotes from article, "our becoming the largest centre in our first season", "have joined us"). Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Most references used do not verify cthe articles text or ar not about this centre. Was this article created to promote Mr Edney's book? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability even by wikipedia's loose standards of notability, article is poorly sourced and appears to have been created to promote and advertise.--0pen$0urce (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted G11 by Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no evidence of notability, no sources). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Homesick Blues

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

I'm not convinced that this book meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The author removed my {prod} tag, indicating that she disagrees. Therefore, discussion. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 24 October 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 00:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOS4A2

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

I'd previously PRODed this article with the justification of it not having yet been released and that everything is based upon one source talking about the author tweeting the cover. A search didn't bring up enough coverage in independent and reliable sources to show that this is ultimately notable at this point in time. Will it eventually become notable? Maybe, but we won't know until spring of next year. Saying that it'll become notable due to the notability of the author is a little premature, as a million things could happen between now and its release date, either cancelling the book altogether or delaying it. If it'd received lots of coverage beforehand then it could merit an article, but that simply doesn't exist at this point in time and the only coverage that currently exists surrounds the book's cover being tweeted and that's not enough for notability for WP:NBOOK If/when it gets more coverage it can be re-added, but right now the rationale for keeping it falls under WP:CRYSTAL and somewhat WP:ITEXISTS. It's just far too early to warrant having an article for this right now. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The novel is by a notable author (Joe Hill), it is already completed and is set for a release in 2013. An excerpt was already published in the e-book that Hill co-wrote with Stephen King. The source in question wasn't just the author's tweet; it was a published article on MTV that discussed the book in question as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now~~Keep~~ - There have been several cases where I wholly agree with Tokyogirl79 but I am voting keep with this one because the release date has been announced as April 30, 2013. Google News provided very little aside from this blog from this March. Surprisingly, I found additional results while searching with a main Google search, a brief mention through a CNN blog here and a blog here and his Twitter also mentions the two previews through his other books In The Tall Grass and Thumbprint. NEW COMMENT: I have realised that it may be too soon for the article. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "will be released" doesn't count towards notability. The thing is, it's likely to be released but there's absolutely no coverage of this book in-depth out there. We can't keep a book based on brief and incidental mentions in the press and only one in-depth source. If that's all it takes for notability then we need to end just about every single AfD out there as a "keep" because this goes against every form of notability out there. There are no other in-depth and reliable sources out there. We only have one source based upon the author's tweet and we need more than one in-depth source to show notability. In the end your arguments are based around "it exists" and "obviously notable" and a touch of "inherited notability". There is no in-depth coverage of this book! None. Zip. If trivial sources and one source is all we need, then I've got about a thousand books that aren't out yet and have received similar coverage. And at least three times that many that have been deleted or are up for deletion that have been deleted for similar issues. It's likely it will get released and it's likely it'll get coverage. But saying that it absolutely will, that it'll get coverage, and that nothing will happen between now and April is predicting the future. We have no idea what will or won't happen. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as the tweet remark goes, it's an article based entirely off the author's tweet and blog. It's not like there's a whole lot of hard, in-depth coverage of the book. Most of the article (which is very short and brief) re-posts Hill's tweet and blog verbatim. It's about the same as basing it off of a press release, in other words.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The other source is just a reposting of a non-notable blog on Zimbio. The actual source of the Zimbio post is here: [53] I honestly don't consider that to be that usable as a source as far as notability goes, as it looks like anyone can have their blog posted on Zimbio.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I actually intended to vote "Neutral" but leaned towards keep when I saw additional sources. I will change my vote now. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I sounded nasty. I re-read what I wrote and realized I do sound like a bit of a snot. If anyone can provide even 1-2 more in-depth and reliable sources to show that it's getting coverage in the here and now based on something other than the twitter/blog source in the MTV article, I'd be willing to withdraw. It's just that right now there's not a lot of coverage. This would be worth incubating or userfying and I do think it'll eventually become notable. I'm just leery about making exceptions based on stuff like this because I've seen books get pulled or pushed back to where they aren't released for years and don't really have enough coverage for an entry, regardless of who wrote it. If we keep one article based on the notability of the author then that's not exactly fair to the other authors who have upcoming novels that have received the same amount of coverage and might be the same level of notability, yet have their books removed. I'm sort of a "it's applicable to all or applicable to none, equal treatment" sort of girl.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Tokyogirl79. No present coverage on the topic; nothing's coming up on NOS4A2. The topic does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:46, 30 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Domrakandi High School

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

Per WP:NONPROFIT: Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per accepted practice. This high school verifiably exists and its inclusion in our project expands coverage of an area where we need significantly more content. — C M B J 11:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified secondary schools are invariably held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a shame that one small set of editors participates in AFD and thinks these schools are inherently notable, while a different small set of editors maintains the notability guidelines WP:ORG and does not share that view, instead wanting schools to meet the same requirements as other organizations of local importance. Edison (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that those who want to challenge the long-standing consensus that high schools should be considered notable always pick on schools in countries where sources are likely not to be availabe online and/or in English. If we are to abandon this consensus then let's start by nominating some American and British schools for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can only write a sentence, then create a list called List of High Schools in Bangladesh. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Secondary schools are typically considered as appropriate to have a stand-alone article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 27 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando luis pardo lazo

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

delete, fails WP:GNG -- Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you search for sources before nominating? Global Voices call him a "well-known blogger" and there's a lot of sources discussing his arrest and other activities. It should be enough to meet WP:GNG. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did but it seemed at least to me that his notierity was more about getting arreststed and a one event thing. If you feel strongly that i'm wrong I have no objections to closing this. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, he was known for his opinions before the 2012 arrest and collaborated with Yoani Sanchez (Reuters). I'll work on the article. I agree that this should be properly discussed, no need to close it prematurely. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded article. Important Cuban writer, publisher and dissident. Multiple reliable sources etc -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wily D 09:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the general notability guideline, significant coverage by secondary sources. The subject has been covered by Radio Czech and Miami Herald (the article is currently down, but it still shows up on search), with more trivial mentions in the The Independent, Reuters, and Havana beyond the Ruins, a book published by Duke University Press.--xanchester (t) 01:01, 25 October 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. Should be a CSD G4 Mt king ^(edits) 08:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier

AfDs for this article:

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

This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are from either before or immediately post the event and are just of the routine coverage type any sports event gets with also with no analysis on the event any its lasting significance, and are all from MMA centric websources. Mt king ^(edits) 08:22, 24 October 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. Spinning Spark 17:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exa Web Solutions

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

no indication of notability. Of the given refs, 1 is not significant - a copy of correspondence with the government, 2-4 are all based on the same press release, 5-8 do not mention the company, 9-12 are directory entries. Google searches not finding anything significant. Disputed prod. Article creator seems to think that being assisted by a state government makes it notable. noq (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm also unable to find any reliable secondary sources. Nothing coming up in Aussie news sites, either. Does not meet WP:ORG at this time. --Breno ^talk 10:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews. no real coverage LibStar (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by reliable secondary sources outside of press releases. The subject fails to meet the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organisations.--xanchester (t) 08:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Rewrite. I agree with the humanitarian cause of putting this article over Wiki. The article can stay but with rewrites on specific parts like "Research and innovation" which looks like a product or org Promo. Ankaraman (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What humanitarian cause? What is there to establish notability. noq (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Bioequivalence & Bioavailability

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

Journal of doubtful notability. Website claims it is listed in several databases, but on checking this is often incorrect (for instance, the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List at http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/ lists the journal but does not indicate any coverage). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "doubtful notability" is putting it kindly. Agree it does not meet NJournals or GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Cancer Science & Therapy

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

Journal of doubtful notability. Website claims it is listed in several databases, but on checking this is often incorrect (for instance, not listed in the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "doubtful notability" is putting it kindly. Agree it does not meet NJournals or GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Bioanalysis & Biomedicine

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

Journal of doubtful notability. Website claims it is listed in several databases, but on checking this is often incorrect (for instance, not listed in the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "doubtful notability" is putting it kindly. Agree it does not meet NJournals or GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 29 October 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. Spinning Spark 16:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Microbial & Biochemical Technology

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

Journal of doubtful notability. Website claims it is listed in several databases, but on checking this is often incorrect (for instance, not listed in the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "doubtful notability" is putting it kindly. Agree it does not meet NJournals or GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See my thoughts on a very closely related journal here. None of these OMICS journals are notable in any fashion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Antivirals & Antiretrovirals

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

Journal of doubtful notability. Website claims it is listed in several databases, but on checking this is often incorrect (for instance, not listed in the Thomson Reuters Master Journal List http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/). No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "doubtful notability" is putting it kindly. Agree it does not meet NJournals or GNG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->
-->

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apollogic

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

As far as I can tell, this fails notability of WP:CORP pretty badly; I see no significant coverage by reliable sources of any kind in the article. I prodded this a while back, I see it was deprodded by the creator without any comment (the creator has not written on anything else). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 18 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 07:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article, no significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. A search for news articles doesn't bring up anything. The citations listed in the article (self-published sources, press releases, user-generated wikis) are considered unreliable. Fails the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 09:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searched for news and websites and came up with absolutely nothing aside from the company's own website and related publicity. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. --Batard0 (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ward

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

Non-notable, has not been the subject of any secondary sources. Graham Colm (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article (the bit at the end, tacked onto an unrelated article) gives some nontrivial detail about Ward. With more like that, he might well pass WP:GNG. But one is not enough and that's all I could find. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 07:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything beyond trivial mentions in reliable sources. Falls short of WP:GNG and other more specific guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gutterflycomix

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

A former webcomic hosting service that doesn't appear to have ever had any notability. The article itself is completely unsourced, and searching for sources on my own gave me nothing usable. The only information I'm finding are either copies of this Wiki article, forum posts by one of the site's founders on various message boards, and press releases. I have yet to find any substantial, reliable source that discusses this site. Rorshacma (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Not notable. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:58, 16 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, KTC (talk) 15:00, 16 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 06:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Øygard

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

Mayor of a town of 3,500 people who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Seems to have appeared in Norwegian press as a result of a sex scandal, however that is not a reason for having an article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Prod removed by page creator. Valenciano (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long-time, award-winning mayor of a municipality, not a town. And a pretty big celebrity in Norway at the moment. --Roghue 07:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roghue (talk • contribs)

This is the top news story of every media in Norway (Dagbladet, NRK, Aftenposten, VG etc). If this was an American mayor who the subject of this kind of media attention in national media, nobody would have attempted to have it deleted. Svein — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sveinkros (talk • contribs) 07:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local news, written in local lang., not important for en.wikipedia at all. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The language in which stories about the subject are written is irrelevant. Being mayor of a municipality of 3,500 is in itself way below the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Being accused of a sex crime is also not enough for WP, and he has not even been convicted WP:CRIMINAL. What happens in the US is happily not the determinant in an international encyclopedia; much time is spent in discussions explaining that to US based editors. So the issue has to be whether he passed the notability test prior to the criminal allegations. There are several suggestions in the article that he did so, because of his prominence on the national scene, but since I do not read Norwegian I am not in a position to find the right sources to establish whether that is correct. --AJHingston (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree, written the same, only with a lot more words. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The municipality is a rather normal norvegian municipality. Rune Øygards importance was not only as its mayor, but of national fame in the Labour Party. Kingvald (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am from Norway and don´t consider Øygard a national figure before this case. He was mainly known in his local area and within the Labour Party. His network included the prime minister, with whom he and the alleged victim had evening lunch once. There is a bit about the story in English here, written by a former employee in Aftenposten. (There is btw. a factual mistake in the Wikipedia article, as the mayor has not resigned but voluntarily agreed to a suspension until the criminal case is settled). Iselilja (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see how anything in the article would be factually incorrect. A municipality can only have one mayor serving at a time and the current mayor is Iselin Jonassen. If you want to clarify exactly how he left his office as mayor in May this year, then go ahead. The link you cite[54] doesn't work, but I assume you mean this article[55], which says that he has been a fairly high-ranking figure within the Labour Party, not limited to his own region. He was also named "årets kommuneprofil" (municipal figure/politician of the year) by the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, a major national organisation, in 2009. Apart from that, his criminal case takes up something like the first 5 pages of every major national newspaper every day now. If a US local politician, who happened to be someone described as a role model by President Obama, and who had been named US local politician of the year by some comparable major national organisation, got this kind of attention in The New York Times and other comparable newpapers, would we have this discussion? I don't think so. Sveinkros (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Øygard is on a paid leave from his position; Jonassen is acting mayor. I am going to correct the article if the decision is to keep it, but I don´t bother now. It doesn´t mean anything for the deletion discussion. I don´t have a strong opinion or whether the article should be kept or not. On Norwegian WIkipedia, which I know better, all mayors are automatically regarded as notable. The crime case Øygard is involved in is just briefly mentioned, though. I still don´t see Øygard as a national figure pre crime case, he hasn´t to my knowledge held any postion of importance outside his municipality. Not even at county level. But Norway is a small country and a severe crime case regarding a local politician may have some effect also on national politics (like the Medhaug case obviously hurt KrF). Iselilja (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we should worry too much about the importance of the post he held. In English Wikipedia, certain political posts do automatically confer notability but there is no suggestion that he qualifies under that criterion. Much more important, though, is his general notability and it is entirely possible for somebody holding only a minor post, or none at all, to gain general notability. If, for example, there were at least two articles in national or possibly regional media (not just a local newspaper) profiling him before the scandal broke that should be enough evidence of that. I think that the criminal allegations might well contribute to his notability for this purpose if it can be shown that it is his political standing or other notability that has made it such a prominent story (for a non-political example see eg the attention in the UK press currently to the allegations against the late Jimmy Saville) especially if that does indeed have consequences for his party. What I would not be happy about is for there to be an article about him only because of the alleged crime - he has not been convicted and even if he had he is not the first person to have engaged in this conduct and I am sure he will not be the last. Only in rare circumstances, such as assassinating a prime minister or killing a large number of people, do we create an article on somebody purely for doing something wrong. --AJHingston (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian Wikipedia had an article about him before the criminal case. In the newspaper archive Atekst, there were 44 articles about him in 2010 (the year before the scandal broke), including in national newspapers Aftenposten, Verdens Gang, Nationen, Dagsavisen, Stavanger Aftenblad, Dagbladet, Fædrelandsvennen, Vårt Land, Adresseavisen (in total, there are 667 newspaper articles about him indexed in Atekst). In a long article in Kommunal Rapport from 2009 (Kommunal Rapport 25.11.2009), Øygard's political archivements and national influence is discussed in detail. The article says that (Prime Minister) "Jens Stoltenberg has repeatedly highlighted Vågå. As recently as during last year's election campaign, the Prime Minister described Rune Øygard as his political role model." Another article in Kommunal Rapport is titled "Krav fra Jens' forbilde" (Demands from Jens' role model" (Kommunal Rapport 30.09.2009). It has been quite widely reported that he was declared by the Prime Minister to be his political role model some years ago. Sveinkros (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under WP:GNG on the basis of the evidence provided by Sveinkros. --AJHingston (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 16 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 06:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable topic that passes WP:GNG. It might be that the person Rune Øygard is not notable, and that this article could get a new name like "Trial against Rune Øygard", but until we know the outcome of the trial we should keep this article. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Renaming the article "Trial against Rune Øygard" is a good suggestion. Rune Øygard, albeit the mayor of a fairly small municipality, is a person who had some notability before the case as a long-time mayor who was highlighted by the Prime Minister as a role model, but the trial against him has turned into probably the largest case of the year in Norwegian media and outweighs his notability in other areas. Sveinkros (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable and on the cover of every major newspaper for a long time now. But even independent of the trial and accusations he would be notable. A search in Atekst shows 251 unique news stories with him before the current issue was covered by the press. He is not just a small-town major, but also former secretary general of Norges Bygdeungdomslag and has been a very prominent major, generating a good portion of media coverage over the years. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a battleground or a place for political propaganda. This "biography" in three easy steps: 1. mention Øygard was born; 2. tie him as close to the the Labour Party as possible: "Øygard has been described as a 'fairly high-ranking figure' within the Labour Party"; 3. Now quickly mention the accused crime to tie the Labour Party to the crime via Øygard: "In September 2011, he was indicted by Norwegian police of child sexual abuse." The article is not a biography on Rune Øygard but instead is a WP:COATRACK that discusses Crime accusuation against Rune Øygard to tie that crime to the Labour Party. The biography fails WP:GNG since the source material is about the crime event, not biography information about Øygard's life. Althought not at AfD, the crime event fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NdnSIM

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

Not notable if you google it, cannot find any secondary sources bo googling either TheChampionMan1234 06:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is not enough here to justify an article - but it's still a useful search term, I think, and should probably be redirected. But to where? ns (simulator)? Named Data Networking (NDN) - which itself redirects to Content-centric networking? Absent consensus to redirect somewhere, I think I'd have to Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable simulation software. One paper comes up on scholar but I don't think that it has been published in a journal. Note the name of the author is the same as the article creator. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate in this case but the correct target article would seem to be Content-centric networking which seems to be the name one of the collaborators (PARC) of the NDN project are using. Spinning Spark 14:33, 31 October 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. Spinning Spark 13:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Bangladesh pogroms

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

Mostly copied from International_reaction_to_the_demolition_of_the_Babri_mosque#Bangladesh with the author's own words. Apart from deletion, merging can also be considered. Zayeem ^(talk) 05:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If the reaction to demolition of one mosque constitutes of destruction of 28,000 households, 2,700 business establishments and 3,600 temples, it is a candidate for an independent article. The event was widely covered by major newspapers and TV channels. It prompted Taslima Nasrin to write Lajja. BengaliHindu (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The incident is notable enough to be in Wikipedia, however, it should be merged with the page International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque since, as mentioned most of its contents is copied from that page with the editor's own words and there is enough space too in that page. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets notability criteria. While the article on international reaction is notable and need, the reaction in Bangladesh in particular deserves its own article. The progrom in Bangladesh was a massive and protracted one, leading to multiple fatalities and loss of property, and covered by media widely. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, we can't have same contents in two different pages. There is enough space in the page to merge the article. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same content at all, and even if it were, and there are thousands of articles with overlapping content. --Trphierth (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a common practice to have daughter articles of articles with wide scope. In this particular case, International reaction to the demolition of the Babri mosque is the mother article enlisting reactions from across the globe. The progrom in Bangladesh is a daughter article of the mother article. The progrom in Bangladesh meets general notability criteria to have its own stand-alone article, as long as it is not merely a copy-paste of the relevant section of the mother article (which is not the case here; the daughter article effectively ventures to expand on the Bangladesh event that is summarised per WP:SS in the mother article.).--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think merging would be the right step here. The mother article is only 8.2kb long, far away from 50kb to be split. The daughter article is also unlikely to be expanded in a reasonable time as it is already a month old article and still possesses a short content. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a notable event with many fatalities. and its not same content as in the other article and even if it were, and there are thousands of articles with overlapping content. --Trphierth (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Replied in my earlier comments. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dwaipayan. Looks notable to me .Shyamsunder (talk) 19:37, 30 October 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. Spinning Spark 12:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PMC Top10

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

Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements at this time. No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Breno ^talk 04:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was proposed for deletion in October 2007, but was contested with the following reason The PMC Top 10 *is* notable as it was the first podcast to feature a countdown of the most played podsafe music. This is not a criterion for WP:WEB. Also, this podcast show has closed in 2008 so it is unlikely it will ever gain notability in the future. --Breno ^talk 04:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one reference Tampa Tribune July 11, 2008: "Bedingfield, has had a song at the top of the Web-based Pod Music Countdown chart." Doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found one minor mention through a press release here. Non-notable and it was most likely abandoned. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. With three votes believing this to be a hoax and absolutely zero reliable sources (aside from Wikipedia mirrors) to support this, I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as G3. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 18:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of Charlie Niebanck

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

This show never existed. BMags1996 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very likely a hoax. It'd be notable if it were real, but there's no evidence of the show outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. A search for news articles or books doesn't bring up any hits, which is suspicious for a show that allegedly premiered a major network, HBO, with notable stars. It was first added, without a citation, to the Jack Wild article on 3 November 2011 by an anonymous IP address, User:67.83.143.156. It was removed by User:Crakkerjakk, but edited back in by User:JackWild'sDisease, using OVGuide as a reference. It has remained in the article since then. However, the OVGuide article is a mirror of a past revision of the Wikipedia article, and isn't reliable.--xanchester (t) 05:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like there's a group of users editing the hoax article and linking to it. They have few or no edits outside of constructing and spreading the hoax. I've started a SPI request, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JackWild'sDisease, just in case.--xanchester (t) 06:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I am very near to speedy tagging the article as G3 as there is absolutely zero reliable evidence and the only relevant links are Wikipedia mirrors. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. I support a fairly aggressive interpretation of "blatant hoax" when getting rid of these sorts of whole-cloth fabrications. This one is somewhat insidious because it uses the alacrity of Wikipedia's mirrors to manufacture a reference for a previously-purged fabrication. I've cleaned related articles of the breadcrumbs leading back here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:12, 24 October 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 with the possibility of merge of some material into Richard Mourdock. In coming to this decision, I have discounted some keep arguments on the grounds of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I am also swayed by the WP:NOTNEWS argument over claims the article is verifiable in sources. Spinning Spark 12:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy

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

Not notable enough to be a stand-alone article. Could possibly be merged with the candidate's biography. Keihatsu (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The article has been moved to Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape is "something God intended" controversy. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note two: Now at Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape and God's will controversy. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is almost verbatim of the AP article online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.130.162 (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic topic. Merge a line or two into the candidate's bio, if desired; or not. I wish the elections were over. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too much WP:SOAP in this comment for it to hold any weight in this discussion. --Topping (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - How's that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want SOAP?!?! I'll give you something to whine about... This is a bullshit political article directly related to the 2012 American political campaign that won't matter more than a drop of water in the ocean to anybody in about three weeks. I think it is pretty infantile that people think they can affect election results by creating (or deleting) political stupidity on Wikipedia like this. This article, if written on paper, should be crumpled up in a small paper ball and thrown into a wastebasket, and the creator given an F and sternly admonished to get serious or get the fuck out of class. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a political propaganda tool. Work for the project or leave. THERE'S your fucking soapbox speech... Carrite (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious attack page. Fails to include mitigating information. William Jockusch (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How very diplomatically understated. The "mitigating information" includes the grammatical subject of the sentence being partially quoted, that subject being "Life". "Pregnancy from Rape" is nowhere to be found in any of the Mourdock statements, but is a paraphrase injected into the partial quote.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough info or media coverage; recommend move to candidate page. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 03:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - speedy wise - Carrite covered it all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly has enough sources to be WP:N. The story should not simply be merged because of its relation to the Romney Campaign(He just cut an add for him today), which is also being covered. Casprings (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that this article is part of the PRESIDENTIAL campaign, broadly construed, then the existence of this article violates the WP General Sanctions all editors must abide by.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Within the Richard Mourdock article, the sources contribute to the WP:GNG of the Richard Mourdock biography topic. However, when you move the controversy sources into their own stand alone article, they no longer are independent of the topic - the controversy sources are part of controversy topic. In that regard, the controversy sources need to have news articles (or books, or magazines, etc.) writing about them to provide the independent reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Here, the topic fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There does appear to be precedent since the Legitimate rape controversy already has its own article, Mourdock's remarks are attracting similar levels of attention and there have been a lot of comparisons between the two cases. Actually, maybe just having one article (2012 rape controversies in United States politics?) might be another option since rape, and Republican politicians' inarticulate comments relating to the same, seems to be one of the big issues of the 2012 election season. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Casprings (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The specific issue has received in-depth coverage by multiple sources in the prestige press, including CBS News[56], the Boston Globe[57], the New York Times[58], CNN[59], the Washington Post[60], and the Los Angeles Times[61], amongst many others. If that's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then nothing is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everything that gets coverage, even as that quote says, gets an article. This is an example of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is it your political blogWhatzinaname (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly hastily created. This is the very point of WP:NOT#NEWS. Merge to United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and Richard Mourdock. Reywas92^Talk 05:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:RS is overwhelming for this. The sources are international, the most prominent, and wildly viral. There is not a single Wikipedia policy that would require the deletion of an article with sources this substantial. I suppose there are certain partisans who would not care for the article's existence, but we cannot listen to bias. We must follow policy. We rarely, rarely, rarely see WP:RS of this level and magnitude. Qworty (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I can't stand Mourdock or what he said, but inclusion as a separate article on Wikipedia has absolutely nothing to do with the number of sources or their virality. This is exactly the kind of thing that WP:NOT#NEWS forbids, and there is no reason whatsoever why the multitude of sources cannot be used to create detailed subsections in United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 and Richard Mourdock. Reywas92^Talk 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while articles on current events are better started at a related article (such as the presidential campaign or the candidate article), then given their own article as details can flesh it out, this is widely reported on, and deleting it now is an almost guaranteed long term error, as this is in all likelihood not going away, and is drawing responses from the 2 prez candidates. side note: it would have to be redirected, not deleted, though the current article title is a highly unlikely search term. And, a redirect would allow for easy and instant recreation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "almost guaranteed". Wikipedia waits until there is not doubt about the independent notability, doesnt predict it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to believe that if a subject is addressed in multiple articles, its best to give the subject an article of its own, so each separate article doesnt have to repeat the material verbatim. this is now relevant for him, his race, the presidential race, and probably articles on women and politics, women's issues in the us, etc. PS wikipedia is SUPPOSED TO WAIT until there is no doubt, at least in theory. there are lots of these current events articles which go to AFD and are kept, despite their being perhaps premature.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't deserving of its own article. Make a new section on Mourdock's page. Also, the wording and capitalization in the title of this article is atrocious. lukini (talk | contribs) 15:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It's news-worthy with numerous independent sources. We can decide whether it deserves it's own page after the hype dies down. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I renamed the article, removing the wording and capitalization problems in the process. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Returned the page. If it is to be a move, lets get consensus first. Casprings (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be wise to protect the page, as Google News links the article. And all the page renamings will just be disruptive. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not every notable event in the universe (or in the news media) needs its own article. It is better to cover this development in the context of is campaign rather than as a stand-alone article. Also, if this does survive, it clearly needs to be renamed to something shorter. Dragons flight (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, I found this because the article is now linked on Google News. Dragons flight (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous article. Merge content into Richard Mourdock article, done. --JaGa^talk 16:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the Legitimate rape article is notable enough, I don't see why this one isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.251.178 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not notable enough. It was the wrong AfD decision based on WP:RECENTISM and I intend to bring that article back to AfD after the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you goddamn shitting me? This gets an article? Keep it to the Indiana Senate campaign and Mourdock articles and leave it at that. This is a textbook example of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as the Legitimate Rape article. Czolgolz (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt Absolutely no question this is a Speedy delete, and should not be up for a week under AfD. Pure attack article, and designation of this as a "controversy" takes opinion and puts it as fact in WP's voice. Truth is, Mourdock has always had a clear, well explained (though not shared by many) position on abortion exceptions. If you read the whole quote, he explains his position clearly, and why, and is respectful of other viewpoints. While his view is not mainstream, even in his party, his justification, as a whole sounds reasonable. It sounds controversial when paraphrased or when the quote is edited, and not without those "enhancements". Attack article, and created, as are most attack articles, to circumvent WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV/WP:BLP on the Mourdock or Senate campaign Articles. Therefore also a WP:FORK.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point has come up on the page itself; absolute agreement that the Title HAS to change, but little agreement on the title needed, even though editors have some consensus on the facts. The "controversy" comes down to Mourdock saying "Life... is that gift from God", Democrat operatives claiming he said "Rape... is that gift from God", and reports that a controversy ensued. Problem for a title is that if you state in the title some misquote or paraphrase, that violates BLP and says in WP's voice that Mourdock said something he did not, while if you DON'T include a misquote or paraphrase, the title then does not tell the reader what the controversy is about. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Richard Mourdock: premature. While Todd Akin's 'legitimate rape' comments did become notable enough and generate enough controversy to justify a separate article, these haven't yet. Let's wait and see if this actually develops into a significant story before splitting it out. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- of course, Akin and Mourdock comments are as alike as apples and screwdrivers. Akin's, in context or out, were strange in the extreme. If you put Murdock's into a section on his views on Abortion, but of course THE WHOLE QUOTE, they would be succinct, accurate and reasoned, a ready made WP:NPOV entry, whether you agree with them or not (and many disagree, including most of his party). The hand-waving and screams both on and off WP that "this is controversial", and "this is a controversy" is what makes this controversial. The quote should be allowed to stand on its own, in the Mourdock article, and a note that some consider it controversial. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Absurd to give this an article; it belongs in the senate section. Truthsort (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a mention in the candidate's bio should be enough. God, I can't wait for this election season to be over. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, on 7th November the new election season will start and things like this will come up all over again. Tiller54 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Keep: Title way too long; these types of ridiculous comments obviously need their own article. Merge to section in Richard Mourdock unless becomes big controversy like Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy. This is first time I've heard of it. CarolMooreDC 19:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is nowhere near notable enough for its own page. All these single pages for these controversies is turning Wikipedia into a tabloid. Transcendence (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless this blows up more and affects the 2012 election, it should be merged. No problem to KEEP it for a week or so meanwhile. Do NOT DELETE without a good faith effort to merge it into the main page on the candidate. Wxidea (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The comments are absolutely notable, but can be covered in Richard Mourdock just fine. The title is especially problematic; I'm not sure that it's even possible to make a title that's unbiased, without it being either ambiguous or ridiculously long. The current title makes it seem like Mourdock is suggesting that the hypothetical rape itself would be intended by god...which isn't what he was saying. Whether or not the title can be fixed, I still think it's ridiculous as a standalone article. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redirect revelant but would merge in his page and redirect. --KillAgo (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not notable enough for its own article but notable enough to be mentioned on Mourdock's page and perhaps on the Senate election page. Tiller54 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is a significant, controversial statement that has garnered national attention and will undoubtedly shape Mourdock's biography and his Senate campaign, but it is not a large enough controversy to warrant its own article (in contrast to the similar incident with Todd Akin). 147.9.65.73 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge for now. If it grows enough legs it can always be split out late. AIRcorn (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Mitt Romney dog incident and Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy. There is precedent for this and should be kept. Unfortunately, the votes for this Afd will probably be split among partisan lines.--YOLO Swag (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- those are simply other examples where electioneering hoo ha has fouled wikipedia. we need absolutely no more of that kind of crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shouldn't have it's own page but I think the mention of it on his page is too brief at present. The most hideous thing about this page however is it's extremely long title. Yuck! Cls14 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to wait a day or three and see if the coverage better supports a keep, or a merge with War on Women. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It makes no sense to keep Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy, and delete this page; and WP:RS. Érico Wouters ^msg 02:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Precedent, and such comments are not unique (Akin's comment, for example). This will likely affect the close election of 2012.207.155.72.211 (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' into Richard Mourdock. Similar things should probably happen for some of the Keep references as well, as these are the correct places for them. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now a stand-alone topic that is being extensively discussed in secondary sources. Speciate (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. This clearly has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as required under WP:GNG. As others have mentioned, however, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and one questions the lasting WP:EFFECT this controversy will have. On another note, we ought to have a notability guideline that encompasses elections, which inevitably skew coverage through incessant attention on candidates' actions and attempts to manufacture controversies like these. It's clear to me that there's an element of WP:ROUTINE to this kind of coverage: news outlets are pretty much forced to cover elections closely. A guideline could say it's generally better to include information about controversies in the candidate's article instead of creating a separate article until after the election, since it often takes until the political fervor dies down to determine whether the campaign's controversies had lasting effects that made them independently notable. If a controversy is seen by reliable sources to have played a major role in a candidate's success or defeat, for example, I could see the logic in having a separate article on it. On the other hand, early-campaign controversies like Mitt Romney's dog are more likely to be forgotten and have no lasting effect whether he wins or loses. From a practical standpoint, it makes more sense to me to expand the information in the candidate's biography and wait until after the election to decide whether it has lasting coverage (see WP:PERSISTENCE). --Batard0 (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep temporarily. Although this topic is widely covered, most sources are not including the full context of the quote. Having the full quoted paragraph at least allows people to decide for themselves whether this was a shameful comment or merely a poorly worded opinion.
Keep for now, merge later. Time will tell whether this remains notable. It appears that it may have a significant effect on this race, which in turn may determine which party has control of the senate. Ideally this article should be merged with Todd Akin 'legitimate rape' and pregnancy comment controversy to create a broader article about controversies related to rape/pregnancy/abortion in the 2012 election cycle. However, I think that it may be easier to wait a bit before merging as this is still a very active controversy. Vroo (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rename I suggest this be merged with the congressmen's main article; if it gets big enough to warrant a new article call it "Rich Mourdock pregnancy and rape" comments, or something more or succinct than the current name.

--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of arbitrary breaks

Delete Notable means lasting coverage and the only way that this will be notable is if it ends up impacting the election - until that point it's a matter of WP:CRYSTAL. In the midst of a major election it's expected that anything close to a gaffe will be picked up by most major news outlets; in the short term coverage is artificially strong but it's impossible to tell what will and won't be significant when it's over. I would have !voted redirect but I don't think many people will be typing in "Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape Is 'something god intended' controversy" and so a redirect doesn't seem to serve much purpose. Sædon ^talk 00:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS for starters. This is becomming a problem on WP. Someone says something that is suddenly a "CONTROVERSY!" and then editors run to WP to create an article, pushing it in the most negative light possible. Around the election season it is even worse. Arzel (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a WP:CRYSTALBALL that says that this widely covered event will disappear and will not affect the already close Senate race in Indiana, then? I agree that this article shouldn't exist, but seemingly suggesting that the event itself is WP:NOT#NEWS is a bit of a stretch. Plenty of reliable sources backing up the event and its possible implications. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 01:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ROFL - even in your defense you can only claim " possible implications." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course I'm claiming "possible implications." I certainly don't know if it'll change the Senate race or not...the same as people who say "well we don't know so we shouldn't cover it!" There are plenty of reliable sources suggesting that it might affect the both that race and have ripples effects. Let's see, the Indianapolis Star says: [62] "U.S. Senate nominee Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape and abortion have ignited a political firestorm that reaches far beyond his own election to the race for the White House." and quotes "'This close to Election Day a statement like Mourdock’s has the potential of being decisive,' said Robert Schmuhl, professor of American studies at the University of Notre Dame." Plenty of similar material from other sources. Seems newsworthy to me. It's not hard to figure out what the "possible implications" being discussed are...sorry if I didn't spell them out. My real point is that there are plenty of reasons to delete the article without essentially resorting to "this is mean to a candidate I like." – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 02:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - i dont have a crystal ball that says my dog is not going to affect the elections, either, but i dont get to create an article about his potential game changing election effects and then wait to be proved wrong. you need to show the effect BEFORE it gets an article. utter nonsense -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        That seems reasonable, since I assume there aren't large numbers of reliable sources currently covering your dog and his possible effects on the election. Though, perhaps I am wrong and your dog is being covered and analyzed extensively in the media, which would seem to merit a mention. Note that I have not argued to keep this article, but quite the opposite. But I think it's just stupid to consider the entire event not newsworthy at all. (When in many cases, it seems like that's being used as a cover for "don't like it." This isn't directed at you.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 13:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have lots of reliable sources that actually say that THIS has any likelyhood of being an election game changer? I havent seen one. All I have seen is the fact that it is a word Obama's campaign and the politcial partisan bloggosphere have been using. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Here's some reasonable analysis: [63] [64] and some local coverage in Indiana: [65] [66], saying that the comments may pose a problem for Mourdock and possibly Romney as well. Here are a bunch of quotes showing that, yes, even some Republicans are saying the comments may have consequences: [67]. (Not intended as an RS of course, but to address your assertion that only the Obama campaign and partisan blogs are calling this damaging.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 17:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news lists this article in the ongoing news flap about it. I don't know where this social movement is going, but it's not a good sign. Keith Henson (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's a bit of a judgment call. However, some articles are likely to become elements of history. Like New England Compounding Center meningitis outbreak and unfortunately, this one. Keith Henson (talk) 04:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unencyclopedic cruft. --No unique names 07:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would keep for now and review later for MERGE/REDIRECT. --216.81.81.85 (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I frankly don't care what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is just the latest temporary flare up of the political spin cycle and hardly independently worth of a Wikipedia article. Kansan (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should not even be a discussion. The sources tell us unambiguously that the subject is notable. Everyking (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you do, make it speedy I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or deleted. But I clicked on it from Google News, where it is one of the top links for this story. This is not the first time I have been greeted by an unsightly red-and-white deletion template when clicking to Wikipedia from Google News, and I tend to think that it is bad PR for Wikipedia. There should be a general policy for this kind of article and it should be executed swiftly so that (if it's deleted) Google News will pick up either a different Wikipedia article or none at all, or (if it's kept) people clicking to Wikipedia for the first time will see a clean article without unsightly tags. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Application of Wikipedia policies should not be driven by content in Wikinews nor by the fact that some people think tags look ugly. (It is in my opinion a great benefit to our readers to be consistantly reminded that Wikipedia is a user generated work in progress and NOT a factual bible). BUT Wikipedia policies regarding these NOTNEWS articles should be better developed to better handle them, particularly those of the political campaign media smear and mass shooters. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, BlueMoonlet. People should bear in mind the usefulness of these articles when they are prominently placed on Google News. When noteworthy political controversies occur, when should not ignore them; we should try to aggregate the information into a coherent encyclopedic form. We have to choose between being useful and being useless. Everyking (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is NOT wikipedia's purpose to shine light on breaking news stories. We are an encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re-read what I wrote, please. Everyking (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content. This is getting a ton of coverage and is clearly notable. The title is awful (I don't think anyone supports that as a final title). I am comfortable with a merge+redirect to Mourdock's page, or a move to a better title. -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Mourdock. Within that article it can be presented with balance as part of his biography, and with the appropriate prominence avoiding an undue weight issue. True we can't predict whether there is any long term impact of the incident, but right now it is simply news that doesn't justify an article - especially one with a troubling title that is hard to make NPOV. If it has long term impact it can become an article later. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 18:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even more binders full of arbitrary breaks

Merge to Richard Mourdock... it's been explained in detail by many other users. At this point, it just appears to be a bit of news that's related to Murdock but may or may not rise to a bigger issue. But, at the moment, it clearly isn't being treated the same way as Akin's comments. Not really anything I can add that hasn't been said already... 129.120.177.8 (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Gage (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Richard Murdock~~ Richard Mourdock I've been watching too much The A-Team lately, apparently. As indicated by other editors above, this is a news story and our readers are best served by having information about it in the article about the candidate who made the statement. The issue itself is intimately attached to the candidate and/or the relevant political race, and there is no justification for a redundant standalone article. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Richard Mourdock - and possibly also War on women. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, it's already mentioned in that article. Well, it should still be merged into RM's page - it doesn't deserve its own article yet. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge NN as its own event, only within context of Mourdock's campaign. WP:SNOW at this point, really. czar · · 17:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Mourdock for all the reasons given above. Well this is significant, it does not warrant its own article, as it has not been covered nearly as extensively as the Akin comments. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richard Mourdock (or even re-work the Todd Akin legitimate rape page into a more general page on Republicans and rape comments in the 2012 campaigns). This was certainly noted but doesn't have sufficient impact on its own to justify a separate page. If that changes--if it continues to be in the news for a prolonged period of time--it can be unmerged easily enough. JJL (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move for fucks sake To Richard Mourdock pregnancy controversy. Which I just tried to do but it is move protected. Who the hell came up with the current title should be bloody well blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You guys realize that a merge vote would add undue weight into the Mourdock article right? Truthsort (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's not undue weight to have an entire article on it? Not everything needs to be included, but that's how some things end up. Reywas92^Talk 18:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per above. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 19:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If we do keep the article, then for goodness' sake we need to change the title-- the current title is as objectively false as claiming that the sky is red and the ocean is purple. He argued, as shown in the complete statement, that pregnancy resulting from rape (as with, in his view, any other way) should have the fetus be carried to term since God intends all pregnancies to be carried to term. End stop. The title, for obvious partisan reasons, gives the false impression that he said a)God intends people to be raped and that b)God intends for those rapes to create pregnancies. As a non-believer / an agnostic in the very idea of Murdock's God, I find his views unreasonable, but there's no reason for Wikipedia to libel him by deliberately misquoting him. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the sky can often look red and the ocean purple... but whatever... CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution at this point seems to be making an article on the GOP and rape in this election, but failing that, merge to Richard Mourdock and summarize/link elsewhere as appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone who thinks that this is an insignificant part of the presidential election, discussed only the United States and soon to be forgotten, think again: Significant coverage worldwide in Russian [68][69][70], Spanish [71][72][73][74], German [75][76][77][78], and French [79][80][81][82]. More importantly, the story is described as part of a larger narrative about the GOP's attitude toward women rather than an isolated incident. Keep. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Richard Mourdock. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this needs to be separate from the person's own article. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anyone who thinks that this is a significant part of the presidential election, and won't soon to be forgotten, think again. More importantly, the story is not part of a larger narrative about the GOP's attitude toward women, but rather than an isolated incident stupid bone head comment. Delete. --Malerooster (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Richard Mourdock. This is definitely not a viable search term as it is, and while I believe this event has received significiant coverage and that reliable sources have commented that it will likely affect his career long-term, it is content that is worth keeping. However, it really should be merged where it will be found: Over on the BLP article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge a few sources into the main article--this is exactly why Wikinews exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT regardless of what happens, the title of the article needs to be changed immediately. Since when do we allow the parsing of quotes like that in an article let alone the title of an article? This is a huge BLP violation as it reads like Mourdock says that God intended for rapes to result in pregnancy, which is not what he said. ~~On a minor note "God" in this context is capitalized as a proper noun.~~ Arzel (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the appropriate forum for name change discussion is on the article talk page. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anonymous209.6. AutomaticStrikeout 23:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-Delete- Do we have to create a new article every time a politician says something controversial?!?! (aka everyday) Seriously, Light-jet pilot (talk) 00:07, 31 October 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. Spinning Spark 11:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Teakle

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

fails WP:BIO. I've tried to redirect this but this has been opposed. so this time I'm advocating delete. he is a birth activist of limited coverage [83], and trove shows he's written a few online opinion articles [84], but nothing to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maternity Coalition - My searches were similiar to LibStar but Google Books also found results here (one acknowledgement) and here (one mention through a textbook quiz). Evidently, the Maternity Coalition page needs improvement so I'll search for sources soon. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Maternity Coalition. Lacks notability and proper references. - Mr X 01:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly non-notable. Nominator had been trying to be nice and redirected it, but redirect was opposed. Fine. Let's just delete it now. Qworty (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, nothing achieved, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:28, 29 October 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. Spinning Spark 10:43, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Basil

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

Appears to not meet GNG. No reliable sources present. IvoShandor (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Books provided nothing so I added "actor" but no success, and it's not surprising because he has not had sufficient roles to be considered notable. This is probably a case of too soon or he is simply a minor actor. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bit/extra actor who fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks sufficient notability. Probably better that he, his agent or his fan creates an IMDB profile instead. - Mr X 01:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few roles of no weight, fails WP:ENT and, more obviously, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:25, 25 October 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. Spinning Spark 10:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpeacefare

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

Article is a non-notable neologism without any references. - Mr X 00:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News and Books provided nothing for Cyber peacefare but the main Google search engine provided several results which are insufficient or unreliable (social networking). There's nothing to improve this article to Wikipedia standards. SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a dictionary definition of a neologism. No search results for news sites or books. Fails the general notability criteria.--xanchester (t) 02:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - "Cyberpeacefare" probably was made up for the Wikipedia article name. No sources, doesn't meet WP:GNG. The post material could be copyvio. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 25 October 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. It is now November 1, so in theory an article can cover the lack of torandoes. MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2012

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

Unremarkable subject, little information, no references. Cynival^{Let's Chat!} 00:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's still October 2012, this is a list created for events that have yet to occur. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --xanchester (t) 00:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Too soon, userfying may be better than deleting as tornadoes for November and December will eventually happen. October is not finished yet and the only useful content the article cites is the tornadoes for October which can easily be read at List of United States tornadoes in October 2012. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting and userfying are not necessarily mutually exclusive. ;) --xanchester (t) 02:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by the time this AfD is over, it will be either the 31st or the 1st, which I say is close enough to November to warrant the article. Also seeing as the article is not saying that anything is specifically going to happen, CRYSALBALL does not apply. "Pepper" @ 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does apply, and weather events are provided as an example. "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Arthur (2014)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." An article might be appropriate after the first event has occurred, which may not be on November 1st. --xanchester (t) 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weather is indeed used as an example, but for "predetermined list[s] or a systematic pattern[s] of names", which tornadoes do not fall under. (In terms of your last point, List of United States tornadoes in October 2012 was created on 29 September. List of United States tornadoes from July to September 2012 was created on 2 July, but the first tornado didn't happen until the 13th.) I'm still sticking with my point that it would be pointless to delete this on the 1st of November, even if CRYSTAL maybe does apply. "Pepper" @ 21:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its still October, and you cannot categorically state that there will be any tornadoes in these two months, even if it is highly likely that there will be. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Add this to the WP:CRYSTAL examples. Not a single reference. Hasteur (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls short of WP:CRYSTAL, but apart from that also WP:GNG, as there's been no coverage of these storms in reliable secondary sources because they haven't happened yet. --Batard0 (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on procedural grounds. As noted, previous articles of this type were created on or slightly before (or just after) the first date falling in the range covered by the article (Oct 2012 created on 29 Sept, July to Sept 2012 created on 2 July, etc.). This debate is scheduled to end on October 31st - one day before the stated period of time from November to December 2012. So, at that point, the article is deleted and I can swoop in and create it the very next day. Or we Userfy it and de-userfy it the next day. Both options seem to be a useless bureaucratic exercise in time wasting. Protip: There are no barnstars offered for wasting editors' time in this manner. If it were a bigger deal, I'd be inclined to protect the future articles until the day before - "Do Not Create until 1 January 2013" in the protection log for List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2013, though I don't know how that would mesh with the protection policy. But I suspect it should not matter; admonish whoever jumped the gun on this one to userspace draft the next one, or just hold their horses next time, and move on. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if there should turn out to be no tornadoes during this time period, we should still have this article to state that. Unlike, for example, the tropical storm article noted above, which would be created only if the storm happened. Ma^t_chups 15:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Item 2 of WP:CRYSTALBALL expressly prohibits articles like this, which I will discuss in a moment. Per N, notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Since it is not past December 2012, it is impossible for the topic to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per N. Nothing can be said about these future tornados that is verifiable and not original research. This article also fails several WP:NOT requirements. Wikipedia is not a directory. If the past List of United States tornadoes from X to X articles (Category:Tornadoes by year) is any indication, this will be another list that fails to discriminate membership criteria to canonical examples and fails to even make an attempt at supporting the selection of entries in the list by reliable sources. This article is not a list but a Directory of United States tornadoes from November to December 2012 that is not limited to major tornado events or historically significant tornadoes. Wikipedia is not a directory everything that exists. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the past List of United States tornadoes from X to X articles, this will be another article in this area that does not meet WP:V. The List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2012 subject matter does not merit an article if the event had already occurred. Also, per Item 2 of WP:CRYSTALBALL, even though it is virtually certain that tornadoes will occur in the United States from November to December 2012, this list is not encyclopedic since the only information that can be know about specific future tornadoes is generic information. Wikipedia is not a newspaper: This list sits in the ready to offer first-hand news report on breaking tornadoes, whether or not they are routine tornadoes, and will serve as a diary from November to December 2012 of tornadoes in the United States. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UltraExactZZ. This would be a pointless bureaucratic deletion as the article would definitely be recreated in a day or two. Please be sensible and apply WP:IAR. The claim that WP:CRYSTAL item 2 applies is incorrect, this article is not an "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" but rather an overview of a group of individual items. Spinning Spark 10:31, 31 October 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.