Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 September	11 September >

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 redirect to Corey Feldman. Redirecting rather than deleting due to the argument that "Mindy Feldman" is a plausible search term, and also because she is mentioned in Corey's article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Feldman

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

Tis a sad thing when being the sister of Corey Feldman is one of your claims to fame. Her acting credits are too few and weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Corey Feldman - The only mentions of Mindy Feldman I have found are this obituary of her father and this book, another book here and other passing mentions that aren't worth listing here. Although the article provides insignificant content, it is a plausible search term that would be better as a redirect to Corey Feldman. Chances are she will never have any other acting roles, if any, they would probably be trivial. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first version of this microstub was epic:

"Mindy was the youngest "Mouseketeer", almost a mascot in a way, but frankly, VERY TALENTED! Mindy EARNED her ears through her voice, look, and "Tude" "Suprise-Day" was RIGHT when she sang it..and she is a GREAT Actress. Mindy...in the 70's I rode on my old Schwin...bike..(Banana BLUE Banana seat..METAL FLAK Mind you <Grin> To Chatsworth from The Valley (Granada Hills)..just to meet you. Hey Min..... Get ahold of me.....when ya got time :-)

Hope all is well with you and your family....all the best! -Ethan Tudor W. www.imdb.com KEYWORD Ethan Tudor W.

Carrite (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not notable. Carrite's argument is very entertaining but not per se reason for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She had some news coverage in 2003 for her work in a play Filler Up,[1]. Not really enought even for a redirect. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:18, 18 September 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) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Franch

(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 on the grounds that there is no FPL for women in the US, which has no bearing on notability, and on the grounds that she has been to, but has not played for the US national team, which is explicitly excluded per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have been created so many months ago. There is no longer fully professional leagues in women's football, so the articles are created primarily based on the athlete level of notability. And Franch has notability, since she already have been called to the United States senior team and she's one of the top prospects goalkeepers in the U.S--SirEdimon (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to notability. She has not received significant coverage for any of this, and none of it is covered by WP:NSPORT, except being called to but not playing for the national team which it says does not confer notability. There are only two relevant notability guidelines and she fails both. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented her country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THERE NO FULLY PRO LEAGUE in women's soccer. Franch has notability, she never played in senior level for USA, but many articles of women's players are about player that never ever played for her their countries in senior level.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, let's nominate all of them for deletion.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. – Kosm1 fent 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I improve the article to avoid deletion?--SirEdimon (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find out if she has received significant non-routine coverage in independent reliable sources, so as to pass WP:GNG. – Kosm1 fent 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look this https://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Adrianna+Franch&oq=Adrianna+Franch&gs_l=hp.12...0.0.1.575.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.CwCPuJmy9ro&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1024&bih=607&ech=1&psi=HptTUPU3i-ryBKT8gOgC.1347656797799.3&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=HptTUPU3i-ryBKT8gOgC --SirEdimon (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources, SirEdimon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 14 September 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) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devilbunnies

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

A completely made-up fictional element that has absolutely no notability. There are absolutely no reliable sources about this. As the whole topic was just made up by a usenet group, and never expanded to anything meaningful, WP:MADEUP also applies here. This article has somehow existed since 2004, and in that time, the subject in question has never managed to gain any notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator): yeah, I'm not going to contest this one. All I can say is, it seemed more notable to me at the time than it does now with the benefit of eight years' hindsight. (RIP Usenet.) --Calair (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usenet and usenet culture seems to be very poorly documented. This particular aspect isn't completely unsourceable as this book seems to provide some coverage. But that is all I was able to come up with. -- Whpq (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fictional "element" (for lack of a better word) fails WP:GNG, coverage in secondary sources is either referring to the group that created the fiction, or is to trivial to write a complete article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:22, 16 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Building

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

Strange, Page Curation did remove my motivation.Non-notable building with a smell of advertising, not exeptionally high, no notable architect, no sources. The Banner _talk 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: building does not seem to be notable Keizers (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A new, modernist 25 story tower on the Malecón in Havana seems a credible landmark, and there is coverage to substantiate this. I added as sources 2 lengthy news articles about the building, one in English, one in Spanish.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two references added by Arxiloxos - news articles entirely about the building - demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yep it seems notable enough (for Havana, sadly) now Keizers (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wouldn't be notable if it was created in the US, but this source clearly shows that this building in this ___location is notable. Ryan Vesey 22:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG with the two good sources found by Arxiloxos. Camerafiend (talk) 01:02, 12 September 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) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Faraj

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

Contested PROD. Concern was fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. The article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by the nominator). (non-admin closure) Electric Catfish 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bouchard_I_of_Montmorency

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

Robert Keiden (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. I wrote a description of what was wrong with this article, but it seems to have vanished. Let me try again. --Robert Keiden (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article (and its twin: Bouchard II of Montmorency) appear to be hoax or OR, based on real people but padded with nonsense. The given reference: [2] only mentions Montmorencys after ca. 1500. And the timeline (Bouchard I served Charlemagne? Bouchard II served Hugh Capet?) is impossible.

The second page could be salvageable (if renamed to Bouchard_I and significantly cleaned up.) I'm finding a few references.

(oh, great. The fr: articles corroborate some of the text of Bouchard_II_of_Montmorency but provide no references.

Found the source for BOTH en: articles. Its a straight up translation of: [3] which also uses the "Nobiliaire_universel" document as a reference. Possibly both should be CSD for copyright violation. Possibly both could be re-written from scratch, but I'm not convinced the Bouchards are notable. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Worse than that. :( Primary source [4]

It's another volume of the work cited by both en: articles. And it does support the text, though much of that information is inconsistent with other sources. This AfD was filed in error, and looks like a failure. Sorry y'all. --Robert Keiden (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator withdrew this AFD nomination, so I'll close it as a speedy keep. Electric Catfish 23:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Gaymer Martin

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

The subject plainly fails the notability criteria for authors. Slashme (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the unencyclopedic tone and poor content of the article are not relevant to this deletion discussion, and are fixable, but anybody proposing to keep this article should explain how the subject meets any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. --Slashme (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's included in v.224 of the Gale compendium Contemporary Authors [5]. Such coverage shows notability -- it's the standard encyclopedic reference in the subject, and one of our basic principles is that we include everyone with an article in such reference works. Looking at the worldcat author page,[6] at least 13 of her books are in over 200 libraries each, and some have been translated into Spanish, Afrikaans, and French. As for independent secondary sources, s Google News shows reviews in Detroit Free Press and other newspapers. Additionally, Her web p. has a number of awards, though most of them are specialized or minor & her works have been published by recognized publishers. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you make a solid case. I'd be happy with a speedy keep as submitter based on that reasoning. --Slashme (talk) 13:46, 11 September 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 Flaxweiler. There is a broad consensus that there shouldn't be a stand-alone list on this subject at this time, but consensus is less clear on whether the result should be "merge" or "delete". I am closing as merge as I couldn't see a compelling reason brought forward that deletion would be preferable to merging. If any of the "delete" !voters feel that the list doesn't belong in the village article, that can be dealt with by regular editing and/or discussion on Talk:Flaxweiler. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Flaxweiler

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

I was hoping that I could create some stub articles for some of these, but I couldn't find any information about any of them, other than lists of mayors. Even the present incumbant has very little press coverage or mentions elsewhere. As such, I do not feel that this list will ever be more than a list of redlinks, which is not the purpose of such a list. Lists should predominently point to articles, which this one does not and probably never could. As such, I do not think that it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I note that all the other 'lists of mayors', although some of them have several redlinks, none of them have all redlinks. That itself is not a valid reason for deletion (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but the fact that - despite spending a couple of hours looking up all the names on the list - I was unable to find anything with which to create article is, in my opinion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: If anyone can create some stub articles for the mayors which are reliably sourced, I'm happy to reconsider my recommendation to delete this list! Please see below links for sources for each of the 18 different mayors (I've included "Flaxweiler" in the search as I presume any source about the specific person will mention that as well as their name!)

Individual mayors

Michel Metzdorf: in office 1806-1810

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

Pierre Stemper: in office 1810-1812

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

Jean Nielles: in office 1813-1816

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

François Strasser: in office 1816-1819

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

Jean Huberty: in office 1819-1825

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

Jean Peters: in office 1825-1830

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

Michel Pettinger: in office 1830-1839

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

Jean-Pierre Huberty: in office 1854-1867

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

Michel Engel: in office 1867-1876

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

Antoine Boss: in office 1876-1887

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

Adolphe Musquar: in office 1889-1895

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

Jean Molitor: in office 1895-1928

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

Michel Schritz: in office 1929-1944

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

Jean Sturm: in office 1945-1945

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

Edouard Steffes: in office 1946-1965

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

Eugène Kauffmann: in office 1966-1970

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

Roger Lenert: in office 1970-2005

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

Théo Weirich: in office 2005-Present

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

Even with the current incumbant, I could find very little coverage - a couple of reports of his 2011 electoral success, a couple of routine announcements about him handing out awards, etc - no significant, indepth coverage. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One way for this list to satisfy notability requirements is for most or all of the entries to be notable, thus making it at the least a navigational list. Another way is for the grouping as a whole to be notable, so that if the office itself has received sufficient coverage, or has played an important enough role in the history of the community, a list may be justified. I suppose one concern is that where you can't find any other information besides a name and term of office, the list becomes a sort of informational dead end, because the name can't tell you anything and can't lead to further information. But given that this is a public office (however small), I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt for now because I don't see any cause for urgency, and it's likely that if there is further information, it's not in english nor on the internet. It could certainly be merged to the town's article for now. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redir This article is walking a fine line that I believe rests on the population of the host village/town/city. The people on the list do not have to be notable for the list itself to be notable. see here (not a jab... justa gentle poke postdlf ;). The question is; IS a list of mayors itself notable enough for its own (spun-out) article? A search for precedent "List of mayors of" finds no places with a population of 338 (as Flaxweiler says it has) has its own (spun-out) list. Merge & redir til such time as the population passes some magical number. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also tried to find something about the mayors/office of the mayor - but there was a similar lack of sources. The only sources I found gave the same list of mayors, but with no further details about either the individuals, or the office of mayor as a whole. Here are the French/German searches I tried (although I am not a German-speaker, and my French isn't brilliant, so perhaps someone fluent may find something useable). If I had been able to find something beyond a list of the mayors, I would have used that as a source, and would not have nominated it for deletion:

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

Although no one has suggested it, I should point out that this is something which I have tried to find sourcing for - albeit online only, as I am neither in Luxembourg nor fluently read the languages!

I should also point out that a commune is an LAU-2, the equivalent to Wards of the United Kingdom, with populations of between a few hundred up to several thousand - 109 of them have less than 10,000 inhabitants, only 7 having more. Flaxweiler has a population of about 1758. I'm not sure that this makes it large enough for its mayor to be inherently notable. That is a matter for discussion here - as a side-note, the '338' is the population of the town itself, rather than the Commune, and the mayor is the communal mayor, not just the town.

Incidentally, I'm quite happy for this to be a merge and redirect, as that meets all needs - and allows this article to be easily re-created should suitable sources ever be found. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what little it's worth, I looked up each of the 485 places for which there exists a List of mayors of * (including Gotham City!) and ranked them by population. Of the 27 with four-digit populations, five are in Luxembourg, and only one (Garnich) is smaller than Flaxweiler. —Tamfang (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to ___location page, leaving a note on the talk page that it can be split out if the article gets too big. The ___location has <400 inhabitants and it's page has 69 words of readable prose. This has 24 words of readable prose. Both are have an complete lacking of references with in-depth coverage. Even combined together they are marginal for WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This list is just a direct copy of the source provided anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it contained many notable examples, I would vote !keep, but a list of non notable entries is hardly noteworthy. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 7 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge if you really must, but it's an entirely redlinked list. Shadowjams (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the list is entirely RedLinks, the question is; is the position of Mayor WP:Notable, and is a complete listing of the office holders WP:Notable? I used to think that RedLink Lists were not worth it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the question is more - "is the position of the mayor of a commune inherently notable". I would contend that it is not (obviously, as otherwise I wouldn't have started this discussion!) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge the list to the article on the village. Not really appropriate for a separate article, as none of these are likely to be notable DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 11 September 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) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Saint Queen Tamar

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

Another in a series of non-notable faux order articles created by User:Kimon. Only one source other than to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Am open to a redirect to Georgian Legion. Ravenswing 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This along with the other faux Order creations in recent postings. Follows the same fantasy reasoning as the other "Georgian Orders" of late - creating a farcical entity. Fails WP:GNG and is circling WP:HOAX. Яεñ99 (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - The Georgian Orders are recognized by ICOC (International Commission for Orders of Chivalry). It is a big mistake. http://www.icocregister.org/2004otherinstitutions.htm danyamp (talk) — Daniamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Whether a self-appointed commission lists this on its website is beside the point; that no reliable sources discuss the subject in "significant detail" is. Ravenswing 07:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ICOC is the most important authority in the world for the Chivaric Orders. How can you describe this commission as a "self-appointed" one? Do you recognize other authorities, other commissions? Are you an expert in chivarlic orders? danyamp (talk)

Reply: It *is* a self-appointed group; they admit so in their own materials. That being said, I advise you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding notability; WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:ORG are particularly informative links. Ravenswing 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: So, why don't you delete the wikipedia article regarding the Constantinian Order? Do you know that there are three constantinian orders that think everyone to be the real Order? What do you know of this world? Please, what is your experience in chivalric sciences? danyamp (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.153.254 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - look: http://heraldistas.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/peregrinacion-de-su-alteza-real-el.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.156.50 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no reliable sources. The only sources in the article itself are to the organization's own website, and to another wikipedia article. Both, of course, are not valid sources. There are absolutely no other sources to be found on this so-called order anywhere else. Rorshacma (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does look like utter nonsense; it could be a hoax, but along with the other articles (now deleted) by the same user, a confused or wishful sense of possibly genealogy-inspired fantasy may be a better explanation. Whatever the cause, the article fails WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:15, 10 September 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) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Festival Wichita

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

Extremely limited coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't seem to be enough reliable coverage at this time to warrant an article. Which is is a shame, since it's been running for seven years now. Maybe if there is Anime News Network coverage somewhere, then it could be notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral, as I'll give the benefit of a doubt that the Wichita Eagle hits are not press releases. It's such a shame that many news have to resort to pay-wall archives, especially if such sources are about obscure topics. However, without being able to see the actual hits, I can't say whether or not such coverage is reliable/significant/independent. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've searched ANN, most of the pages are Anime Festival Wichita Press Releases, none of which help establish notability. The only other article worth mentioning is the death of Cassandra Hodges, that is already referenced in the article. The Wichita Eagle might have sources, but there archives are a pay site. Esw01407 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked in the Kansas press? —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched in the major TV/Press groups in Wichita, I couldn't find anything. Esw01407 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seeing several hits from The Wichita Eagle. There were also a number of other hits from NewsLibrary.com. —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of the convention, or of Hodges' death? If it's about the con, are they actual coverage, or are they press releases? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One would have to purchase the articles from NewsLibrary.com to be for sure that they are not press releases. But none of them appear to mention Hodges. —Farix (t | c) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that if there are hits, we have to assume in good faith that they are directly covering AFW and not the death of the VA. Has anyone looked into the parent org and seeing if there is any relevant coverage of the parent org that mentions AFW that can be used to establish further credibility. Also, how does Press Releases by ANN not verify notability? It's independent coverage by a reliable source, given the circumstances and the fact that anime conventions are not covered by "traditional" media, per se. Sometimes you have to ignore the rules to better serve the encyclopedia. LTC b2412 Troops Talk RFC Inbox 13:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are still not independent coverage, even if they were released by an independent body, because the text was still made by people related to the company in question. And no, I don't think it's a good idea to ignore the rules at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:57, 10 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to go with keep here with the multiple archival hits at The Wichita Eagle and Wichita Examiner via NewsLibrary.com. Although all of the articles are behind a paid wall, that should not be a issue with establishing notability and I am asserting the good faith that the articles' coverage are interdependent of the convention's press releases. The only hindrance to establishing notability is that there isn't a wider variety of sources. Having more than a couple of papers covering the event would greatly enhance the notability of the event, but that is not a requirement. —Farix (t | c) 20:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources appear to have been found, passes the original nom's concerns. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 12 September 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) 18:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Sutton

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

The two sources in the article are a primary source from the US Department of Justice and a news report of Sutton's conviction. I can find no other reliable sources, so, if nobody else can do so, this should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. There is nothing out there that describes the man as notable outside of his arrest and conviction, and even those are just standard news reports. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no substantial coverage in secondary sources. As an event, the crime fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS. As a biography, the subject fails WP:PERP. Location (talk) 17:15, 17 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Babar

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BLP1E as only notable for gaining a CBE. The entire article is repeated at 2008 New Year Honours so there is no loss of content. As a British civil servant it is very unlikely that her activities are covered in reliable sources and I have been unable to find any through internet searches. If there are additional sources to expand the article then that is great, if not, then the content can be retained in the 2008 article until we have more source material. Road Wizard (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Getting a CBE seems to meet that to me. Being a short, stubby article isn't grounds for deletion. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy with whatever consensus comes out of this, but to put the award in context, there are up to 8,960 people with a CBE at any one time. If we assume that most CBEs are awarded to people in mid life we could be looking at 18k to 26k individuals each century as a very rough estimate. Admittedly many of those will have other reliable sources to support an article but we could end up with a huge number of stubs that repeat the same content that is in the honour list articles.

This is not an argument along the lines of other stuff does not exist but just an attempt to clarify the scale of the issue. Road Wizard (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that numerical estimate shows we can easily accommodate the material. 9000 articles is a mere 0.25 % of the size of Wikipedia, even assuming none are notable on any other grounds. The order only goes back to 1817, so it 100 years from now, we'll still have less than 50K. That'll be a similar proportion to the probable size of Wikipedia. Even a paper reference book could accomodate that. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pointing it out in terms of Wikipedia's physical capacity to hold the data. My point is that we may end up with many thousands of single line articles that repeat word for word their corresponding single line entry in the honour list article. It is only a very small proportion of civil servants whose work puts them in the media spotlight (such as press officers or those who are called in front of a Parliamentary committee) and civil servants are discouraged from doing anything in their personal lives that would draw public attention to their status as civil servants. Other than people in high profile posts we won't find any source material unless they do something noteworthy (I was going to say notable but that has a loaded meaning here) before they join the civil service or after they leave.

If consensus is that we retain these duplicated single line data entries in thousands of articles then I will continue assessing them as stubs and hope that someday we may be in a position to expand them. My practical view though is to wait until we have material that doesn't duplicate their honour list article before creating the article. Road Wizard (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has always been my opinion that the CBE or higher counts as "a well-known and significant award or honor". Holders of such honours tend to hold senior positions and generally receive an automatic inclusion in Who's Who (which, for those who think otherwise, is not a vanity publication, although some publications with similar names are) and frequently obituaries in The Times and other significant papers after their deaths. While there may be legally up to 8,960 people with the CBE at any one time, the actual figure is far lower than this. About 200 are now awarded every year and, apart from the war years, fewer were generally awarded in the past (the average for the 1920s, for instance, was closer to 50 a year). Incidentally, the Order of the British Empire was actually founded in 1917. While it is certainly true that this particular article needs expansion, I am of the opinion that Ms Babar's CBE qualifies her for an article. She is not "only notable for gaining a CBE"; she received the CBE as a mark of the notability of her career, which is a very, very different thing entirely. This is certainly not a BLP1E issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award of an honour is a mark of notability, not the notability in itself. Otherwise we would be saying that we honour a highly decorated soldier for the fact that they got a medal, not for the act of heroism that led to it. And a CBE is not awarded for a single event. The real difficulty in this case is that we do not really know why she was awarded the CBE; it does not simply go with the job. But notability is not about popular recognition and it is sufficient that the person is recognised as having achieved a special standing in their particular sphere of endeavour. Solicitors will not usually work in the limelight. Nor do we delete because an article is merely a stub. --AJHingston (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above on CBE, plus refs IPS wireservice, several GBooks hits, and a GScholar hit. GregJackP Boomer! 02:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close; wrong forum. Discussion on the deletion of redirects or conversion of redirects into articles should be done at Redirects for discussion. I will open an RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duck face

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

I think the article should better be restored; but this redirect is not helpful in any way and worse than nothing. KnightMove (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Mantovani

(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 without providing a reason Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 13 September 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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarpedia

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

Non Notable. May be kept in wikipedia or project namespace, but not in the main space. — Zanaq (?) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is based on press reports documenting a development which is liable to act as a catalyst for further expansion along similar lines. If this article is to be deleted, then Monmouthpedia (a similar initiative) should probably also be deleted. --Ipigott (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG, citing multiple reliable news stories which talk about the project. Sionk (talk) 09:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the sources in the article are at the same time almost all available sources. It is very unknown, much more unknown than Monmouthpedia. Do not use wikipedia to generate notability, not even (and especially not) for our own projects. — Zanaq (?) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's "generating notability". The notability is indicated by the independent reliable news sources cited in the article, which is a main requisite of WP:GNG. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia too! Sionk (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this article fails to meet WP:GNG, mainly the criteria "Sources" and "Independent of the subject": the sources are mainly gibraltarian websites and some sources are on the same website (so are the same source). This is supposed to be an online project, and for notable (western) online projects I expect a lot of google hits and a high Alexa rank. 3000 hits is not much, even the 60.000 hits for Monmouthpedia are not much in my opinion. — Zanaq (?) 14:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in the Gibraltar Chronicle and other sources meet WP:GNG criteria. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 20:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Government involved project, covered in reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KConWiki (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GNG. Coverage in national newspapers merits sufficant notability for inclusion. Also to those using the google results argument,, check WP:GOOGLEHITS. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep This is not just WP navel-gazing, this project is actually being done with the full support of the government of Gobraltar. It has a nice pile of reliable sources already and that pile is bound to grow as the project builds steam. This is something we should all be proud of, nomination statement is very weak and easily contravened by the available evidence. Reccomend this be closed now per WP:SNOW Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:37, 16 September 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) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Welfare RFC

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

Article is about a rugby union team in the seventh tier of Welsh rugby. The team does not meet WP:GNG or WikiProject Rugby's notability criteria for clubs. The club is young in comparison with many Welsh clubs so not of great note in that respect. The article seems to be simply a repository for large amounts of statistics/results for the club, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Only sourcing is to the clubs own website which appears to be about a Japanese ISP. noq (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:54, 3 September 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) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLT Group

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

A very small (45 employees), non notable company - Written like an advertisement Itemirus (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tried finding sources using various search parameters such as "TLT Group Trade, Logistics & Transport, Moscow, Russia", ""TLT Group" Trade, Logistics & Transport, Moscow, Russia", ""TLT Group" Trade, Logistics & Transport", ""TLT Group" Moscow", and others. The only source found thus far is about a different company named TLT Timber Ltd. Co. here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 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) 15:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company going about its trade, but no evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 10 September 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) 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MB2_(Entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/MB2 (Entertainer)

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

Non notable - no indication of importance - Only source is a scantily viewed video on youtube - Possible autobiography Itemirus (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding coverage for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 15:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 September 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) 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal coverage found - even the primary sources show under 700 views on Youtube views, minimal own website with under 200 visitors. No evidence of WP:NMUSIC notability. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (pornographic actor)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and has been subject of recent major BLP violations Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - Fails - When this article was established in 2007, it met BLP and contained numerous inline citations to mainstream media sources. Most of these have been removed (although no reason has been given). In its current form, the article fails BLP and notability. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The guy has requested it. [7] He isn't a politician, or anyone who ever harmed anyone. So no reason not to honor his request. Dream Focus 17:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per subject's request. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What notability was claimed in the article was incidental to the subject. That's been removed now, and as the subject both requested that the article be deleted, and noted that it has already caused some harm, there isn't any reason for keeping it here. - Bilby (talk) 23:30, 11 September 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. A lot of the arguments given in this discussion are not valid arguments for deletion, and participants who have not yet done so would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. After excluding these arguments, there is consensus that the coverage in independent reliable sources is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline (even if we do not count nyteknik.se). There doesn't seem to be much support for a merge, and a few of the merge arguments were based on E-Cat's fringe status, which in itself is not a valid argument for merging or for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Catalyzer

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete this article because it represents just undue weight to a device impossible even only to define with independent sources (the definition that is actually written in the page is wrong and unsupported, more details can be found here). TheNextFuture (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— TheNextFuture (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep/merge I think the significant coverage in the article is pretty conclusive that it satisfies all relevant inclusion policies. There is also ample and adequate sourcing to meet WP:FRINGE requirements as well. Impossibility of the device isn't a grounds for removing it from wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk)

It doesn't matter if it works or not. The article is about E-Cat, so can you define it possibly with independent sources? If you cannot, you can try also with the declarations of Rossi (even if independent source are strictly required by wikipedia). Good Luck! --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of primary sources in the article, principally ny teknik, but there are some independent sources too like forbes, focus and Wired. I wouldn't mind trimming the fat that is solely based on involved non-independent sources; and a merge is always possible. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there is Forbes who says that about the E-Cat "there's no real news". So this case is really simple, we have even sources that state that we are keeping a separated article about no real news. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge works for me too. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's WP:SNOWing keeps~~ Lots and lots of us think this thing is a scam, and judging from the way the article is not being updated (New Energy Times seemingly providing the only ongoing coverage, and we've decided that it isn't reliable for our purposes) it looks as though this is going to be one of those things that just fades away. That said, the consensus the last time was overwhelming, and judging from the nominator's attempts to feel things out on the article talk page, consensus is not going to change. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I oppose outright deletion, I am amenable to a merge to Rossi's article, if that's the way others would prefer to take it. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with the various ongoing media coverage it has received. The article manages to be WP:NPOV and I don't see any policy-based reason to delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other similar machines, like those of Arata, are reasonably not present in wikipedia. At the moment, this device has nothing to do with LERN which can be supported with independent sources (in contrast to what is written actually in the article). So it is an undue weight to a claim of only one person. --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arata machine got almost ZERO coverage from media compared with the coverage deserved by the media towards the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, at least from the scientific point of view. Consider also that the same discussion is valid for the machine of Fleischmann–Pons, which had definitely higher media coverage compared to E-Cat. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One commentator in the last debate called this a "noteworthy scam" and that's probably a useful way to think of things if you happen to be convinced of the crackpot nature of the "cold fusion industry." There is still POV lurking in this piece that needs to be weeded out, but that's an editing matter. Passes GNG, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've changed my mind on it being a "noteworthy scam". If you look at mainstream coverage, it has had very little. There are endless blogs of course. Even the Forbes quotes are from the Forbes blog. The e-cat deserves 1 paragraph in the Rossi page so it can be with his other scams Bhny (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No reason to delete. The nominator just doesn't like it. There's plenty of stuff been written about it - and when or if it turns about to be measurement error or scam, or when or if it turns out to be real, there will be plenty more. Tmccc (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— Tmccc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are wrong, I like a lot the E-Cat. But here we are discussing about the article and especially about the missing sources, not of what I like or not. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is well source and followed by the media (last article published today: [8]). The article is well balanced, well referenced, well written.
Be the issue less polarising, nobody would even remotely think to start an AfD.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nyteknik is a primary source since they are closely involved with Rossi. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ny Teknik article is about Rossi's latest device, not the E-Cat as described by our article - there are no reliable sources on the new device. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ny Teknik article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). Not much of a mention, and anyway, it has already been made clear on several occasions that over-reliance on Ny Teknic as a source is highly problematic. And don't you think that it might be better to describe Holm as the source does, "CEO of Hydro Fusion", rather than as "physicist" - I'd think that 'CEO' might imply 'COI' here.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are right AndyTheGrump: physicist Magnus Holm is the "CEO of Hydro Fusion".--Insilvis (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Andrea Rossi. At this point, Rossi seems (judging by the only sources we have - unreliable ones) to have abandoned his original, 'patented' and 'demonstrated' E-Cat, and is now promoting another 'high temperature' device about which there are no meaningful reliable sources whatsoever, apart from a recent report in Ny Teknik (itself a questionable source, as discussed previously, due to it's lack of expertise and close involvement with Rossi), which doesn't describe the device, states (from what Google translate makes of it) that the 'high temperature device has failed tests required by potential Swedish investors. [9] What is and what isn't an E-Cat has become less clear by the day, almost every prior claim by Rossi has subsequently been retracted, or swept under the carpet, and all the predictions about the device coming onto the market have been proven false. Quite simply, there is no E-Cat except in as much as Rossi claims that such a device exists - and a device for which there is no meaningful verifiable evidence doesn't merit its own article. If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims, almost all subsequently proven to be without merit, to have invented a something-or-other that somehow-or-other produces excess heat. Rossi's unverified claims belong solely in an article about him. To have an article on an apparently miraculous device that exists solely in his imagination (as far as reliable sources can determine) is entirely undue. Sadly, the previous AfD failed to address this point properly, and instead got sidetracked into crystal-ball-gazing about what was 'going to happen soon which would make the topic notable'. Even the closing admin seems to have fallen into this trap: "a bottomline is the following: fringe science or not, time will tell". Time has now told, and there is no longer any pretence at science, fringe or not, as far as Rossi's original device (the topic of the article) is concerned. If the device had any genuine long-term notability (as required under Wikipedia notability guidelines), there would be more material on it coming out. Instead, the few sources that took it at all seriously as anything other than unverifiable hype from Rossi have dropped the subject entirely. Rossi may be notable for the hype, but his magic teapot can have no notability beyond him, for the simple reason that there is no meaningful evidence that any such thing exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to the merge - issue already discussed two times in the past. My opposition to this merge stems from the simple fact, according to what it is reported, that the Energy Catalyzer is the result of a team work developed by inventor Andrea Rossi together with physicist Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, there is no team work in the E-Cat development: "with the support from physicist Sergio Focardi". The source to this sentence is just the list of the professors of the Bologna university (the same as support that I have won the Nobel prize with the list of inmates of my apartment). The problem here is that Focardi doesn't know anything about the inside of the device, as he said clearly the last year. The Italian patent reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi", without any mention to Focardi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insilvis, Please do not !vote twice. And can you point to an independent reliable source that states that Focardi even knows what is inside the E-Cat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheNextFuture,

these are some of the initial references in the Energy Catalyzer page:

[10][11][12] where it is written that Andrea Rossi developed the Energy Catalyzer with Sergio Focardi.

AndyTheGrump,

what I know is what I can find here on Wikipedia, like this (English subtitles available) from TED Talk where Focardi illustrates his work with Rossi on the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't say that Focardi has developed the E-Cat together with Rossi. Focardi has done some works in the contest of nichel cold fusion and somehow Rossi said that he was inspired by them. Focardi says also that there were some meetings many years ago in which he explained to Rossi his previous devices and some of his ideas. He has also participated to some demonstrations until the beginning of the last year, but then he quite disappears. Also the patent (written by Rossi) reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi" without any mention to Focardi. In one of the article of our notes instead it is written: "Sergio Focardi [...] non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi", "As far as we know Sergio Focardi has not already had the possibility of studying the machine and, when we ask, he says to know as much as us". --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Focardi made no mention whatsoever of a presence of Rossi's supposed 'secret catalysts' in the E-Cat - which rather supports my suggestion that he doesn't know what is inside. Incidentally, Focardi's statements about Gamma radiation flatly contradict what Rossi told the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control. No surprises there: once again, the 'E-Cat' is whatever Rossi wishes to claim it to be, as circumstances require. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TheNextFuture,

nice try. But you are 100% WRONG.

This is the complete paraghaph cited by you:

Sergio Focardi, 79 anni, "padre" delle reazioni nichel-idrogeno in Italia, è visibilmente affaticato e si tiene in disparte; Giuseppe Levi, fisico sperimentale, collega di Ferrari a Bologna, è inavvicinabile. Finché non decide di lanciarsi in un'accorata promozione dell'invenzione di Rossi: siamo sorpresi dalla ferma fiducia dello scienziato nell'E-Cat, in contrasto con la cautela di tanti altri ricercatori, perché non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi.

TRANSLATION:

Sergio Focardi, 79, the "father" of the [research about nuclear] reactions with nickel and hydrogen in Italy, is apparently fatigued and stand by; Giuseppe Levi, experimental physicist, colleague of [Loris] Ferrari at UNIBO [=Bologna], is unapproachable. Until he decides to start a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention: we are surprised by the firm trust shown by the scientist in the E-Cat, in contrast with the cautiousness of many other researchers, (NOTEbyInsilvis: Levi is a researcher at UNIBO) because we are not aware that he has indeed had the possibility to study the machine and him, inquired by us, affirm to know about it as much as us.

Therefore, it is clear that the text mentioned by you, TheNextFuture, refers to Giuseppe Levi and not to Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me it is clear that the meaning is the opposite, Levi is unapproachable and then Focardi starts a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention. In any case, the main sources are the patents (written directly by Rossi) in which the only inventor is "Andrea Rossi" (in fact he is the only one involved in the commercial management of the "E-Cat" and of its selling). The contribution of Focardi is completely neglected and it remains impossible to establish. Also in many of the websites that support explicitly the E-Cat, Focardi is an unspecified "scientific consultant" ("Andrea Rossi and his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" and "His research, aided by his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" just as example). --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot answer you because I am so angry for your behaviour that I would be immediately banned from Wikipedia should I express my view about your behaviour in this specific situation! Translating is something I hate, but I was force to do it because you decided to OMIT a crucial point in your quotation and so the sense of the paragraph was completely turned upside down by you. The discussion is closed for me, let the readers decide who is right and who is not.--Insilvis (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS

http://ecatreviews.com/ AND http://rossienergycatalyzers.com ???

Are these reliable sources according to you??? --Insilvis (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe in me and you don't like translations, you can look at the paper signed by Rossi and also Focardi, this is in English. Inside and in the abstract is linked directly the international patent application, where again Rossi is the only name written in the field "inventor". So also the same Focardi agrees that Rossi is the only inventor. For the rest, I can only say to you: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written in the same moment". Anyway, we have already explained our points of view, question closed. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) PS: Considering that now the unspecified support, and I repeat support ("with support from physicist Sergio Focardi"), of Focardi has as a source the list of the professors of Bologna, everything is better.[reply]

Merge works for me, it looks like the sources have died off now, and in the long run this will probably fade into the background; Rossi is what is truly notable. Much of the content in the Energy Catalyzer article is primary sourced and about random demonstrations at places, so the trim and merge would work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Again? Keep as it's covered in several articles in reliable sources. The latest one published today. // Liftarn (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide me just only one source about the E-Cat (and not of Rossi and his declarations)? --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like the one published today? --Insilvis (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, this is only an article about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself. The net is full of those articles, and up to now some supposed contracts signed by Rossi are at end failed. By coincidence, about the E-Cat it says only that there wasn't an energy gain in one of the demonstrations in Bologna in September, again the opposite of what is written by other sources (and by wikipedia article). Or is this again a misleading due the automatic translators of Swedish? --TheNextFuture (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). So the article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm, who is the CEO of Hydro Fusion, cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS: for completeness, I include also the translation of the sentence "Vid investerarnas mätning den 6 september i Bologna kunde dock ingen värmeenergi konstateras utöver den inmatade elektriska effekten." given by the translator: "When investors measuring 6 September in Bologna, however, could no heat energy is found beyond the input electrical power." So, accordingly to this webpage it seems complete false that the E-Cat is an heat source, as written in the first line of the article ("The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a [...] heat source"). --TheNextFuture (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still misleading! This other sentence you are now referring to was the part of the article that is, according to your word, "about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself."--Insilvis (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I don't understand what do you mean. There are no reference in that sentence to the business, but to the heat measurements that were done ("no heat energy is found"). I don't know exactly to what machine is referred this sentence, but it doesn't matter. The point is not if the E-Cat works or not, but just only that about it you cannot write anything, even if you look only at the primary sources (and in principle you should have independent sources). --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a video of Rossi talking about Focardi- "He does not know how the reactor is built" [[13]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhny (talk • contribs)

Hehe, I can only smile and repeat again: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written (and now said) in the same moment". For this reason I support the merge of the essential news to the article of Rossi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still misleading information!

In the video posted just above, Rossi said that Focardi does not know how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are, but as you can see from the photos shown during the TED talk of Focardi (see here) there was no lead coverage at the beginning of the development. In other words, the lack of knowledge about how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are does not mean that Focardi did not participate in the development of the Energy Catalyzer since early stages.--Insilvis (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi does not know how thick the lead walls are because "He does not know how the reactor is built". How much clearer do you want it? Bhny (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Focardi doesn't know what the e-cat catalyzer is. He says- "There is a compound that I do not know (nor want to know) that is meant to facilitate the reaction. " [[14]]

Apart from the fact that Wikipedia IS NOT a blog, and the sources you brought are simply UNUSABLE on Wikipedia, if you know Italian I suggest you to watch this video: Focardi says (as you reported) that there is indeed a catalyst and that he does not know its nature and he does not want to know its nature. However the journalist (who probably is a bit clever than others) asks Focardi if he has an idea about the nature of this catalyst. Focardi promptly responds: "yes, I have. However, because it is a secret I prefer not to tell you". So Focardi affirms that he does not know the nature of this catalyst, and he does not want to know it, and even if he has an idea of what the catalyst is he does not want to tell. Here I have to stop, but my personal opinion is that he knows everything. Otherwise he would not have any problem to answer the question posed by the journalist. About your other consideration: "He does not know how the reactor is built" is what Rossi says at THAT POINT of the video you point out, but if you watch the previous thirty seconds of that video it is clear that Rossi is talking about the lead walls surrounding the reactor. In other words, Rossi refers just to the nuclear envelope.--Insilvis (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am only trying to show you that it is obviously not teamwork by showing you Rossi and Focardi admitting as much. Somehow your personal opinion contradicts what they themselves say. Bhny (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in the video you brought to our attention Rossi and Focardi were interviewed together, cheek-to-cheek, just because it is not a team work between the two, right?--Insilvis (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is to ignore what they say and measure how close their cheeks are? Bhny (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason than to preserve the edit history so that when the truth is known, we can track the evolution of a controversial topic. Jim Bowery (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is merged, the edit history will be preserved, as is usual in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As already showed in the first deletion discussion, the topic is notable. TheNextFuture seems to be a very new contributor, and may not have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works; so, undue weight should not be a reason to delete an article, but, in a more constructive way, to write articles about equally or more notable topics which do not exist; the same way, badly written or POV articles should be improved and not deleted. As for merging to Andrea Rossi article, it does not seem a good idea to me, because Andrea Rossi is not notable per se, but just because of E-Cat notability (see creation dates in the histories). Croquant (talk) 07:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user of wikipedia, but I have been for a long time an ip contributor. A separate article for the E-Cat is an undue weight as itself, since for example there isn't (rightly) a separate article for the Fleischmann–Pons device, which had greater media coverage and scientific attention. Rossi is notable per se, because of his recent and previous controversial attempts in the energy world (i.e. also Petroldragon). Merging to the page of Rossi is the only solution, nothing of clear and with sources can be written in an article about the E-Cat (look above at the discussion about the role of Focardi if you want an example). Instead we have a lot of sources that describe the behavior and the declarations of Rossi, as the major (and I would say unique) contributor to the E-Cat affairs. It doesn't matter if the E-Cat works or not (we have an article about Telepathy), it doesn't matter also if it is a black box (Windows 7 is for some aspects a black box), but it is important that "If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims ..." as AndyTheGrump has written above. In any case, even if you keep it, the article definitively needs a lot of corrections. --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your answer, I persist in thinking you do not understand correctly Wikipedia principles. Croquant (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, I was thinking that writing unsupported facts without any sources is against the wikipedia principles. Clearly it is not so. We are unable to establish accordingly to the sources even who is the inventor of the supposed device (look above, and we didn't discuss about the supposed cold fusion, radiations, heat source, commercial plans, ecc), of what principles are we talking about? Nothing about the E-Cat can be written following the sources, is it possible in wikipedia to write completely unsupported articles? I don't want to change your opinion at all costs, but please think about this point. --TheNextFuture (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem that Andrea Rossi was not notable in many English sources until after the Energy Catalyzer - does this mean, if there is a merge, that the Andrea Rossi article ought to be merged into the Energy Catalyzer one? Tmccc (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was notable before the Energy Catalyzer because of Petrol Dragon etc. Italian sources contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sorry but I don't see how this article is WP:UNDUE. The article seems to accruately report the current commentary pertaining to the E Cat story, and is backed up by sources. This is very much the essence of an acceptable Wikipeida article. If the internal components of the E Cat are unknown it is mostly because the promoters of this device pruposely give vague descriptions. Here is an interesting article about that in the Energy Bulletin and why it is doubtful this device actually works. Additionally this is the type of press that this subject is generating. Therefore this Wikipedia article is doing what it is supposed to do, and that is reflect or report on what the sources say. Also, I don't see any reason to merge because this seems to work very well as a stand alone article. It is possible that even more press will be generated depending on whether investors put money into it. ---- 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Quinn (talk • contribs) 02:17, 13 September 2012‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia article is one of the few remotely neutral sources of information on this subject. There's a few sycophantic blogs out there that have complete faith in Rossi, but the mainstream press won't touch it. --Captain Sumo (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC) — Captain Sumo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and not merge. First of all, the point of WP:UNDUE is about the article tone itself or over emphasizing some trivial little detail that is off topic. I don't even remotely see how calling an entire topic undue weight to Wikipedia and therefore justifies its deletion. This is a flat out inappropriate reason to justify deletion at all, other than to perhaps suggest the article itself needs to be nuked and rewritten based up on actual sources. That is sort of the point of an article talk page, of which this has been amply worked on. As for the merger request, I suggest that this topic has independent notability and does involve more than one person, even though Andrea Rossi is prominent in telling of this story. Otherwise, this AfD is a rehash of all of the arguments raise in the previous AfD where notability was clearly established.... IMHO the only real argument to even be worth discussing as grounds for deletion. Even the merger discussion was raised in the previous AfD and rejected. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the eCat has not achieved mainstream media attention, there is sufficient Non-WP:RS evidence that things are happening behind the scenes (with a resolution on a relatively short timescale -- say 3-6 months) -- that we're still in a "wait and see" status. There is no particular reason to delete it now. Alanf777 (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL - and note that "wait and see" arguments have frequently been made in the past. We've waited, and seen nothing but Rossi's usual hogwash. There is no reason whatsoever to assume this time will be any different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic WP:OR about primary sources of no relevence to the article, and even less to this discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the " Non-WP:RS evidence" that Alanf777 refers to above is the same as he's just cited on the article talk page, it seems to be a document from NASA which mentions the Leonardo corporation in passing, while stating that there is no evidence that the device works, together with material from pesn.com, a website so fringe that even he is well aware we wouldn't trust it for the time of day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the preceding "P.S" paragraph AndyTheGrump makes invalid assumptions about what I said here, and then (presumably he) hides my responses. I therefore moved the "HAT" command to include his comment as well as my response to it. Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The NASA document referenced in Talk does NOT dismiss LENR as "pathological science", correctly identifies it as "high risk/high payoff" and, in fact, recommends a small (in comparison to other activities) study to keep track of LENR. (Curiously, not even Rossi thinks that the eCat is suitable at present for aircraft.)

Although pesn.com is fringe by wiki standards a March 2012 quote by Bardi in the introductory paragraph refers to an article in the pesn.com site indicating that Allen no longer supports Rossi. I simply pointed to a recent article which shows that Allen DOES now support Rossi. (I also illustrated some bias and/or errors in Bardi's article : he says that the University of Bologna "wisely withdrew" from the contract, whereas it was actually Rossi who withdrew by not making the required payment.) So by wiki standards an outdated quote from a supposedly WP:RS source over-rides the actual current opinions of the person being quoted. Alanf777 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk section is at

8 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction

Alanf777 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Which has been "collapsed" with a threat of arbitration) Alanf777 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that ONE of my "wait and see" predictions has already come to pass. SGS Italy has issued a Safety Certificate for the 1MW eCat. http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/20mcesnry81t2vuk/images/1-9dd4ee94b9.jpg Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the relevance for an AfD. Something which does nothing is perfectly safe; the primary source doesn't add anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A clearer and more complete copy is at (NON-WP:RS) http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EFA-rep-1107.pdf which clarifies that this is a safety certificate only, and not a verification of claimed performance. It is nevertheless a required (if not sufficient) pre-requisite for commercial sales of the eCat, and as such represents a significant step in its commercialization. Alanf777 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My apologies for my poor english. Keep it but rewrite it as one of the most famous scientific fake in the world. If you made the most uncredible discover of the century would'nt you be able to make it confirm by leading scientist? Where is the factory? 5th floor of a building in Miami? hum, hum... --Madelgarius (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(This is not "the most famous scientific fake in the world"...., see Category:Perpetual_motion for inventions that were much more famous. Steorn got world-wide coverage, Agha_Waqar's_water-fuelled_car has a lot more investigation from the local government, I have read about a very famous inventor who made a personal demo to the king of France but I can't find his article. History_of_perpetual_motion_machines has lots of inventors who made claims similar to Rossi's.). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Andrea Rossi. There is no evidence for ecat. There is no evidence that any other person than Rossi has shown ecat running continuously. There is no evidence than Rossi has any 'industrial' activity appart from simple office appartment in Florida and mostly empty building in Bologna. There is no evidence for 'customers'. There is no evidence that even Focardi has seen ecat running more than these short demos. We have plenty of evidence that there has been numerous 'delays'. Therefore we have all the reasons to believe that this is indeed one man show, with perhaps few collaborators.--Jouni Valkonen (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the Italian edition of the International Business Times inteviews the CEO of Prometeon (ie the official Italian licensee of the Energy Catalyzer) to reveal their business plan:

IBTimes: In una sua precedente intervista ha dichiarato di essere rimasto impressionato del fatto che l’E-cat funzionasse per 12 ore ininterrottamente senza energia elettrica. Siamo di fronte ad un cambiamento epocale nel modo di concepire l’energia?

TRANSLATION:

IBTimes: In a previous interview, you affirmed to be impressed by the fact that the E-Cat worked for 12 hours straight without electricity. Are we facing a sea change in the way of thinking about energy?

--Insilvis (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love the quote about how Leonardo Corp has a computer and they can see our wikipedia edits! "Yes, there are people … changing Wikipedia entries with blatant falsehoods. However both the Leonardo Corporation, which is fully equipped on the computer it is able to easily trace those responsible" Bhny (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So yet another pointless interview with an E-Cat promoter. We know they make wild claims. We also know that such wild claims have never been followed up by verifiable evidence. The International Business Times certainly doesn't seem to be reporting that anything works. Then again, the 'hot cat' tests that the promoter is speaking about so enthusiastically seems to be the same one that the Swedish investors reported didn't work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was pointless. Are you able to read Italian, by the way? Tmccc (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interview, made by a business publication, to the CEO of a company about their business plan.--Insilvis (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the website of the company, [[15]], I read "Il sito ufficiale italiano del rivoluzionario reattore a fusione fredda ..." ("the official italian website of the revolutionary reactor working with cold fusion". Now, do you really believe that the CEO of the supposed "italian official distributor" of the E-Cat could say that the E-Cat is an hoax? Again, nothing new ... again a demonstration that nothing can be written about the E-Cat, at least with independent sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the fascinating part of the e-Cat isn't even Andrea Rossi or the device itself, but the hoard of "fans" that seem to keep this whole thing going. There are dozens of websites, industrial designers, and what seems like a legion of true believers that are infatuated with the idea. That the Rossi dog and pony shows seem to fuel excitement in that legion of fans is even more interesting. That seems to me as the real story here that needs an article, even if the e-Cat itself is a total fraud. If anything, the "independent reliable sources" seem to be reporting more about that phenomena than anything else. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for notability. In past 1 year, any talk of cold fusion has to include Ecat. Though its not proven to work, its not proven to NOT work also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.138.200 (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC) — 75.177.138.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. More than enough press coverage to be notable, and will eventually join the exalted ranks of N rays and Polywater. -- 202.124.74.198 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no merge This article has been taken over by a very small cadre of people opposed to even the mention of the Energy Catalyzer, Cold Fusion, LENR, LANR, etc. It is a stain on the reputation of WP that a small number of very abusive people can drive off the more moderate people, rewrite an article in a highly biased manner and then propose that the article be deleted. This article as it has been written by that small clique lies there like an unburried scat stinking up hell itself. And so it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zedshort (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 September 2012

If you can find any content that should be added to this article that can be backed up by reliable sources, is verifiable, and includes information not already in this article, I will back you up to get it included. While there are certainly several editors working on this article who would like to chop this whole article down to one sentence saying "The E-Cat is a fraud invented by Andrea Rossi." and have that added to the Rossi article, I think there are better NPOV ways of dealing with this issue. Please help us make Wikipedia better by at least trying to make a good faith effort with this article. I admit there is an article ownership issue with this article, but that just shows some of the issues related to this article needing a wider range of voices participating in its development. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP." nice motivation. I can just invite you, as Robert Horning, to edit it, but remember to include independent sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For myself, I'm pretty satisfied with the article as-is and don't see any significant problems, including any rationale for why it needs to be deleted... which is sort of the point why this AfD is even being done. There has certainly been edit warring going on as well reverting good faith edits in some cases without cause, so I do think the above criticism has some merit. At the moment I don't see any glaring omissions that can be accounted from credible sources though, but I will evaluate suggested sources that are posted on the article talk page if there might be something worth looking at. I'm also trying to offer a hand out here to suggest that those editing this article aren't necessarily out to prove Rossi is a fraud and are biased to writing an Andrea Rossi hit piece.... which goes against WP:NPOV and is a foundational principle of Wikipedia. Reminding editors involved here that we need to consider all viewpoints when writing articles is very well justified. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to the edit warring I've just fully protected the article for one day. Let me know if there are any edits that need to be done through protection. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough independent coverage to satisfy notability. The contents of the article are contentious, but overall the article seems to track the sources.--Nowa (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason we have an article on Steorn, or any of the fringe science subjects mentioned in Park's book Voodoo Science -- Limulus (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original proposer of the Delete seems to have disappeared, and since there seems to be an overwhelming majority for keep -- there's only ONE other vote for delete (and only a few arguing for a merge)--- isn't it time to wrap this up? And put a time limit (say a year) before any other nomination is accepted ? Alanf777 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a change in AfD policies, this isn't the place to do it. And why do you say that the proposer has disappeared? [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a) OK. b) User:TheNextFuture Seems to be "redlinked" Alanf777 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was just the first voter. Anyway, there's only one other delete vote. Is there a record of who made the nomination then? Alanf777 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redlink just means he/she hasn't created a user page. As the page history shows, TheNextFuture started the AfD, though I can't see what difference it makes - anyone with an account can propose one, or an IP can ask someone with an account to do it for them - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Anyway WP:Articles for deletion says "at least 7 days". We're there. Alanf777 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'At least'. I'm sure someone will get around to it soon enough. Anyway, what's the hurry? The result looks like a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... maybe just a propensity to shed the "scarlet letter" ? Alanf777 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disappeared, I just believe I have written clear my point of view and that is meaningless to continue up to infinity to say, for example below, that "reliable sources" are primary for the E-Cat, the device; that "notable" refers to Andrea Rossi, etc ... --TheNextFuture (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per earlier arguments -- notable even if it doesn't work, reliable sources --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSo that we can look back one day and realise that one way or another we will see just how many people wanted LENR to disappear, and we can then think about their motives as to why that might have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.104.197 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC) — 94.192.104.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Canvassing

Off wiki mailing list by Alanf777, Zedshort and others here: [17] which seems to constitute off-wiki canvassing IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really relevant to this AfD - I suspect that the 'keep because it is notable bullshit' !votes have won the day, and it has always been apparent that cold fusion/LENR boosters have been active on Wikipedia. There have usually been enough responsible contributors around to keep their hype out of the article, though a few more wouldn't do any harm. Eventually most of this lot will probably move elsewhere, as even they get fed up with Rossi's endless 'jam tomorrow' promotions, contradictory statements (anyone know where the factory is this week?) and broken promises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, one person (not me) suggested "Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page." There was some discussion. The advice of another was : "My suggestion. If you are not a Wikipedia editor, *do not register in order to vote.* That will be totally transparent to the Wikipedia community ...". Specifically, I did not canvas for anything. Alanf777 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I informed arbcom first but they never got back. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness to what is actually happening, how many people from this mailing list actually came here to vote, and will it actually influence the outcome of this AfD in any way? Fine, you've noted that this is happening. Perhaps the closing admin will take that into account. It should be pointed out that WP:VOTE also notes that the point is not simply to count votes but rather to engage in a process to reach consensus and to suggest a resolution. A bunch of "KEEP" or even "DELETE" votes is not going to really change the outcome if there isn't some meat to those votes that is based upon policy and logical reasoning. If something like this AfD encourages more people to participate in the article development process, it should be welcomed and not rejected. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like around 6 editors came to vote via canvassing; and yes it did have an impact as it sidelines the merge argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These announcements are typical in this kind of pseudoscience, the AfD of the E-Cat in it.wiki had the same problem, that time on facebook: here. This time at least it is written "read it and vote on its truswothiness", that time there was a direct invitation to play with the rules. The arguments about Essén and Kullander are wrong, but I don't want to start an another flame after Focardi. Notable does not mean a sacrifice of the sources, the sad point is that this discussion is too focused again on the notable part. Even more sadly, I don't think that this is due to that post. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The topic is somewhat new (earliest coverage I found was Phil’s Stock World January 24, 2011. However, the topic meets WP:GNG. Significant coverage includes (there's others): Industrial Heating January 1, 2012, Science Progress March 22, 2012 and there's plenty of non significant coverage of the topic for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. The article itself isn't too bad off (e.g., It's not so overloaded with non reliable source information that we need to delete). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:03, 18 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starar

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

This appears to be a (reasonably) well-written page about a non-notable band. Their is some independent coverage of the band available: this blog post from the Coventry Telegraph and this interview from This is Lincolnshire are already included in the article, and a Gnews search also brought up this story about their neighbours complaining about the noise that their band makes during rehearsals. That does not add up to meeting WP:MUSICBIO in my eyes - I'd welcome your thoughts on this. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep seems to meet criterion 1 of notability (music) by having coverage from "multiple" non-trivial sources, multiple could, I suppose, mean two...I guess it could meet WP:GNG, again, depending on how you define "signifiicant". If there were somewhere legitimate to redirect this to, that would be my vote, but seeing as it's pretty well written, has some sources, and an argument can be constructed that it meets notability guidelines, I would vote keep. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not enough to simply count sources and cross a magic threshold of keep; we should evaluate based on the type and nature of the coverage. What I see is a couple of article about a local band in a local paper. That's not enough to establish inclusion for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. The band has some coverage, but it is essentially entirely local coverage, and thus is not really enough to establish any sort of widespread notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the reliable source coverage -- Lincolnshire Echo June 14, 2010, Lincolnshire Echo February 19, 2011, Lincolnshire Echo March 1, 2012 -- the main topic would be something like Publicity efforts of Starar whereas Starar would be a subtopic. Neither one meets WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:42, 18 September 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Makhlai

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

Heavily reliant on one source thesimsmania 09:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is sourced only to the subject's firm's website, and is no more than a close paraphrase of the biography text there. No evidence of notability located (though obviously someone with facility in Russian may identify some better sources). AllyD (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:44, 18 September 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) 13:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Rossier

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

I had considered PRODing this, even after cleaning out the puff, but it would probably only invite the addition of the few references (including ones in other languages) that I found but which are not all RS and do not provide enough scope, number, and depth to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE. Mostly are listings and short reviews of the movies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article should probably also note that he is also a journalist/author and has produced a number of pieces for the Huffington Post (here, here and here) and the Eurasia Review (here). I don't think this would necessarily mean he meets WP:AUTHOR (which is the same as WP:FILMMAKER anyway) but he is recognised for more than just film-making. That said, there are reviews of his work from Variety (here and here), the New York Times (here) and Al Jazeera (here) which notes the film was voted the, "fifth best political documentary of all time by www.screenjunkies.com". I would suggest he probably (just) meets the criteria for WP:FILMMAKER which includes, (paraphrased) "The person has created [...] a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which I would argue he probably has. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person and has references, article could use additional sources however.Righteousskills (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:CREATIVE as the creator of American Radical: The Trials of Norman Finkelstein a work with multiple reviews in reliable sources. Aristide and the Endless Revolution has fewer references cited but there are plenty of online references[18][19]. As the director of multiple notable films, he's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Once again, we need some sort of special notability guidelines for journalists... That this is also a documentary filmmaker of multiple reviewed films seems to bolster the keep case. If ya need a policy, let't call it WP:IAR — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open terrain

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

WP:OR mini-essay. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep · This seems to simply be the definition you get if you search Google Books for the phrase "open terrain is". --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, do you have a reference? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup, but you're welcome to work on the article yourself. If you have performed the search I described and can see that these three sentences are not some form of original research but simply describe the term, you should request that this AfD be closed. (Though honestly you should search for information about a topic before creating an AfD and involving everyone else.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I get it, but do you have a reference? It would make everything easier. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sure it would be easier if other people went and did basic research for you when you don't feel like doing it yourself. But that's not what AfD is for. If you want to improve the article, click on some of the "Find sources" links that you yourself created above with this AfD and grab some of the copious source material about the military concept of "open terrain" that is available. There are some actual military publications being returned by Google Books, you don't even have to go to the effort to search on a DOD site or in other specialized search engines. But if you don't want to work on the article, don't try to use a threat of deletion as leverage to get other people to do it for you. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't really deal in "deletion threats" as I don't have access to the delete button. To be honest, I don't really think there's much to say than is already said in the article, which is just an unsourced definition. Sorry if you think me lazy for not being able to sort it out myself, but hey, if you can't be bothered to work on it either that's totally fine. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you nominated the article for deletion, it doesn't appear that you think it's totally fine for other people to not work on it. It instead appears that you want it deleted unless other people work on it. That's what I'm talking about. If you're actually unable to do the research to determine what source material is available concerning the topic of an article (which I doubt is the case) then you should not be nominating articles for deletion because doing so is the basic essential step in determining whether a topic meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - you should not simply take a guess at whether or not there's further material on a topic and create an AfD to prompt others to do that research.

Besides that, "it's just a definition" and "it's unsourced" are completely different deletion rationales from the nomination. If you just personally want it deleted and don't actually have any underlying valid policy concerns, and you're just going to keep tossing out whatever arguments you can come up with to see what sticks, there's even less reason for anyone else to go off on goose chases to try to satisfy the complaint you have at any particular moment. With the amount of hits your own {{find sources}} links are generating, the burden's on you to show that none of these sources demonstrate that the topic "open terrain" satisfies inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - if there's source material out there, per policy the article should remain.

As S Marshall says below, there's no reason why "open terrain" should be a redlink. Inclusion is based upon the characteristics of the topic itself, not anything having to do with the writing of the article that's on Wikipedia at any given moment. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your advice. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not done any research to evaluate whether the topic of this article meets Wikipedia inclusion policy, do not intend to do such research, and your desire to delete the article has nothing to do with believing that it's an essay or contains originally-researched information not published elsewhere, you should say so explicitly because they are important points for other editors evaluating your nomination for deletion. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable delete~~Wiktionary redirect as it is currently no more than a dictionary definition. The last 2 sentences merely duplicate information given in the first sentence: "few obstacles to travel"="much faster passage". I realise this is a very new article, so possibly there is something more to say about it - but if so, what? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef + plausible search term ≠ delete! If we don't want this particular content then we might redirect, or disambiguate, or soft redirect to wiktionary. No way should "Open terrain" be a redlink!—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary redirect It's a definition, not an article. Intothat darkness 16:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is our policy to improve stubs, not to delete them. Warden (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No one uses wiktionary. This can expand to more than a definition. Show when open terrain is important for military battles, for animals looking for prey, or whatnot perhaps. [20] 212 Wikipedia articles have the phrase "open terrain" in them. Dream Focus 13:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - since the re-write, my nominating rationale certainly no longer applies. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:50, 12 September 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.

Raja Easa Saleh Al Gurg

The result was speedy delete requested by author WP:CSD#G7. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan King

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by never having played senior international football or in a fully professional league as listed here; no evidence of the subject receiving enough non-trivial media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. PROD to this effect removed without comment when his new club was added, but that club plays in the Norwegian second tier, which is not fully pro. Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. Therefore this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODder - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources, even in Norwegian. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 13 September 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) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qlibc

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

more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article; appears low popularity judging by search for web references and the software library's Web page forum activity. Suggest that notability is insufficient to merit an entry here. Rob.desbois (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, 12 dowloads at SourceForge. Francl (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is supported solely by primary sourcing (most of which currently links to dead sites, but that may be temporary). The subject matter is a utility library of common programming utilities and very standard set-theory based data types (containers, collections, whatever term you like); not a prayer of qualifying for WP:NSOFT. -- BenTels (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources like this so-called 5 star article from Google search are primary sites. No really independent sources. This maybe a run of the mill software. --Artene50 (talk) 02:09, 17 September 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lucknow

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

Unlike other major cities like Mumbai and Delhi, Lucknow has very little high-rise buildings and does not warrant an article, due to lack of sources available. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourced list of an Indian provincial capital city. The fact that the biggest buildings here are not taller than the biggest buildings there is irrelevant. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. There's also significant precedent for these types of articles on Wikipedia. For starters, see this search. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could both of you please point out to the sources available? Both the sources in the article do not have any reliability and cannot be enough to establish notability. Secret of success (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below for an Emporis source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sourced list" is a stretch. Half the article consists of a list of 'planned' buildings sourced to the real estate company that is planning those buildings. The other half is sourced to a commercial property website (has anyone read WP:RS lately?). Regardless, maintaining a list with seven buildings makes little sense. --regentspark (comment) 12:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list has no notable skyscrapers and the tallest building itself is 85 m. If they were notable, the least that would be expected is for them to have a Wikipedia article - and I don't see how any of the buildings listed here pass notability. Do we really need such trivial lists? It is my opinion that such lists should only exist for cities that are notable for high rises. Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 2 September 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, Theo polisme 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's another source, from Emporis: Buildings in Lucknow. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above comments. None of the buildings pass the notability test and just the sources from Emporis are not sufficient to maintain the article. Secret of success (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I read the comments above prior to my above comment post, which simply provides another source for editors to consider. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question of "considering" here, rather it is supposed to be straightforward, does the article pass WP:GNG or not? Since we do not have any sources other than Emporis, which itself has a high amount of suspicion surrounding it, it does not, and hence it should be deleted. Secret of success (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mar4d. Non-notable list of non-notable buildings. --ELEKHH^T 23:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An useful list of a fast developing city. Lucknow will surely add many more tall buildings in near future.AnmolSingh0019^(talk) 16:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for predicting future notability with understandable optimism, but remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --ELEKHH^T 00:34, 6 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:13, 10 September 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 defaulting to keep. Consensus is that the topic does have sufficient notability and sources to be a stand alone article; and there is also rough agreement that the article as currently stands is inappropriate, and likely meets WP:PLOT which is a valid reason for deletion. Advice at WP:ATD supports looking at editing alternatives to deletion when the topic is notable but the article is problematic, and there are calls for upmerging to allow sourced material to be gathered in the parent article until such time as the material grows sufficiently to allow it to be split out per WP:Summary style into a standalone. So, the situation is that the article as stands can be called either as a delete/redirect/merge due to failing WP:Plot, while the topic itself meets our inclusion criteria. The decision as to which way to go rests on the consensus of the discussion, and the consensus here is to keep the article, so it is appropriate that the article is kept, though with a flag that the article as it stands needs attention. Given that the consensus is to keep the topic rather than the article, and that a formal "Keep" would in essence be validating an article that comes up against WP:Not, I feel it would be fairer to close this as no consensus, defaulting to keep. It would be helpful if those involved in this discussion do not just to move on after this AfD is closed, but engage in improving the article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Amended following discussion on my talkpage SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Ankh-Morpork City Watch

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

A fictional organization in a series of popular novels. Tagged for failing WP:N since January, entirely written as in-universe plot summary incompatible with WP:WAF, and entirely unsourced. Such content is better suited to fan wikis; any necessary plot summary belongs in the article about the respective novels or in one character list (there are currently far too many). Sandstein 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Discworld as probable search term. Giant Snowman 18:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete While it pains me deeply to say this and verges on self-harm, the article fails basic notability criteria and is not professionally written and should be deleted. (Such recondite material should not be freely disseminated among the plebs anyways) Ankh.Morpork 22:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Weak Keep. - It is apparent that the policies governing fictional work are unclear and inconsistently applied. It is a fine line what constitutes a secondary topic and requires independent sourcing, and what falls under the notability umbrella that applies to the primary subject. This and the scattering of sources produced that allude to the City Watch have led me to change my vote. Ankh.Morpork 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are on the contrary quite clear and, judging by AfD outcomes for fictional elements, consistently implemented. I don't see, however, what you're calling "primary subject" and "secondary topic". All topics on Wikipedia require secondary independent sourcing (see WP:PSTS and WP:GNG), and article about a work of fiction itself require as much coverage from independent sources than articles about seperate fictional elements (see WP:WAF).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Discworld series is referred to in a plethora of independent sources and and were the material pertaining to the City Watch to be included in that article - as I believe it originally was, the fact that many character details were based on primary sources would not pose a problem as this is an integral informative aspect of the series. Now that this material has been devolved into a separate article for convenience, it strikes me as excessively anal that this relevant material should suddenly be subject to stringent requirements. It seems analogous to articles on TV series that have split-off articles detailing individual episodes for each season without much secondary sourcing. Yet they exist because they are relevant and describe an overall notable topic. Ankh.Morpork 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP:WAF guideline explains, and the WP:NOTPLOT policy more generally states, articles need to be more than just a collection of plot details, and though they are indeed important elements in an article, there always has to be a certain balance between plot and external commentary (with more emphasis on commentary). And that works for all kind of articles, per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Discworld itself is certainly a notable topic, but that is not necessarily true of its seperate fictional elements. That might seem excessively anal to you, but the various policies and guideline correspond to what the community wants Wikipedia to be, and there's no reason Discworld should be an exception. You can always ask for changes or even demotion at policy talkpages or RfC, but AfDs are there to see whether articles meet current policies and guidelines, not to change them. Also, it's not because 4 million articles exist that they've all been checked and approved as policy-compliant, if you feel some, like individual TV show episodes, don't meet policies or guideline, you're free to nominate them for deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been unclear. I am not citing the mere existence of parallel Wikipedia articles as reason to preserve this article. Rather, I am using them to demonstrate how Wiki policies have been customarily interpreted regarding these kind of works. I repeat that what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic and what is core elemental material, which may employ primary sources, is uncertain, and not to be determined by whether Wikipedia decided to accord that particular aspect an individual page for convenience. Ankh.Morpork 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't see what you mean. If you're referring to the mere fact that someone could write an article that is seemingly against policy, then that's bound to happen with 17 million registered users (who can be new and inexperienced or ill-intentioned), that Wikipedia is difficult to manage does not mean "policies have been customarily interpreted" because whenever a non-notable article is identified (which can take some time with more than 4 million articles to check) it gets deleted according to policies. There is nothing "uncertain" that I can see, "what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic" is as bound by policies as any other article, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:PSTS or WP:GNG mention "Wikipedia articles" without any distinction. All articles are subjected to policies and guidelines, whether it is Discworld fictional elements or TV show episodes. And from what I see of this discussion, this article is likely to be notable and be kept, not because "it's Discworld !" but because significant coverage in secondary independent sources has been found. Other articles derivative of equally notable/popular series like Harry Potter or Star Wars have been deleted out of lack of such secondary content, again per policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG because the criterion for admissibility is only the existence of enough secondary content, I don't see anything unclear here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your persistent linking to a gamut of Wikipedia policies and obsessive, dogmatic iteration of abstruse acronyms is certainly impressive, but there is a cap to the amount of alphabet soup and cretinous croutons that I am able to comfortably consume and alas, my stomach has reached capacity. Kindly understand that I am merely stating my point of view and am not attempting to proselytize you to my way of thinking; your didactic dissension has been noted - and dismissed, so I request that you refrain from haranguing me further. Ankh.Morpork 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly-detailed plot; articles on literature should provide background, analysis, reception, critical reaction, etc. Belongs on a Pratchett Wiki not here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please articulate what about this article cannot be fixed through regular editing, per WP:ATD? Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
close as an issue outside the remit of AfD. Once again, UK fiction articles are being AfDed for lack of non-primary sources whilst US subjects that have exactly the same problems are left unchallenged. The only difference is whether the cast of Big Bang Theory would see them as collectable.

This belongs on a Pratchett wiki. Does it also belong here? That's a _massive_ question. Are articles of this depth, based on the primary use of the fictional source, appropriate for WP? That's a real question, and a biggie. Much too big for AfD. If the answer is no, then that's a lot of material needing to be destroyed. As it is though, AfDing odd articles in drips and drabs has become a popularity contest, not an objective application of policy. No one is going to go after an article like this, with exactly the same problem, if it's about X Men or Twilight. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. My personal opinion is that inappropriate fancruft should be removed regardless of national origin (even if, as in this case, I am a fan of the series in question). As to the general question you pose, it has been answered in the negative by way of WP:N and WP:WAF, both of which are community-accepted content guidelines. Sandstein 14:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'm not voting either way, but I'd like to ask a question. I know that when you have an exceptionally large cast of characters in a notable series, it's customary to have the characters have their own list page. I've also seen where some of the more noticeable groups are pulled into separate categories in themselves, as evidenced by Death Eater. I'm not trying to use that as an example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just asking whether or not this would be salvageable if we were to turn it into a list entitled List of Ankh-Morpork City Watch characters and include history sections for each character. I'd say that we could merge any pertinent data into a list of characters for the Discworld series, but we don't actually have a current list of characters for the series, surprisingly enough. In any case, I'm just wondering if such an article did exist, if there would be enough of the characters of the AMCW to warrant it having a list of its own.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
question The issue here isn't that the topic is fictional, but the lack of non-primary sources for it. So how about adding some. Would Stephen Briggs Discworld Companion series be considered an acceptable source? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the first "Discworld Companion" was authored by Pratchett himself and thus fails independence. The "New Discworld Companion" was co-authored by Pratchett and thus also fails independence. So the "Complete Discworld Companion" which lists only Briggs as the author might be if the content regarding the Watch is entirely new to that volume. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Discworld per GiantSnowman. A smerger is also appropriate. Bearian (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is at least one detailed critical study on the City Watch, even if for some reason I can't get it directly in a GScholar search (and unfortunately don't have current access to a copy): "The City Watch" by Edward James, in Butler, Andrew M., James, Edward and Mendlesohn, Farah, eds. Terry Pratchett: Guilty of Literature, ISBN 1-882968-32-8. It also gets quite a number of GBooks and GScholar hits (particularly if you search on "Ankh-Morpork"+"City Watch" or "Discworld"+"City Watch" rather than the article title), even discounting those authored or co-authored by Pratchett - I'd guess that some of them are usable, the difficulty being sorting them out from the primary sources and passing mentions. PWilkinson (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite appropriately. Major fictional organization that spans dozens (literally, dozens) of books, which have been adapted into many separate BBC teleprograms. The search results by PWilkinson are instructive, but only begin to scratch the surface of literary interpretation that likely exists. Sorry to have been so late to the discussion, but I've been out of the country. Clearly meets the GNG, and should be kept rather than upmerged. Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that a large part of the article is a character list, full of otherwise non-notable characters, and large fictional franchises, such as Game of Thrones, have multiple character lists when there are too many non-notable characters to maintain in one place. Note further that per what links here (or, even better, this list of redirects), this exists as the target of many previous merges, as part of an effort to clean up an even-more messy morass of prior Discworld watch character articles, and as such its removal would create a quite a large hole in our coverage and linkage of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to support an extension of this discussion so that more sources may be found. I'm fine with that. In substance, I'm ambivalent: if there is substantial commentary about the City Watch, as is alleged above (I don't have access to these sources), a separate article might be technically justified. But that does not change that the current article reads like something out of a fan site. If kept, a stubbing (in preparation for a complete rewrite) might be needed, or a stubbed upmerger until somebody actually writes some encyclopedic content based on these sources. Sandstein 06:38, 10 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to be accepted on Wikipedia for articles about major entities from fictional universes to be supported mainly by works related to that universe, if the universe as a whole is notable (e.g. Luke Skywalker). By that standard, this article can easily be supported by the Discworld novels/films themselves, supported by the existing tertiary source and possibly another one like Lspace. That is in fact the basis of many of the Discworld Wikiproject articles. -- BenTels (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, it is not accepted on WP to have articles on fictional entities entirely (or mainly) sourced to primary sources (ie the novels/films themselves), even if the original fiction is notable in itself. See the policy WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". For more details, see also guidelines, such as WP:GNG which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article [...] "Sources" for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability [...] "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". As for the universe as a whole being notable, see WP:NRVE: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Specifically on fiction, see WP:WAF which details the appropriate use of primary/secondary sources. Conclusion, to be notable, an article about a fictional element must be mainly based on secondary sources. Whether the article being discussed here is suitable for inclusion does not depend on its appearance in various Discworld works, but on its appearance in secondary sources that discuss it in detail.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given how roundly and thoroughly your viewpoints just got repudiated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruenor Battlehammer (2nd nomination) and the subsequent DRV you filed, don't you think it more appropriate to go study how Wikipedia's actual handling of the notability of fictional topics differs from your viewpoints about it? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry, can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? Given that policies and guidelines represent the actual standard and practices of the Wikipedia community, I find them more relevant than your own misinterpretation and misrepresentation of an unrelated discussion (btw, in your haste to find something to throw at me, you also seem to have overlooked the fact that DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments). Since you seem so sure that your views are the right ones, why don't you go and propose changes to WP:PSTS, WP:GNG, WP:WAF...I'm so eager to see the results !Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You may want to go back and read and try to internalize the first sentence of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which may explain why things diverge from what you wish they were. Failing that... I'm simply not sure how to engage with a user whose WP:IDHT level is so high he's claiming victory when absolutely no one agreed with him in both an AfD and the subsequent DRV. That is, you appear sincere in not understanding how clueless and, well, disengaged from reality you actually appear. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia". So I ask again the question which you conveniently avoided to answer: can you point out to any actual policy or guideline contradicting what I wrote ? If actual WP practice is not, according to you in policies and guidelines, I really wonder where it is. DRV raised strong doubts as to actual article notability and strength of arguments. And considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death watch bettle(Dungeons & Dragons), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ant lion (Dungeons & Dragons) and many others, you don't have anything to boast of. Now, I've already told you that elsewhere, but stop following me around, your battleground mentality, use of unsubstanciated accusations and blatant personal attacks, is only hurting yourself.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes--they are descriptive, rather than proscriptive: by trying to bludgeon other editors with the written word of policy, you're trying to turn it on its head. I've now given you an additional day after my entirely thorough rebuttal at my talk page to for you to amend your nonsensical messages, but I repeat myself here for completeness: By saying "stop following me!" to me on an AfD discussion where you showed up 28 hours after I did, and on a topic where I've had a related userbox on my page for the past 53 months, you're demonstrating a serious lack of connectedness to reality. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, for users to know what to follow, you have to describe it first, "Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow" and this whole section contradicts everything you're trying to say: Wikipedia:Policy#Enforcement. Otherwise, do you seriously mean that anyone can just be for example non-neutral or write unsourced original research, without being told anything and without the contribution being reverted or thoroughly questionned ? As for private conflicts, they should be handled on user talk pages, I thought you would have understood that by now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely a decent amount of coverage out there. I've found a few articles discussing Samuel Vimes and his Watch: The Sunday Independent: "One of the long-running characters in Discworld is a werewolf who works in the City Watch, which is the equal-opportunities police force of his sprawling fictional metropolis, Ankh-Morpork." and Washington Post: "Night Watch itself slots into Pratchett's ongoing history of the metropolitan police force, the City Watch, a profession in the forefront of social change" are two examples. I also found an article about the game Guards! Guards! in which the players play as members of the City Watch here.—Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found this book, The Turtle Moves!, which is pretty in-depth, and includes a chapter called "Sir Samuel Vimes and the City Watch: Who Watches the Watchmen?". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another book source, An unofficial companion to the novels of Terry Pratchett, which includes at least one chapter specifically discussing the City Watch. At this point I'd say the article clearly passes WP:GNG, although it needs significant clean-up, possibly including a split/merge of the characters to a main Discworld characters article, and narrowing the focus of this article to just the concept of the watch itself. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources since there were several news sources found above, I focused on a Google Scholar search:
- 1 is a discussion of Dirty Harry that notes allusions, parallels, and parodies in the Watch and Vimes.
- 2 is a magazine article which discusses the watch in an overview of the entire series: "many of the books in the subseries featuring the Ankh Morpork city watch may be seen as parodies of detective stories, but at the same time they continue to debate the issue of institutionalised racism"
- 3 is a book which covers the watch in the context of two characters (Angua, Detritus).

These are in addition to the above three references, and are limited to Scholar results, in English, which do not appear to duplicate anything else above. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Harry book is a Wikipedia mirror. WP:CIRCULAR -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Folklore of Discworld" is written by Pratchett himself and thus not a third party source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and if what the third source says is "many of the books in the subseries featuring the Ankh Morpork city watch may be seen as parodies of detective stories, but at the same time they continue to debate the issue of institutionalised racism" thats all well and good, but hardly significant coverage upon which the article could be built. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

trans wiki and start fresh - If Per Torchiest ~~is correct and~~ "The Turtle Moves! includes a chapter called "Sir Samuel Vimes and the City Watch: Who Watches the Watchmen?" and An unofficial companion to the novels of Terry Pratchett, includes at least one chapter specifically discussing the City Watch," ~~it seems likely that~~ I would say that "significant coverage in third party reliable sources" exists. However, one wonders how one could take the monstrosity that currently exists and create an article based on these and any other sources that might appear without completely nuking the article and starting over? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I think moving the character list to a new article, or combining it with another Discworld character list, if such exists, is the best way forward. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are direct links to the chapters: "Sir Samuel Vimes and the City Watch: Who Watches the Watchmen?" and "City Watch". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (to TRPOD) That would be called "regular editing"--it happens all the time, in places all over the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT - what in the history would be worth saving? It appears to contain nothing but original research.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... except that what you term original research is actually nothing more harmful than plot summary, some of it probably excessive, which can be cited to the primary sources themselves. Do you have any specific passages that you believe cannot be fixed without excision? Give me something to fix, and I'll cite or remove the material as an example that it's entirely doable. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...except that none of that "plot summary" crap is worthy of being saved for an encyclopedia entry. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I ask again: Pick a specific section that you want to see cleaned up, and I will prove it can be done. If you're not going to, then I respectfully submit that your lack of willingness to have cleanup demonstrated appropriately undermines the basis of your position. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with these sections

2 Fictional history (before the time the novels are set in)

3 History according to plot of novels

4 Ranks

5 Uniform and equipment

5.1 Watch badge

5.2 Communications

5.3 Oath

6 Members

6.1 Commander Sir Samuel Vimes

6.2 Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson

6.3 Captain Angua von Überwald

6.4 Sergeant Fred Colon

6.5 Corporal Nobby Nobbs

6.6 Sergeant Detritus

6.7 Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom

6.8 Constable Reginald Shoe

6.9 Lance-Constable Salacia "Sally" von Humpeding

6.10 Constable Dorfl

6.11 Constable Visit-the-Infidel/Ungodly-with-Explanatory-Pamphlets

6.12 Inspector A E Pessimal

6.13 Constable Igor

6.14 Constable Downspout

6.15 Corporal Buggy Swires

6.16 Minor Watchmen

6.16.1 Special-Constable Andy "Two Swords" Hancock

6.16.2 Sergeant Stronginthearm

6.16.3 Acting-Constable Cuddy

6.16.4 Constables Flint and Morraine

6.16.5 Lance-Constable Bluejohn

6.16.6 Corporal Ping

6.16.7 Andre

6.16.8 Constable Wee Mad Arthur

6.16.9 The Librarian

6.16.10 Constable Haddock

6.16.11 Lewton

6.17 Former Members

6.17.1 Findthee Swing

6.17.2 Mayonnaise Quirke and The Day Watch

7 Allies

7.1 71-Hour Ahmed

7.2 Willikins

7.3 John "Mossy" Lawn

Well, since you've expressed no particular ordering, I'll just clean up one of my choosing later this evening, then, and you will accept that as a successful demonstration that any of the rest can be cleaned up through regular editing, right? Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, The Librarian has been done. Admittedly, he's one of the easier characters to expound upon, since he's appeared in almost every Discworld book, but the same level of sourcing could probably be met for most of the major characters, and the minor characters cleaned up appropriately. 04:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe that you have made a case for this article. one of the non primary sources you used doesnt deal with with subject of the article The AM Guards at all it just mentions one of the characters in a different context. the other source mentions the subject of the article in passing, one line about the Guards, but the one time the Librarian is mentioned in the source, it is not in connection with the Guards. The whole content of the section is built on primary source materials. Articles need to be based upon content from non primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You named Librarian. I improved Librarian. It sources the three plot point assertions to the primary sources, and cites two non-trivial secondary sources covering the Librarian, and I did that without even referencing his own article. I can do the same thing to any other section--find multiple primary sources to source the plot points, trim out excessive plot, and find secondary sourcing to substantiate any section as needed. As far as the overall prevalence of secondary sources, see e.g. my discussion with Uzma Gamal, below, where I've cited The Washington Post in addition to the various other book chapters, articles, etc. referenced elsewhere in this AfD. The case is clearly made that regular editing is sufficient to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, and I'd welcome your help in actually doing so rather than simply naysaying that what I did briefly last night cannot possibly be sufficient and/or cannot possibly be extended to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You asseement of "non-trivial" is apparently different than the Notability definition of "non-trivial" (Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." ) is plainly trivial.) - Your two examples are BOTH of the "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." variety.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jclemens. We're mainly concerned with notability for now. Article clean-up is outside of the scope of this discussion, and can be addressed once this AfD is closed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles can't and shouldn't be written from primary sources, period. WP:AVOIDSPLIT cautions us against splintering a topic (such as Discworld) into endless articles about each chapter, ___location, character, item, or any aggregate thereof. The city watch needs third party sources. And not just any third party sources. Those that WP:verify notability with significant coverage. The topic is occasionally mentioned by independent sources, but only in passing as they focus on the broader series. If those sources are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, then you can't meet the GNG, nor write a good article on the topic. (Agree that AFD is not clean-up. But I'd still conclude that the problems with the article are inherently due to the lack of sources, which means that it cannot be fixed with any amount of re-writing.) Refactoring to weak keep based on some analysis in at least one source, with some optimism that the article can be improved further. Also, seeing as this discussion has been surprisingly contentious, I would support a merge if it will help people find common ground for a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that third-party reliable sources have been demonstrated above. Is there something you find inadequate about an entire chapter in a book? Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those chapters aren't about the fictional city watch. They're about a sub-series of books also titled "city watch". I haven't seen any significant coverage in there that could turn this character list (considering it's already covered at Discworld characters) into more than a series of plot summaries. I'm not sure that replying to every AFD comment individually is going to be an effective way to prove otherwise, but I don't want to lecture you on your tactics. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're seriously arguing that a chapter about a series of books that feature the Ankh-Morpork City Watch aren't themselves about the organization most prominently featured in those books? The implications of that are... interesting. I am not replying to every comment, simply those which do not articulate an appropriate policy basis for their !vote, which are strangely prevalent in this AfD. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm arguing that you can't fork every work of fiction into two articles: one about the fiction, and one about the topic of the title. For example, we don't have an article about Raiders of the Lost Ark AND Raiders of the Lost Ark (raiders). We might and we could, but it would require some kind of distinct information that isn't really about the movie itself. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Counterexample: Do we need to delete Jedi because we have Return of the Jedi? Of course not. Much like the Watch vs. the Watch books, the former are covered as prominent fictional elements in the latter. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said "we don't do it". I said "we don't do it for every work of fiction". We do it for Jedi because, low and behold, there are lots of sources that do more than recap the plot of the movies. Those chapters don't really do that for the City Watch. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree. This chapter does more than just plot recap. In particular, read page 231. That's analysis. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree with Torchiest on this one, there is analysis that is more than just trivial mention. But there is no indication whatsoever that An unofficial companion... deals with the group of characters. I'm not convinced it's enough to make the article notable, though...Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        According to the professional reviews of the book on Amazon, the book is both scholarly and comprehensive, and includes, according to the Booklist review "more than 300 entries for books and stories-their themes, characters, and places". Hence, the "City Watch" chapter certainly contains exactly the type of coverage we would want for an encyclopedia article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You guys are right. I'll refactor my comment. Folken raises a valid concern, that we do need more than one source (the GNG calls for multiple sources), but you've convinced me that there's a decent chance it exists somewhere. I might come to believe otherwise, but for now I'm willing to give the article in chance. (Still, in practice, if you're going to have multi-threaded discussions about what's in a source, you may as well save your energy and just improve the article with what you saw in the source instead of expecting everyone to be able to comb through every paragraph and see what you saw. I know it's hard work though.) Shooterwalker (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I just don't have access to the full text of either of those books right now. The first one has enough in the Google preview to do some work with, but the second one, An Unofficial Companiion, is something I can't do anything with yet. My local library doesn't have a copy either, sadly. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per at least WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOT#FANSITE. Wikipedia article space is not a place for fans to build a webpage. The page should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE notwithstanding, I see nothing about either area you've referenced that applies to this article. Could you please elaborate your policy-based reasoning? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Resorting to non process statements such as "third-party reliable sources have been demonstrated above" fails to make a careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and the impact the work of fiction has had in the real world. Insufficient reliable source information exists addressing aspects of Ankh-Morpork City Watch's real world production process and publication. Insufficient reliable source information exists addressing actual chronology of real-world events related to Ankh-Morpork City Watch. Moreover, insufficient reliable source information exists addressing the author's intention regarding Ankh-Morpork City Watch. The failure of those proposing to keep the article to establish significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Ankh-Morpork City Watch subject is reason enough to delete under WP:GNG. There has been little effort on anyone to add reliable source information to the article during this AfD because that would highlight lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Instead, the effort in this AfD is to claim the issue merely is one of clean up and claim that bits and pieces of real world information or plot information in reliable sources is enough to meet WP:GNG. The lack of sufficient reliable source information means there is insufficient source material from which to summarize and create a Wikipedia article that meets Wikipedia article requirements. The long term, non-compliant state of this now 64,114 bytes page evidences that enthusiastic admirers of the topic have turned the article space into a webpage having its own culture. As noted at WP:INUNIVERSE, -- the threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info. Many fan wikis and fan websites take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become. -- The lack of independent reliable source information prevents this topic from being written via the perspective of the real world. This article represents something we do not want Wikipedia to be or become and should be delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your statement is passionate, eloquent, and utterly mistaken. Notability does not require that sources be present in the article, merely that they exist. Your contention that "insufficient reliable source information exists addressing the author's intention regarding Ankh-Morpork City Watch" is simply untrue. Consider this Google News Archive search. 70+ times, mostly-reliable (I note that Google News now includes Wikipedia itself...) sources deal with the City Watch. Consider a single one of those 70+: in a review of the book Night Watch, Michael Dirda's writing for The Washington Post concludes that it "turns out to be an unexpectedly moving novel about sacrifice and responsibility, its final scenes leaving one near tears, as these sometime Keystone Kops, through simple humanity, metamorphose into the Seven Samurai. Terry Pratchett may still be pegged a comic novelist, but as Night Watch shows, he's a lot more. In his range of invented characters, his adroit storytelling and his clear-eyed acceptance of humankind's foibles, he reminds me of no one in English literature so much as Geoffrey Chaucer. No kidding." (emphasis mine) I'm afraid you've confused the current state of the article with its potential, and while the former is admittedly far inferior to the latter, deletion decisions are made on the basis of encyclopedic potential, rather than inappropriate arguments like WP:NOEFFORT, or attempts to misconstrue our policies against fan sites and forums to apply to an article that relies on excessive plot summary. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment: The discussion has shown (and I think many on both sides can agree with this to some extent) that (a) the article as nominated is unsourced in-universe fancruft that does not belong in Wikipedia but (b) there is third-party coverage that may meet WP:N and could be the basis of appropriately scoped coverage of the topic. On that basis, my recommendation for how to proceed is to close the AfD as a redirect to Discworld#City Watch, with the expectation that the sources discovered here are used to rework that section and, if that section eventually becomes too large, it becomes the basis of a full rewrite of this article per WP:SS. Sandstein 09:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still respectfully disagree; that outcome 1) ignores the fact that per WP:ATD regular editing, which has been demonstrated effective on one section of this article, can remedy all the problems without such a redirect, and 2) there exist entire fictional characters, and not just minor ones, but major characters like Carrot Ironfoundersson and Angua, which redirect only to the current article and would be lost by such a redirect. Notability has been established, as you admit. The rest, as they say, is cleanup, and WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. Jclemens (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dispute the claim that "editing .. has been demonstrated effective on one section of this article". The one section that has been edited has been shown to NOT meet the requirements for a stand alone article reflecting the subject of the article. It was made "less bad" and "not entirely based on original research"; but any relation to the supposed topic of the article is still entirely OR based on primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your objection is noted, but disproportionate. The Librarian entry, as improved, is better cited and put together than most entries in a list of fictional characters. To expect it to support a standalone article is wildly unrealistic, not what I was aiming for, and well beyond the level of support necessary to demonstrate that the article can survive as a list of characters from a notable fictional franchise. Jclemens (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the correct link to the book mentioned by PWilkinson above: "The City Watch" by Edward James, in Butler, Andrew M., James, Edward and Mendlesohn, Farah, eds. Terry Pratchett: Guilty of Literature, ISBN 978-1882968312. So to be clear, that is at least three separate literary criticism books featuring complete chapters covering the City Watch found so far. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:30, 22 September 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) 13:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Student Association

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization at Georgetown. Nearly all of the reliable sources are to the student newspaper The Hoya, which cannot be used as a reliable source as it is not separated enough from the subject (also note the original author). The AFD from 2008 closed as no consensus, but it is clear now that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting all of these individual student organization articles. There are only four sources used on this article that are not from Georgetown. THe first one doesn't mention the organization, the second is dead, the third doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and the fourth is a passing mention.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - looks like it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Have had a look for additional sources - the same non-independent sources keep coming up. Surely links from Georgetown University and it's own student newspaper can't be considered "reliable third party" sources for an article about that university's student association. There are a small number of additional articles from the Washington Post (some referenced and one or two others I found) but they don't really talk about the organisation in detail. They talk about individuals rather than the organisation. Could consider a Merge with Georgetown University. The same could probably be said for The Hoya - 6 of 8 "references" for "The Hoya" are articles from "The Hoya" - hardly independent third parties. The other two are from GU. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Georgetown University, not Georgia University. You might be having an autocorrect issue.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was. Fail. Should have seen that... Thanks for picking that up! Stalwart111 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - worth having a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Lecture Fund for some additional context. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, I have to disagree with the nominator, and their phrase "as it is not separated enough". The campus newspaper has nothing to do with student government. The analogy here is that newspaper employees in a town of 12,000 are not reliable to write about their local government because they reside in the same town. Besides the previous nomination, it was also part of a previous general effort to merge all student governments into their university articles that was also rejected.-- Patrick, _oѺ^∞ 03:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because (1) essenitally all large student governments at elite universities have been kept in the past, and such articles are almost always the targets of mergers of individual clubs; and (2) Bill Clinton started his polticial career as a freshman senator in this organization, thus making this a likely soucre of research in the future for our audience. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 7 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have !voted to delete almost all of the excessive number of articles on Georgetown student clubs that have been listed here, but I would keep the page on the principal student organization of any major university. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, and per Bearian. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:38, 14 September 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) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Faxed Atmosphere

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

Album from a band without an article. I think the only reliable source is the Stylus Magazine one. Orphan. Secretlondon (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator) I'm unsure under what policies this is being nominated. Are you claiming (also with reference to the DYK nomination) that it doesn't meet WP:GNG? Neither the orphan status nor the lack of existence of an article about the band are valid reasons for deletion. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (me again) per WP:GNG. WP:NALBUMS states ... an album does not need to be by a notable artist to require a standalone article if it meets the General notability guideline. More seems to have been written about the album than the band, hence the article content. While I concede that the nominator does have a point about the quality and focus of some of the sources, I don't see the problem with adequacy.net or PopMatters. There is, in my view, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (The "significant coverage" is that the articles address the subject directly in detail, with at least 3 of the sources I found which discuss the album itself (Stylus Magazine, PopMatters & adequacy.net) meeting WP:RS.) I strongly believe that this is a well researched factual article and is of encyclopedic value. The other RSs address related topics, and belong in this article unless someone can propose a more appropriate home for all of this content.

For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I have no personal or professional connections with any of persons linked to the subject(s) of this article. I've not even listened to any of the music and therefore have no personal opinion regarding its style either! -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 28 August 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through the references. I found 3 potentially wp:suitable coverages, all were somewhat short reviews. North8000 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice) - There used to be a distinct Wikipedia policy that I can't find right now (it might have gone out of style) that a band has to have its own article before the notability of its albums is even discussed. Regardless of whether that's still official policy, I suggest that this album article be deleted for the time being, but that some of its sources be used as a foundation for an article about the band. If that band article survives on its own merits, then in the future it will be worth discussing the merits of the albums.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It actually seems that the threshold for an album is much lower than for a band. For an album it is just the general notability guideline, which feels wrong. If a band isn't eligible having their albums is strange.Secretlondon (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem strange, but perhaps does actually make some sense. Audience numbers (both listeners and reviewers) for recorded music are likely to be many times greater than for the corresponding live band. This is particularly the case for bands who don't tour extensively. I've never been in a band and am not involved in the music business, but I imagine that one sends one's album off to reviewers (or if fortunate, they make a direct request!) and if such reviewers find it interesting (i.e. notable) they write about it. If they find it run-of-the-mill then they're less likely to write about it. In fact, I did do a couple of music reviews myself for a student publication once, and seem to recall the editor had a stack of CDs to dole out. -- Trevj (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG applies both to artists and albums: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline" (WP:NMUSIC) - hence the GNG is sufficient for band and work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 10 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. I consider the tiny spate of initial reviews to be a WP:ONEEVENT (that is, the mere release of the album led to its reviews, and there is no indication of ongoing or subsequent coverage in independent sources). --→gab 24dot grab← 13:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NALBUMS refers to WP:GNG, which I believe is met. WP:ONEEVENT is not a valid argument in this case, because it applies to people, rather than music releases. In any case, WP:NOTTEMPORARY also requires consideration. -- Trevj (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the bleedingly obvious statement that "WP:NALBUMS refers to WP:GNG", but I disagree that the subject meets either the specific section I cited or the entire guideline invoked by User:Trevj. The spirit of WP:ONEEVENT applies; for example WP:NOTTEMPORARY basically says in part 'go ahead and delete an article that maybe seemed notable last year'. I have nothing against the album; if it were up to me the guidelines would allow an article on every single reviewed album. Why not work to change a policy? --→gab 24dot grab← 18:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the stating the obvious there. I really don't have the time or inclination to battle with policy changes at the moment. Perhaps another time, in which case I'll drop you a note. If this article becomes deleted, so be it. And if policy is changed in its favour in the future, it can be undeleted then. From my (relatively shallow) experience at AfD, it seems that a similar arguments are cycled again and again because some policies are seen to be in conflict with each other. It can be rather a waste of what could be productive editing/researching/cleaning/vandal-fighting time, if you ask me! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 20:50, 13 September 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 Burzum. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burzum / Aske

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

searched and cannot be established as having received sufficient coverage from reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Burzum, it is a just compilation. Francl (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Burzum (the band's article) in agreement with last voter. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 13 September 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) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mythic Tarot

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

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. This tarot reading approach is trivially mentioned in news sources here. There are many books on the subject, but many of them are written by the creator, Juliet Sharman-Burke and Liz Green, and cannot be considered independent. Other books do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Furthermore, the article suffers from a promotional tone. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems only trivial mentions exist. The existing article is also unsalvageable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep An odd situation (to me) lots of coverage in books [21] but mostly one author. Those books _are_ referenced in other books (see previous search). Also a lot of stuff on the interwebs, but not clear how much of that is reliable. So the books are obviously reliable, but not independent. The software and art that exists for this seems non-trivial. Eh. I think the article needs a rewrite, but the topic is likely notable. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment the article is salvageable, by removing some fluff and FAQs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without the sources we could make a stub, but it'd be OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete per IR Wolfie and nom...I agree about the lack of independence in the sources. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the author creator posted this on the talk page: I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including my edit of the article "The Mythic Tarot". I took care to include all the info and most of the language from the existing article; which is therein under my sub-heading "The Mythic Tarot and Jung".

However as presently posted, the previous iteration remains entire, with my edit of the same article following it on the same page. This is redundant and unwieldly.

I did my major re-write in response to Wikipedia's red flags requesting editting, which called the original article too promotional; as it certainly was/is; also repetitive, preachy, not well written. Alas, when I tried to post my edit, it seemed to be blocked; (by the original authors?) All this I've endeavored to communicate to editors, via talk "why this page should not be deleted."

Excuse if anything herein duplicates any previous message from me. I'm just learning my way around this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atalanta the Huntress (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 September 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, all.

Thanks, Jethro for copying my comment here. However, to clarity I am not the creator of this page, nor associated in any way with the creator of the Mythic Tarot deck or book. I am only the author of the complete re-write of the article which I posted first week of September, strictly in response to Wikipedia's red flags requesting an edit.

Here are some links which I've added to my edit as references re:

a) Tarot widely used by licensed psychotherapists; and

b) Mythic Tarot deck favored by such therapists / counsellors (i.e. not only by fortune tellers)

http://www.tarotschool.com/ElementalArray.html

http://www.tarottherapy.co.uk/cittprosp.htm

http://transpersonalpodcast.org/2010/09/06/hillary-anderson--using-the-tarot-in-therapy.aspx

http://columbia.academia.edu/InnaSemetsky/Papers/426808/Integrating_Tarot_Readings_Into_Counselling_and_Psychotherapy

http://gestaltarttherapy.com/1/2011_tarot_as_a_projection_technique_in_therapy_26th_november_2011_587862.html

http://donnafisherjackson.com/services/tarot.html

Here's a link to the Tarotpedia's entry on the Mythic Tarot, re: the deck's considered notability by independent authorities on the Tarot.

http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Mythic_Tarot

Also note that there is a Wikipedia entry for Liz Greene, one of the creators of the Mythic Tarot. Does that indicate some notability precedent for her works?

Pardon any redundancy. As I'm new to this process, I've copied this info to a couple of Talk pages on this subject. Hope this is helpful. Thanks for your attention to this issue. --Atalanta the Huntress (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - oh how I wish I could vote keep, this is such an interesting topic. The sources given appear to be primary and every other source contradicts itself. Are they from Greek history or Hindu in origin? Who created them? Who uses them? Why are these used? - I found no consistent narrative whatsoever. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:19, 14 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burzum (album)

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

searched and can't be established as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This album is old and less likely to have a lot of modern online references. However a slightly more active search will find that this album has been mentioned in many books as a heavy influence on Scandinavian metal culture and heavily analyzed by people concerned about the lyrics (satanism, violence, etc.) Discussed in historical tomes like Lords of Chaos (1998) and Sound of the Beast (2004). Click on the "Books" search link above. What this article really needs is more work, not deletion. Also, the Black Metal Project has classified the album as "High" importance indicating that it is influential for those in the know. (This final point is not a real reason to keep or delete, but worth discussing regardless.) --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Doomsdayer. This is the first album by the hugely influential black metal artist Burzum. It's also one of the first Norwegian black metal albums. For someone who knows nothing about black metal, it shouldn't take much serching to find-out how noteworthy the album is. Furthermore, I don't understand why you'd put this up for deletion but not the other Burzum albums. ~Asarlaí 15:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did the nom not bother to search outside the English language? And did they fail to notice the raft of inter-wiki links towards the bottom-left of the page? Click on the one for the German article. The one that has a Good Article icon. 34 sources there. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its shear impact can be asserted to it having articles in 18 languages. The article is GA in German Wikipedia, where it has 34 references, most, if not all, seem to be highly reliable and combined clearly establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The solution might be to translate German WP's Good Article to here, or at least bring over some of the plentiful references. If (when) the article here survives this AfD process, I can contribute to the effort. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – notable topic; there are printed and/or German sources that discuss the album. Also, seeing as how the German article is thorough, comprehensive and a good article, there's no reason its English counterpart should not be kept either. A proper translation to the English Wikipedia is welcome, from a reliable translator. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:08, 15 September 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 Fight OUT Loud. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Niedwiecki

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN weirdly this guys husband is a redirect to this article? Any ideas why this would be? Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was the original creator of this article. At the time I created it, he was slated to take office as mayor — and WP:POLITICIAN does specify that "first LGBT mayor of a town or city" is a legitimate claim of notability — but then later went on to resign his city council seat before actually acceding to the mayoralty. So, long story short, there was a legitimate reason to create this at the time, but due to a subsequent change of circumstances there's no longer a particularly strong reason to justify keeping it now — and thus I'll agree with the delete. Also, the reason his husband is a redirect is that he also had a separate article at one time, but it didn't make a particularly strong claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) and nearly all of its references discussed him specifically in the context of being Niedwiecki's partner. So yes, that should also be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fight OUT Loud, the group is notable whereas this is borderline. I think he may even inch over a bit as I keep finding sources on him but they mostly tie to his activities with the group. His husband's should redirect there as well. Insomesia (talk) 01:55, 5 September 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) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fight OUT Loud (presuming that article survives its own AFD), per Insomesia above. I think he falls just short of our notability guidelines for politicians, but the organisation he founded is notable, so he can be covered as part of that article. Robofish (talk) 13:09, 10 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Keun-Hee

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

Not a notable player. This player only has 4 appearences. the article should be incubated until the player is established in the league. tausif(talk) 07:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Only" 4 appearances is sufficient to establish the presumption of notability per WP:NFOOTBALL. Camw (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - currently meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs to be brought up to meet WP:GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article meets WP:NFOOTBALL though it needs improvement. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – those 4 caps appear to be relatively recent. If they were spread within (let's say) four seasons, I'd lean towards delete, especially since he appears to fail WP:GNG. In any case, as for the latter part it still needs improvement. – Kosm1 fent 14:02, 14 September 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. Speedy Delete as nonsensical hoax. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth-harmonic_generation

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fourth-harmonic generation

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

No sources given for this 'remarkable' discovery, that reads a bit dubious to me. Robert Keiden (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy delete as hoax. There are no sources on the article and I can't find any sources out on the internet that back up that this exists, let alone is something that is notable and is anything other than something someone came up with one day via their own personal research. Even if we had the person's personal research, there wouldn't be anything to back up that the conclusions are valid or to show that they have any merit. Coming up with something does not give notability, no matter how exciting the scientist or person might think it is. It might very well be, but we need RS to show notability. This could be speedied as a hoax since there is nothing out there to suggest that this particular theory of FHG exists anywhere except for on this Wikipedia page. As a side note to admins, the content from this article is also on the user talk page of the original editor.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:V. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Found plenty of sources, but all of them talked about generating fourth harmonics in the context of sound and acoustics. I find it suspicious that somebody would have named this hormone as such when it has such an obvious clash with an existing term. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedily eradicate as patent hoax and nonsense. Searching for "FHG hormone" requires excluding us first and then the Harvard Family Health Group, and after that the hits break up into random garbage. It's not really even coherent as it stands. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. CtP (t • c) 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

R. U. Troutman & Sons, Inc.

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

Not notable. No GNews/GBook hits. GHits consist of promo/directory listings for company. No reliable and verifiable sources listed or found. Refs provided are either from the company (not independent) or local. GregJackP Boomer! 04:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Francl (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, R. U. Troutman & Sons, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is notable and should not be deleted. The references are regional, not just local as stated above. Please see that The Daily Item, Sunbury is a regional daily newspaper that covers a large span of area. It just happens to be located in the same city as the company which is no fault of theirs. This is a 73 year old business. Articles Creator, AmericanCitizen1 (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: AmericanCitizen1 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty clearly a promotional piece on a local food distributor. I'm not seeing anything in a cursory Google search which would indicate that GNG will be met; I believe it highly unlikely that a firm of this scale will meet special notability guidelines either. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Meets enough guidelines from what I see. I added a reference that I found, a publication that covers 5 counties. I also found useful information on Google. This company ships items all around the world.SnackMan75 (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— SnackMan75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 10 September 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 template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Some of the sources may be quite brief in their coverage, but there seems to be a consensus that there is enough material out there to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shuster Award

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion after discovering it in relation to another AfD. There is no in-depth coverage of this award in independent and reliable sources. I see plenty of trivial mentions in relation to various people and some press releases, but not that much coverage from sources that are both independent and reliable. This might be redirectable to the comic book artist Joe Shuster, but in the case that there are sources I've missed, I'm bringing it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically put, this is the extension of another debate on the other AfD and because there is serious doubt to the notability of the Shuster Award due to its lack of in-depth coverage (most of the coverage is just routine notification of someone getting nominated or a list of winners now and again). Being associated with a notable person does not extend notability to the awards. While this isn't a completely unheard of award, I have doubts as to whether it truly merits an article versus a section on the artist's article. To avoid complications and to be fair, I'm bringing it here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimately significant awards for the Canadian comics world. I quickly find coverage of these awards in news sources like National Post[22], Le Devoir[23], and the CBC [24][25]. I think notability is pretty clear here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that these seem to be semi-routine notifications of who won, almost along the line of a press release that the awards heads would release to various newspapers. There's really no coverage about the awards. The fourth link is one of the very few I've seen that actually talk about the awards rather than just say "Comic book artist A won this".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's hard-copy coverage in The Comics Journal, 267 has coverage on the launching of the awards while 269 covers the first recipients. There's likely more coverage annually up until The Journal moved away from print to online. It's a lament that a lot of comics coverage now is web-only with the demise of The Journal. Hiding T 13:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how long the articles were? Did the second article just give a listing of the recipients or did they actually go into any sort of detail? If all the article contained was a list of recipients and a 1 paragraph blurb, then I'm not entirely certain that it's really all that in-depth. I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've had a lot of trouble finding anything that goes beyond a press release or a listing of names on an article and not actually talking about the awards in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no interest in the subject matter or comics, but am satisified that it is reasonable enough to warrant a wiki page. I also found coverage in Maclean's [26]. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my run down of the current sources:

The first two sources link to articles, one of which may or may not be just a list of winners. The first one I'm willing to accept could be in-depth even though we don't really have any way of knowing how in-depth the articles were.
[27] This is just a listing of award winners. It doesn't go into any depth at all about the awards, its history, or anything else that is pertinent to that year or previous years. It's just a list.
[28] This article gives a little more, but again it's ultimately just a list of winners with little other detail. Good for backing up that someone won an award that year, but not necessarily really that in-depth.
[29] This is another list of winners. Again, not very in-depth.

Not every source has to give the entire history of the awards, but I've had a really, really hard time finding anything that goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". There's little to no coverage of this award ceremony otherwise when it comes to reliable and independent sources. Sure there's blog talk and primary sources, but not really that much coverage overall. Now when it comes to sources such as the one Fanthrillers gave, that's just an insanely brief mention. It's mentioned just once, more as an aside "Jeff Lemire's book won him a Shuster, now let's talk about things other than that award". It's brief and ultimately trivial. Trivial mentions, no matter how many of them there are, do not pile up into a notable source. They're brief and trivial mentions. That's ultimately what makes me concerned about the overall notability of this. Do trivial mentions and a handful of lists of winners really show notability? I see news articles that are mostly lists as being predominantly trivial.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Comics Journal coverage is there and goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". And the award commitee and the setting up will have been covered by The Comic Buyers Guide too, I just don't happen to have any of those. Also, I don't recall sources having to be "notable" before. I may be misremembering, but the idea was that we used "reliable sources"? The Journal coverage goes beyond triviality, it addresses, as WP:N puts it, "the subject directly in detail". It's even the main topic of the article, which is not required. I have been away from Wikipedia a while, granted, but a cursory glance at the GNG shows it hasn't changed much since its framing.[30] Hiding T 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main topic, sure, but I don't really think that routine lists really count as being in-depth about the subject. There's a world of difference between articles that merely repost lists from primary sources and articles that actually discuss the subject at hand. I view news sources that are almost entirely (or entirely) comprised of a list of names as a trivial source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same rationale as is given to the New York Times Bestseller lists being seen as a trivial source rather than a reliable one, as it's just a listing of books. The listings for the Shuster Award winners in the various news sources falls along the same lines, in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how what you says rebuts my point that The Comics Journal coverage is there and goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". And if I understand you correctly, the point you make, "New York Times Bestseller lists being seen as a trivial source" may well be perfectly correct when using them as a source in an article on a book. In an article on the lists themselves they become a primary source. I think this discussion is becoming confused as to what sources we are describing, and why. You've stated above your reason for nominating this article is because of an afd elsewhere and an extension of the argument there. Which afd is it, and what is the argument there? If the argument is being made that winning a Joe Shuster award confers notability, that has no bearing on the notability of the awards itself, you would be discussing one award of many awarded. That would be akin to a book being listed in the New York Times Bestseller lists. The listing may not make the book notable, but we still have an article at The New York Times Best Seller list. Hiding T 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was over the notability given by the award, then I noticed that there seems to be some issue over the extent of coverage of the Shuster Awards. Rather than just let it stay up and ignore that it had issues with sourcing and depth of coverage, I brought it to AfD. As far as the TCJ coverage goes, there's two issues: first off, even if both articles articles are in-depth, it's just one source covering the awards. Secondly, I'm saying that I'm not sure that the second article by TCJ (the one entitled "Shuster Nominees Announced") seems to be just a list of names. Sources that are comprised of lists don't always show notability and it's rare that lists are in-depth enough to show notability. Now when it comes to the NYTBSL, there's a lot of coverage of the actual list itself and such. I just don't see anything out there about this awards ceremony other than routine listings of who won what. I'm expressing concern that people are stating that someone posting a list of winners on a news website shows notability for the awards ceremony. It's not in-depth and it's just a routine list. It's not in-depth coverage. It's just a list. If that's really all it takes to show notability then ultimately any awards ceremony ever has notability under that standard because it's not that overly hard to get a listing of winners posted. It's not insanely easy but neither is it insanely hard, with the powers that be mostly just having to send off a press release to the papers. News articles that are almost or entirely comprised of routine listings of winners (as opposed to actual coverage of the award ceremony or in-depth coverage of the winners) are pretty much only trivial sources, not ones that show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two separate issues of The Journal are two separate sources, else-wise every edition of the Times from 1890 up would be viewed one source. Since I've already stated that The Journal coverage is more in depth than a simple list of winners I'm not sure what else is left to say. I don't really see a need to enter into a debate about other awards, we aren't debating the deletion of those, they should stand or fall on their own merits. I've provided quite a few sources now, and pointed out that others will exist but I do not have access to them. I can do no more than that. I've never once said that "someone posting a list of winners on a news website shows notability for the awards ceremony". There's enough material in the sources listed to source and keep an article per content policies. Hiding T 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bother, one last thing! :) You said up above, "The first one I'm willing to accept could be in-depth even though we don't really have any way of knowing how in-depth the articles were." Can you clarify what you mean by that? Hiding T 12:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep: unquestionable disruption. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kik Tracee

AfDs for this article:

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

Not Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijustice2013 (talk • contribs)

~~Strong Delete~~. Not WP:Notable. No major billboard hit, no grammy nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijustice2013 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- !vote in above comment struck as duplicative, as comment was by the nominator. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I have no opinion about Kik Tracee, but the deletion nominator is deliberately disrupting wikipedia to make a point, see User contributions for proof. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an allmusic bio, the band released an album and an EP on RCA Records, and the band received coverage in Billboard, The Guinness encyclopedia of popular music, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and Entertainment Weekly, which is plenty, and these are just the ones found from a quick Google search. --Michig (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. All the above reasoning holds true for countless other bands and artists that we choose to delete. To keep some and delete others under the same criteria is not allowed. The above reasoning is not sufficient enough to Keep per WP guidelines and case history. 99.99.174.248 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ignore Wikijustice2013. They are just copy/pasting the same Delete "vote" and comment in many AfDs. Also, I believe Wikijustice2013 and 99.99.174.248, who also posted here, are sockupuppets; see the Afd for Anand Bhatt, where 99.99.174.248 voted about 20 times and was warned by admin Mr. Stradivarious. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've indef blocked the nominator as a purely disruptive account, and the IP as an obvious sockpuppet. All of this seems to be retaliation for the Anand Bhatt AFD. I don't have time right now myself, but I'd recommend speedy closing this and any other AFD started by the same account as in bad faith. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf, thank you very much. I just checked the nominator's two accounts and this was the only Afd they started. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per Michig's sources. They were a legitimately notable band for a while. The nomination does not state a valid basis for deletion; there's no requirement that a band have a "major Billboard hit" or win a Grammy to be notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request for speedy close Per comment above from admin Postdlf. Nominator indefinitely blocked. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:52, 11 September 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. Whether or not a redirect is warranted should be the subject of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Femme flagging

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

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day on Tumblr. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's ultimately not enough coverage in any reliable and independent sources to show that this is anything more than something that was thought up one day. The sources on the article are predominantly tumblr links, which do not show notability. The other links go to various books and sources that do not mention this specific fad at all, especially considering that some were written back in 2000. There really aren't that many sources to show that this is even that big of a fad. This just isn't notable in the here and now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is yet notable. This isn't something made up in a day but it is a phenomenon in a small subculture that doesn't seem to have broken out of blogs and social networks into the wider consciousness. Maybe in a year or 2 there will be academic articles about it, but I regret that for now it doesn't meet WP:GNG (I'm not sure whether WP:WEB applies here but it doesn't meet that either). The latter part of the article has the feel of WP:OR in that the writer has contextualised femme flagging her/himself, rather than reporting on other people's analyses of the phenomenon. Sadly, unless this gets coverage in mainstream media, gay/lesbian/queer media beyond blogs and tumblr, and/or academic work, it doesn't meet standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~/redirect to Handkerchief code from where this most certainly derived. Insomesia (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would question doing that redirect. The big problem here is notability: evidence suggests that this is not something that ejhoys the sort of widespread awareness that hanky codes do. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they don't have to, that's why it's not being allowed to stand alone as an article. A section, several sentences, may be able to sum up. Insomesia (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In looking for sources I did find Inspired by the frenzy around femme flagging. With more time i think a few sentences in the original article are warranted. And I see no reason a merge/redirect not to be a solution to this article until a few magazine articles emerge. Insomesia (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neologism.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly for the fact that all the sources that refer to this activity specifically are from Tumblr, Yuku, and other sites that don't count as a primary source. Articles from reputable sites, however, are linked not as supporting the existence of Femme flagging, but as logical support to the ideas behind it. It appears to be original research. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Few (if any) reliable sources, and Tumblr drama needs to stay on Tumblr. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the reliable sources actually make mention of this phenomenon as far as I can tell, instead being used to simply support the underlying concept. It's more like a personal essay with these pulled in for support. - Vianello (Talk) 18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't agree with consensus here but still think the redirect is appropriate. Insomesia (talk) 19:55, 16 September 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) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 04:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups

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

This is a clear fork of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups - possibly a POV fork. St Anselm (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I'm not sure why this was nominated, but it seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Forks are perfectly acceptable and from the guideline, "...as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." This subject merits a separate article because of the immensity of content that would not be able to be covered in the main article. – MrX 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. This is not a WP:Content forking issue, Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. This is a WP:Spinout article and the information would easily be too cumbersome for the main list article which lists dozens and dozens of groups under many categories. Unfortunately this seems like another front on the concerted battle by a handful of editors to suppress how many Christian and groups considered "right-wing" are also hate groups and their actions have led to violence against LGBT people and even deaths from suicide due to bullying.
This also will help keep a handful of the entries from needing a standalone article of their own if the only thing notable about them is that they are designated as hate groups. Every delete and suppress discussion so far has generally upheld that the hate group designation is notable criticisms of the group yet nom and a few others exacerbate the situation so RFCs are being held on no less than 6 articles. Sorry, these groups are considered hate groups and now the world will be able to see that for themselves. Insomesia (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no POV fork involved here. This article provides greater details on one segment of the overall topic of hate groups and is consistent with Wikipedia:Summary style. The parent article is already at 84,000 bytes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ambivalent It seems to me that the motivation behind splitting these out separately is likely to be at least in part because a lot of editors see this designation as illegitimate and politically motivated. It isn't as though we haven't seen battle over that point for quite some time now. On the other hand the controversy is in the real world as well, so perhaps the split-out is legitimate. I would like to remind User:Insomesia, in any case, that our job here is not to publicize the SPLC's listings. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not working or interested in promoting SPLC, however, they do seem to be the leading authority on the issue and contentious editing to prevent the hate group designation has upheld their analysis. Insomesia (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article offers an expanded summary of these organizations individually that is not offered by the parent article List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, which possesses a style that is concise and consistent in that doesn't offer information on the individual organizations in favor of merely describing each class of organization listed. Keeping this article seems like a reasonable way to keep the parent article of a readable size while setting a stylistic precedent for further child lists spinning off of the List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups by subclassification. Other child pages do not yet exist, but deleting this one sets a poor precedent for the future survival of others which like this would contribute to the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. WP:SS seems to justify the spinout of this list and WP:Deadline should be considered if the argument is going to be made that other child lists aren't yet on Wikipedia. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, with potential for a future merge to the main list (if the rest of the main list could be done in similar style). My perspective: I've been working for ages (because I have work/life and the list keeps updating) on a revision to the main list that includes ADL's listings as well and both groups' rationale for listing, but I can see that other background - basically, a summary of the articles in question - could be useful. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese. Pass a Method talk 06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Roscelese. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As been said, our job here is not to publicize the SPLC's listings. Wikipedia is not the press department of the SPLC. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, educational, encyclopedic, and good deal of secondary source coverage out there. — Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read WP:Summary style. It's not a POV fork, nor a redundant content fork. If all useful, pertinent content were added to the main article on all of these topics, that article would quickly become so huge as to be unreadable. The content is pertinent, notable, useful, encyclopedic and interesting. No legitimate rationale for deletion has been provided, and the stuff about "publicizing the SPLC listings" isn't supportive of deletion as it doesn't explain why this topic fails notability or verifiability or NPOV. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subsection of the massive SPLC list of hate groups is the subject of substantial political debate, therefore worthy of inclusion in its own terms. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Notwithstanding the one "delete" !vote, I am happy to withdraw my nomination for a snow keep. St Anselm (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep per Mr wave Pass a Method talk 00:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge to the list of organisations that they call hate groups. This is not a list: a list is something that you'll find at the parent article, where you get an entry and a few details. A list is not a series of paragraphs on each entry; such a format would deserve to be moved or merged somewhere else, but there's no other place where this specific content would go, unless you're going to split up the page by merging each little bit into the organisation's article. Meanwhile, the idea of having such a list is rather excessively specific; a single law firm's list of hate groups on a single subject is not what encyclopedias cover. Given unlimited resources, would Britannica ever have this article? Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They'd have a better article covering the topic from a historical perspective that would have this list as a part of the overall coverage. However we can be satisfied with our work in process, a sub article of a list article, which itself is a sub article of Southern Poverty Law Center. Insomesia (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite and others, useful article!Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Unneeded fork of the previous list. Everything that is new to this article can be put back into the previous article. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No actually, all of it is new after the introduction. The main article, a list of several hundred groups out of an estimate 1000 or so, listed only the groups' names. We offer a summary of each group and why they were added to the list. This is not a WP:Content forking issue. Insomesia (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see all the new work. I don't think it is a bad POV fork, just an unnecessary fork. What if that new work was merged into the main hate list article? Wouldn't that be good for the main article? I think so. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is not a content fork in Wikipedia terms - Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject, this is clearly not that. And no, wedging in all this information would likely be WP:Undue to an already large article that has many sub-categories of hate groups like these anti-gay ones. We have a lot more information here than we would likely ever want in the parent article. Instead this is the first break-out article from the main one and others may follow. Insomesia (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back. Most of the content appears to be definitions or otherwise not new; I don't see why what appears to be a few back and forth comments warrants in-depth coverage. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We can only report what reliable sources state. If a group's designation as a hate group has been contested by reliable sources we should cover that with due weight. Insomesia (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—seems to meet WP:LISTN without any problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:LISTN. SalHamton (talk) 18:21, 16 September 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. A potential merge can be discussed on article talkpage, but with the sources and arguments provided, this is a pretty uncontentious Keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salutogenesis

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

Tagged as essay-like and lacking proper sourcing since 2009, not rectified. This is basically 50% dictionary definition and 50% POV fork. "Salutogenesis" is a bullshit term akin to "wellness" used by SCAMmers because it sounds sciencey. It has no actual objective meaning. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs filling out, but as there are about 3,500 Google scholar references available (and another 850 for salutogenetic), this should not be a problem. Mainstream journals such as Social Science & Medicine, Journal of Epidemiology and community, South African Journal of Psychology, British Journal of Health Psychology, and Journal of Advanced Nursing have all had articles using the term. Nature magazine has published six articles that reference the term: (5), (6th) . This is clearly now a quite well established medical concept. hgilbert (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I had never heard of this concept before, it is indeed the subject of multiple instances of independently published coverage. See, for example, THIS PIECE from the International Electronic Journal of Health Education. Whether the concept is useful or diversionary is a matter of opinion; in terms of notability this seems a clear GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and Hgilbert. Francl (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite and Hgilbert. Plus, even if it would be true that it has "no actual objective meaning" just this kind of criticism against the concept can be mentioned in the article about it. Lova Falk talk 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, adequate sourcing is required to present the topic neutrally; i.e put it in place with respect to the mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the others; it sounds rather odd, but you can't argue with the multiple journal articles that have been dug up since this nomination was created. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Aaron Antonovsky. Hgilbert mentioned nature so I went and checked the links; one mentions "salutogenetic" once in connection with Antonovsky; only one of the search results had much coverage: [31] of the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, it introduces it as specific to Antonovsky. The other coverage as well discuss it in connection to Antonovsky. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
article mentions Antonovsky as the originator of the concept, but goes on to mention a number of others who have developed this further. This and other articles clearly describe salutogenesis as having an independent existence as a concept now. To stretch a point, salutogenesis : Antonovsky :: evolution : Darwin. hgilbert (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge (and keep article, as I stated above). A Google search of salutogenesis without Antonovsky gives more than 60 000 results. The concept is used widely without mentioning Antonovsky. Lova Falk talk 14:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a useful metric in a deletion discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 18 September 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.