Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 January	11 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. —Darkwind (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Clare

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

Non-notable subject, liable to become outdated. Wikipedia is not a guide to the worlds bus services. TheLongTone (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cruft.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, as well as being non-notable.--Charles (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and because we cannot guarantee that the creator will maintyain the article in perpetuity. ON the other hand we can be fairly sure that the bus operators or the Passenger Transport Executive for the area will do so on their own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Clare, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage where there is no requirement to be encyclopaedic, or notable and scope is on useful travel information. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2013 (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. —Darkwind (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Needham Market

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

Non-notable subject: content would be better added to settlements in question. Wikipedia is not a directory of bus services, and the information is liable to become out of date. TheLongTone (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant here is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market (2nd nomination). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but do not add to the settlement article as it fails WP:NOT.--Charles (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Content in article is too specific for settlement article, but the public transport links of a place are quite important in rural EnglandTheLongTone (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We usually say which companies provide services and leave people to go to the company websites for info. We are not here to advertise such services.--Charles (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A guide to current bus routes belongs in a travel guide, not an encyclopedia. Should we decide that details of bus routes are of encyclopedic interest, then past bus routes would be just as relevant as current ones. --Michig (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and because we cannot guarantee that the creator will maintyain the article in perpetuity. ON the other hand we can be fairly sure that the bus operators or the Passenger Transport Executive for the area will do so on their own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage where there is no requirement to be encyclopaedic, or notable and scope is on useful travel information. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Online University Reference List

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

Wikipedia is not a directory for personal use. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't created for personal use but as a reference source for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phogirl (talk • contribs) 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obviously, Wikipedia is not Facebook, or Twitter, or a directory for either of them. Obviously not some form of social media Yellow Pages either. Stalwart111 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIR CrimsonBlue (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR, as said above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A compendium of university social media sites can be a useful page. The title could be more descriptive, such as "Social Media Pages for Online Universities" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10thdegreejazel (talk • contribs) moved from talkpage by Yunshui 雲‍水 09:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be understood that this would still fail per WP:NOTDIR. There is a very clear list of things Wikipedia is not, and a directory of social media pages is quite clearly one of those. Such an article (if you could ever call it that) has zero encyclopedic value and belongs elsewhere. Stalwart111 12:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is a WP:LINKFARM. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2013 (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. —Darkwind (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Manea

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

Minimal content and lacking secondary sources. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT. Charles (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Secret ^account 03:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and because we cannot guarantee that the creator will maintyain the article in perpetuity. ON the other hand we can be fairly sure that the bus operators or the Passenger Transport Executive for the area will do so on their own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, no being what wikipedia is for and being able to be replaced by a single sentence on the locality page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage as above and below, where there is no requirement to be encyclopaedic, or notable and scope is on useful travel information. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:55, 17 January 2013 (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. —Darkwind (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Stradbroke and Laxfield

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

No significant secondary source coverage. Fails WP:N, WP:NOT. There is already a list of routes in central Suffolk. Charles (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThis is one of a whole series of articles by the same editor, all on bus routes serving small Suffolk communities. I Afd'd one recently, and it got speedied as a recreation of an identical page which had been deleted after an afd. They are all non-notable: Wikipedia is not a guide to all the bus services in Suffolk of anywhere, and the information in the articles is liable to date quickly. The editor would be better off adding the information, such as it is , to the settlements in question.TheLongTone (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not agree with adding this kind of material to settlement articles any more than we would add opening times for pharmacies or such like. It fails WP:NOTDIR and is not something Wikipedia should be doing at all.--Charles (talk) 10:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY Secret ^account 03:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons and because we cannot guarantee that the creator will maintyain the article in perpetuity. ON the other hand we can be fairly sure that the bus operators or the Passenger Transport Executive for the area will do so on their own website. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Stradbroke or Laxfield, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Also, this article includes only one source citation, leaving the rest of the article entirely unsourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikivoyage where there is no requirement to be encyclopaedic, or notable and scope is on useful travel information. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. A sentence on the locality page saying that x and y provide bus services in the area would be absolutely fine as a replacement. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mody Kidon

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

WP:BASIC, I see mentions of Kidon, but not a lot of substantial coverage of him personally. this isn't in the reference list, but comes as close to substantial coverage as I've seen. There could be better coverage in Hebrew that I've missed. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn below. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete A lot of what I'm seeing there would probably qualify as WP:ROUTINE but I have a feeling a different picture would emerge if I were looking at Hebrew sources. The article is badly written but there is a lot there, and I'm surprised I'm not seeing at least some of that in searches. No prejudice to reversing my !vote if someone can successfully source this. I always have misgivings about articles that could be sourced if only we could have some help from editors who "speak the language". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search for his name in Hebrew seems to be substantially more substantial (someone hit me) than the straight English search. Gonna need help with this one, it would be a shame to delete a bio that merits inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary observations: the tone of many of the news articles in Hebrew (from prominent Israeli news websites) implies that the subject is very well known. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting Advice I am the person who updated the entry on Mody Kidon. Most of the references are indeed in Hebrew, so I didn't think to link to them in the English entry. I will append these to the item. I would also appreciate guidance on how to improve the item to meet the standards. Thanks in advance. KundaDesign (talk) 08:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject appears notable in Israeli sources. Binksternet (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't make much out of the Israeli sources myself, I have more than enough trust in those who are assessing them here that I'm comfortable withdrawing my nomination. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what is left after recent severe pruning. Reinstate the deletions only with neutral sourcing. Do not reintroduce the puffery. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuildingsociety.com

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

Article about a crowdsourcing website. Little to no coverage or third-party mentions, except the local ones already provided as references which are essentially routine. No indication that this company meets WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Also, almost certainly a COI/SPAM issue given the tone and article history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The subject is not notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage, and there is also a conflict of interest. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It all looks very spammy to me. Without some evidence of size or something else to induicate significance, I do not see how we can keep this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah J Price

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

Not notable. Sources do not establish notability, not reliable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear notable to me either. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she had been the first female member of that association there would be some claim to notability, but as it stands this just fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:BLP. The person appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage. The only sources provided in the article are to unreliable resources, such as YouTube or other Wikipedia articles. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plenty of web hits on Sarah Prices, but not for this one, as far as I can see. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she is not notable as a footballer, as she fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG in that respect. Doesn't appear to meet any other notability guidelines either. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2013 (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. —Darkwind (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SpyHunter

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

Non-notable software article written by the makers of the software, User:Enigmasoftwaregroup. See also the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enigma software group. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. The topic is a non-notable software in reliable sources. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and retarget to Spy Hunter. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep But Fix - Nomination is a bit deceptive. Yes, the company wrote an WP:COI article about their software... in 2006 (aka over 6 years ago). Since then, the article has been seriously reworked, sabotaged, reworked, sabotaged, etc. There are a ton of references missing from the current version of the article, specifically all of the negative reviews. The software is crap (imo), but there have been plenty of reviews done on it over the years that you can find links to by viewing history. It appears that the company is trying to remove negative press (a current WP:COI issue, but one that doesn't require deletion. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in many discussions of computer security over the years I've never even heard this mentioned once. While that's merely anecdotal, the fact that the article's lone source is one two-star review from 6 years ago rather underscores just how obscure this is. Redirect to Spy Hunter, the 80s driving game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - Your statement is not accurate. The sources were all deleted from the current version of the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the lone reference is to this review, which basically says that it exists and it sucks. If there's better sources in the history (or elsewhere), then by all means add them. Improving an article during an AFD isn't just allowed, it's encouraged! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COI issues aside (and I left a warning in the user's page about their choice of name) or the notability of the company itself, this simply isn't notable. There's nothing out there that would get it past WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like the removed links to negative reviews were mostly not useful as reliable sources (spywarewarrior.com, anti-spyware-review.toptenreviews.com, 2-spyware.com), although this About.com post could be OK (see author profile). I tried searching for better sources and could only find brief coverage: PCWorld Q&A post, item in USA Today list, CNet mention, PCWorld mention. Google News found a few more behind paywalls, but in all, these sources aren't enough to show notability. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hooper

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

Never played a professional game. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) ...William 18:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON perhaps, since he is in the Bills' practice squad. But not now, and there's nothing out there that would get him past WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON and the potential to do so appears remote as his stint on the practice squad was five seasons ago. Gong show 23:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems fairly evident that the subject is not noteworthy. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I am registering an initial "delete" !vote in this discussion, I am compelled to point out our inconsistent notability analysis across different sports and even within the sport of American football. This is a much closer call than other editors have indicated. I have seen other editors successfully stitch together a defense of similar subjects' notability with far less material than exists for this subject. Because the subject did not win a major national award, he is not entitled to a presumption of notasbility per WP:NCOLLATH; likewise, he never played in an NFL regular season game per WP:NGRIDIRON. Notability of the subject must be determined under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. A Google News Archive search ("Trevor Hooper" Stanford) reveals 100+ hits in which the subject is specifically mentioned in the context of his college football career, including mentions in the regional and national sports media. None, however, is a feature article about Hooper specifically, and all appear to be either routine post-game or transactional coverage that do not support the subject's notability per WP:GNG. A general Google search likewise shows almost 100 hits (with some overlap with the Google News Archive search), and some in-depth coverage of the subject----but all of the in-depth coverage appears to occur in sources that are either discounted college sports blog sites (Scout.com, recruiting sites, etc.) or are not independent of the subject (Stanford athletic department, etc.). If anyone can find even one or two in-depth sources that I have overlooked, I will reconsider my !vote. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-create should subject pass notability threshhold.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Dirtlawyer on this one. While college players can qualify under WP:GNG even if they never play in the NFL, I am not finding sufficient non-trivial coverage of Hooper to pass GNG. Mostly passing references in game/team coverage. The best I'm finding is a brief announcement in a San Jose paper that Hooper signed with Stanford: [1]. Also a one-sentence blurb from a Buffalo newspaper on his signing with the Bills: [2]. Also a 200-word piece from the San Jose paper on his having a good game against UCLA: [3]. Close call, but not enough IMO to satisfy GNG. Willing to reconsider if additional sources are found. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Evil Clothing

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

Self Promotion JackRose74 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) References are mostly affilates and retailers of the brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRose74 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the edits by Amatulic, the article is still very promotional in nature and the sources given are pretty much unusable as far as showing notability for this specific clothing company. A search didn't bring up anything to show that Necessary Evil is a notable company and of the sources in the article, here's why they ultimately don't show any or enough notability to keep: (Note that I've either merged or deleted some of these links, which I'll mention as I go along)

[4] This might be usable as a RS, but the article isn't really all that in-depth as far as actual information goes. I'm also slightly concerned that at no point in the article is the company referred to as "Necessary Evil".
[5] Dead link and from the name, it seems like it'd just redirect to a clothing merchant website. I've removed it.
[6] This is BBC, which leaves no doubt as to whether or not it'd be reliable. It's just that like the first link, this doesn't mention anything about "Necessary Evil" as a company.
[7] This isn't actually about the company, but about a potential scandal about someone who models for the company. Not usable in the slightest because even if the model is notable, the company inherits no notability by her wearing them.
[8] This is the same link as the third one. I've combined it.
[9] This is just a brief article about a photo shoot. The thing about this is that while this is about the company, this website is of dubious reliability as far as sources for Wikipedia goes.
[10] This is the first in-depth article that actually mentions the company's name as "Necessary Evil". However we have a problem with the reliability of the website.

The thing is, per the interview with Other Clothing, the current label (Necessary Evil) isn't Kate's Clothing renamed, but a different label entirely. Even if we do count them as the same line, there isn't enough here to show notability for the brand. One BBC news article and a Terrorizer article do not make for a depth of coverage to show notability. The only other link we have is for a blog site that doesn't really pass reliability guidelines. It's a delete from my end.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Tokyogirl's analysis. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tokyogirl79's excellent-as-usual analysis of the supposed sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should be an AFD mantra: "If TokyoGirl can't source it, it's a lost cause". §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(blushes) I wouldn't say that. There have been times where I've seen people pull stuff out of thin air that I otherwise missed. But thank you for the compliment!Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - and wish there was a "like" button for FreerangeFrog's comment, with which I totally agree! Mabalu (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like There we go :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I concur with the source analysis above. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2013 (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. —Darkwind (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Marcel Simonet

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

This may be a hoax, but if this individual and his book are real, we need to verify that and, following that, verify that he is notable. None of the sources that might actually mention him are accessible online, and the ISBN for the book is "invalid" according to our book sources. A search for Alexandre Simonet in Google books finds no related matches. Google found nothing clearly connected that was reliable. This AFD results from an OTRS complaint (Ticket:2013011010006681) alleging that the article is being used to perpetuate fraud. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched the Bibliothèque nationale de France, British Library, Library of Congress, and Amazon.com catalogs for various terms, and couldn't find anything close to his book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of the hoax question, this is a literatim copy of this blog post [11], posted by none other than one "Alexandre Simonet". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 20:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person appears to be non-notable in reliable sources to indicate significant coverage, and we simply cannot take the chance on possible hoaxes, because we do not want another hoax at Wikipedia for people to read for five years. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the two actual ISBNs there are fake. Kill it with fire. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Based on the evidence no need to wait the seven days. Wizardman 15:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Not Delete"" The ISBN was introduced in 1970, the books of Marcel Alexandre Simonet have been published before. If someone, for contributing to the page, he made some mistakes in the transcription of the codes, it does not mean that the character in question, public and well known in France, is a hoax. Even my personal library is full of books by famous authors, which do not appear on the Internet and do not have the ISBN, so I think happens in public libraries throughout the world. All other sources that follow, regardless of the mistakes made by those who wanted to help but do not know how reliable sources and are known in the academic world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramanico (talk • contribs) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — Caramanico (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I also found this source, published by ANSA- http://ansanotizie.altervista.org/.[reply]
- If someone made a "mistake" by giving false ISBNs for books that never should have had them, what are the same mistakes doing on Mr. Simonet's own blog, linked above? (Note that the blog post linked predates the Wikipedia article by several months.) Surely Mr. Simonet knows whether or not his books have ISBNs, and if they do, what they are? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Hasirpad,The blog is not from Simonet, but someone who created it on him, using the wrong information on the wiki page. We do not delete the page on Madonna, if a fan opens up a blog and write on it, false information about her, right?
    - Caramanico:
      1. The blog claims to be Simonet's own blog
      2. The blog post is older than the Wikipedia article, so nothing was taken "using the wrong information on the wiki page" if there was no Wikipedia page to take from. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 01:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but the article in the blog that you say, bears the date of October, and there is only a screenshot of the wiki page ... check yourself!http://attacchidipanicoilmanuale.blogspot.it/2012_10_01_archive.html Caramanico
        Please see the link I gave above; the post is dated July 2012, but the Wikipedia article is from the end of September 2012. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 02:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see if we can clarify this. You write, "The ISBN was introduced in 1970, the books of Marcel Alexandre Simonet have been published before." This man was purportedly born in 1954 (so he would have been 16 in 1970), experienced his first panic attack in or after a 1987 diving incident and developed the system of which he wrote subsequent to that. Can you explain how it would be possible that his books were published before 1970? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""In addition,"" the situation is difficult to explain, but there is someone for personal gain, is trying to discredit the name of Alexandre Simonet. It 'possible that I'm wrong, but I'm sure that some of the moderators of wikipedia en, has received a report from Italy recently, in which he asked to delete the page. I'm wrong? If I'm right, this confirms my hypothesis. And if I'm not mistaken even more, that person wrote something about this same topic. The friendly moderators, could control the user Colapenisula please? I am using this new account, because I lost my old password and username, but in the past I have contributed a great deal to Wikipedia Italy, and I think the way I use wiki, confirms this. You could say the same about these suspicious users who have never used wiki, except to make complaints? comment added by Caramanico (talk •
Delete Let's not take chances on possible hoaxes. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~""Not Delete""~~ There are thousands of wiki pages in the same conditions, dealing with celebrities. What do we do? I took one of these at random: Jonathan Latimer. This crime novelist, was in his time, almost as famous Agatha Christie. But the page does not contain even an ISBN, just a note under it, which points to an online catalog, which as far as we know, it could be a fake. We can not delete all of the pages, each time a user who subscribes to wiki, only to report something or someone is bothering him professionally. Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck through your "not delete" because you are only allowed to make a recommendation like that once, though you may comment more often. The fact that other unsatisfactory articles exist is irrelevant to this discussion, because it is not a reason for allowing more - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Caramanico, the motives of the person who raised a concern about this article do not matter, it will not be deleted just because someone complained. But that does make us look closely at it, to see how it stands up to Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" and WP:Notability guideline, which requires evidence of: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

The article could probably be speedy-deleted as a copyright violation of http://attacchidipanicoilmanuale.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/origins-of-positive-self-talk-against.html, which is dated 12 July 2012 and is signed "Pubblicato da Alexandre Simonet a 20:28", but then permission might be given and we would have to go through this again; better to complete this AfD.

Verifiability: the false ISBNs, given in a blog post signed by Simonet, are extremely suspicious. The David Bryan book does exist (ISBN 9781462829637), though a Google Books search within it for "Simonet" finds nothing. But the article claims that Simonet's books were published by Gallimard and NY Pocket Books, yet there is no trace of them in Worldcat, Google Books, Amazon or any of the standard book lists.

Notability: Google searches don't show me any substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. There is plenty there, but all blog and forum sites like blogspot.com and wordpress. What I see is energetic self-promotion, but not notability

Conclusion: I do not know whether there is a hoax here, but it fails both WP:V and WP:N and should be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I stop here .. do not want to look like a Don Quixote fighting the windmills. "Surely," you will know what to do. Just one question: Now what do I do with the four-five books of Simonet, that I keep in my library, all without ISBN because too old, they have to throw in the trash, or can I leave them on the sidewalk because they do not exist and do not bother someone?Caramanico (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with verifiability policy, but I'm afraid Wikipedia can't anybody's word for it that something exists without reliable sources to prove it. You are welcome to do whatever you like with any books you may have by Simonet, but I'm afraid that your assertion that you have such books is simply not usable for us. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Monriddengirl, is also part of the policies of Wikipedia, writing sentences like this? "that the article is being used to perpetuate fraud" I do not know in yours, but in my country, write accusations not supported by evidence, leads to unpleasant Legal Consequence. the offense is called, slander and defamation. I do not think it is appropriate to write things that could cause, or problems to you or wiki. It 's just a suggestion of course, but I think it should be, you just delete the last sentence of your first post, so just to prove that wikipedia is above, personal assumptions, but it is based only on the facts, as you have rightly pointed out, when you reminded me that here are some rules to follow. Best regards. Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caramanico, Moonriddengirl was simply stating the concerns that somebody else had raised. I would suggest that you withdraw the above statement. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Strikeout, Who raised these concerns? I have not read anything like that in this discussion. So it seems to be a statement of Moonriddengirl. I was only a suggestion and not a statement. I can easily delete my message, in fact anyone can do it, but it should also Mooriddengirl. The statement that you advise me to read is certainly important, but I do not think it most important of the Criminal Code of nations. I suggest you give it a look. Caramanico (talk

Perhaps it would have been more clear to you had you quoted my actual sentence instead of simply a fragment: "This AFD results from an OTRS complaint (Ticket:2013011010006681) alleging that the article is being used to perpetuate fraud." WP:OTRS is our email response system; it received a letter of complaint which is held private, both in the actual details of the letter and the identity of the sender. These details have no bearing on this conversation, particularly as there is nothing in my open regarding precisely who is alleged by our correspondent to be perpetuating a fraud. That doesn't matter. We are concerned here mainly with documentable evidence to support the accuracy of the article and the notability of the subject. As a final note, please be careful not to quote people out of context or in such a way that it implies they have said something they have not; doing so is against our practices. You may also wish to review our policy against legal threats. These are not helpful in discussing issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moonriddengirl, Well, then let's get back to the discussion, which is centered on the fact of considering the character worthy of note or not. And delete all other considerations, including your own. If you do it, do me a favor, because I do not allow myself to delete anything on wikipedia, not even what I write. I have great respect for this extraordinary resource.Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 13:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to delete some items, because we believe unfounded, well we do, but we are not allowed to make insults, accusations or judgments heavy or slander towards them.Caramanico (talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 16 January 2013‎

Delete - Until someone can provide some proof that it's not a hoax, it should be deleted. If someone can provide some proof, then I guess I'd have to look at that proof in order to see if they meet the WP:GNG or not. At this rate though, I don't see how it could. Sergecross73 msg me 20:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, failing WP:V. Just about every link I spot-checked in the references didn't pan out. As I'm not currently at school, I can't check behind the paywall, but given that Google Books hasn't even heard of this guy as an author, odds of hoax are very high. Ray^Talk 17:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""Not delete speedy"" I found something if it can be useful http://iccuopacitaliabooks.altervista.org/ HIPATHIA (talk20:32,January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HIPATHIA79 (talk • contribs) — HIPATHIA79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nice shot Hipathia, for me the Italian national catalog of library service, along with all other academic references from Lomosonov University of moscow, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, and television appearances mentioned, are more than enough. This is the spirit and reason of existence of a multimedia encyclopedia, to be enriched by the experience and knowledge of everyone, otherwise we kept the old ones made of paper encyclopedias, in which to decide the content, they did the usual elites.Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Curiously, the page that lists those numbers (http://iccuopacitaliabooks.altervista.org/ to be precise) is an Altervista page, which seems to be a completely different ___domain from the ICCU (http://www.iccu.sbn.it/opencms/opencms/it/) or the OPAC catalog linked from the official site (http://www.sbn.it/opacsbn/opac/iccu/free.jsp). When I search for the author's name at the OPAC catalog they list, I don't get those results. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curiouser and curiouser. Caramanico, you should realise by now that we take verifiability seriously. That "OPAC" page is a fake, the genuine one here returns "Nessun risultato trovato" for "Alexandre Marcel Simonet" or "Positive Self Talk Against Panic". The ISBN numbers given on the fake OPAC page are different from the ones in the article, but they are still not valid ISBNs - invalid prefix, wrong checksum. When in a hole, it is best to stop digging: just accept that he is not notable in Wikipedia's sense, and do not go on presenting "evidence" that just goes to confirm suspicions of a hoax. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have two books with false ISBN, a diagnostic coding manual which certainly isn't going to say anything about anyone, two journal articles which don't mention the author in abstract and cost a total of $266.00 to see in whole, the book supposedly published by the Library of Congress (??) which a prior commenter searched and couldn't find any mention of the author, and a bunch of vauge references to some sort of French documents. Definately not meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gtwfan52,Here is the book that you say.http://books.google.it/books?id=D9fSW7-atRMC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=Think+yourself+free+library+of+congress&source=bl&ots=yb1mHGk3G3&sig=0ThYXMJvEFLTMOmxy39oE9WWAMQ&hl=it&sa=X&ei=SBL3UKfvC8Lm4QSEvoGIBQ&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Think%20yourself%20free%20library%20of%20congress&f=false Where have you seen these $ 266? Hipathia the user has found some traces, Why persist with this book by a certain David Bryan, who was quoted on the page dedicated to Simonet, just because in this book he mentions, Simonet and his method of treatment of panic attacks ?

Library of Congress is also written on this page of google books, anyway.Caramanico (talk —Preceding undated comment added 21:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Library of Congress" is written in every book published in the United States, or published for distribution in the United States. What is your point? Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible WP:Frankenstein.--Auric talk 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything else aside, notability has not been established. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"John CD", I do not know, I'm not who I reported the news. it is possible that the library service uses different host, who knows what their internal policies or the reasons that have led them to differentiate their database. or it could be a fake ... but so at this point I realized that there is a willingness to delete the entry, against any reasonable doubt. So I also vote for the immediate cancellation, hoping that no electromagnetic wave hits the planet in the future, because with this kind of mentality, I see very difficult to order the chaos that it would generate. I'm almost seventy years old, and I believe in the possibilities offered by the web, which is why I have learned to use the PC, and my life I made it, but in my time, when there was a dispute, we were going to analyze the cards and everything was resolved. Today I see that everything is based on the abstract, and even puts in doubt what the eyes can see. I hope that this technology, which allows this absurd way of thinking about the world, not explode in the hands of young people. I say this as his father and grandfather. Marcel Alexandre Simonet I have often seen on television, and I read his books. I know the character knows him throughout France and much of the Italians. That said, I greet you forever and go back to reading my books made of paper and that smell of paper, much heavier than a few bits,and certainly more real and concrete, of what I saw here.Caramanico (talk

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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Park Debt Solutions

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

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Altered Walter (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Doesn't really assert notability and could arguably even be a speedy delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 19:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial, independent coverage provided. I found no reliable sources in a Google Search (I make no claim of exhaustive search, there are many blog entries, etc. to wade through), and found nothing at all in Google News. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 19:34, 10 January 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sepandar Kamvar

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

Self Promotion, non-notable biographical entry written as advertisement, sources are self-published or non-notable. drewmunn (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 10. Snotbot t • c » 11:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article quality isn't great, but being a group director at MIT does seem to swing it over the bar. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog (programming language) Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual is certainly notable as far as I can see, no problem getting past WP:GNG. Unless the nominator can provide a more thorough rationale. Not all of those sources are self-published. E.g., [12][13][14] If anything the article has an undue number of references to self-published or irrelevant material, but that's a matter of cleanup. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's a high-citation field, but nonetheless his citation record is strong enough to persuade me of WP:PROF#C1. On the other hand, his named chair is a junior-level one, not enough for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No solid arguments have been given as to why the subject might pass WP:BLP1E, but there is a consensus that an article on the event would pass WP:EVENT. This article should therefore be kept and renamed to be about the event, rather than the person. Discussion about possible names for the article can continue on its talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Tappin

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

The aforementioned article needs to be deleted or moved because it violates all these issues WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP1E, WP:WI1E and WP:EVENT. I recognize Tappin has just been in the news but that, according to Wikipedia's own policies, does not make him worthy of an encyclopedic entry. In a nutshell he was a bent businessman who tried to sell batteries to the Iranians. Which incidentally never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.165.5 (talk • contribs)

Comment In the great scheme of things, I don't know why there is a need to keep this article when so many other "news" stories are regularly deleted per se. Please could an admin delete or redirect it article because it violates numerous Wikipedia guidelines about one-off news events which are not notable in the great scheme of things (irrespective of the number of contemporaneous references available). (Maybe its title could become a redirect to the article on Arms trafficking or extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom). I sincerely don't think future generations are going to thank us for keeping this story? Permit me, but using the same logic shown by the editor who removed my initial deletion request on the grounds that there were enough sources to make it WP:N, then that should mean when any celebrity who does anything "scandalous" and get reams of column inches given to it, that would allow the incident/event to have its own article. Where would the mediocrity end? In Tappin's case, the story was a media moment about a crooked businessman who bemoaned the fact he was not immune to extradition to the United States from the UK. But extraditions happen every day that never make the news - this case is no exception. There does not seem to be any case why Tappin should be any different! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.165.5 (talk • contribs)

Keep or Rename into the specific historical event about him allegedly trying to illegally obtain and export special batteries. The event is notable enough, if not the person. I wouldn't delete or merge into broader articles. --DHeyward (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E --No unique names 17:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the suggestion of moving the article to be about the event, which does appear to be notable? Silver seren^C 03:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - The event itself is noteworthy, as demonstrated by the amount of coverage it received, but the individual falls under BLP1E. Not sure there is an obvious name, although the words "Iranian missle" (or "arms") will probably be in there, and perhaps even his name, ironically enough. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or Rename into the specific historical event about him. Definitly notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Extradition to USA for offences not actually committed on US soil is the subject of significant controversy in UK. The victims of this process are therefore notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Rename - Previous editors have expressed the same opinion I have on this matter. Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Controversial case heavily covered in the British media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Applied Science, UC Davis

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

This department does not seem to be notable independently from its university. There does not seem to be anything noteworthy of merging in the UC Davis article, nor would the title be a plausible redirect for UC Davis.T R 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) T R 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I found a number of independent sources and added them to the article. It could still use some stubbing down, but I think it meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those source seem more of case for a brief mention in the articles on the Livermore lab and Teller than a standalone article. T R 10:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take another look, maybe? I haven't even started with the newspapers yet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to propose a merge to UC Davis, but it turns out that this was a program jointly sponsored by two institutions - UC Davis and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory - so that a merge to either seems inappropriate. The facility does appear to be notable, thanks to Alf.laylah's good work adding references. Since it was a unique type of operation, not merely a department of a university, I think it deserves its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (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 The result was withdrawn (keep). Searching shows that reliable sources do exist for this site, although the page still needs work, so I am withdrawing this nomination. (non-admin closure) Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 10:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Touchtalent

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

Entire article is written like an advertisement. No real reliable sources can be found save for the BMS article. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has got a label of advertisement hence written like an advertisement but with a neutral point of view. Touchtalent is a very popular website as can be seen in Alexa hence deserves a page at wiki. More references are being gathered and will be updated soon. Please keep the article for the time being for people to make edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasad.ankit (talk • contribs) 10:44, 10 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador–Malaysia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. another seemingly random combination. if the best they can do is $15 million of trade, that is tiny compared to Malaysia's GDP of $279 billion. being both part of the 120 country Non-Aligned Movement adds nothing to notability. LibStar (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This kind of thing should be started off in the Foreign Relations of X article, and only split out once there's some substantive content. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and common sense. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 14:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands whose leader is not the lead singer

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

Short story: listcruft.

Long story:

The meaning of "leader" in this context is ill-defined. Some sources refer to the frontman as leader (source #11, as an example), but not all of those listed as leaders are the frontmen for their bands. (Examples: Bruce Dickinson vs. Steve Harris for Iron Maiden, Niel Peart vs. Geddy Lee for Rush).
The list is woefully undersourced; I would argue that each and every entry on this list requires a cited source (with the possible exceptions of bands like Santana and Van Halen, where the name of the band makes this clear). More than half of the entries in this list are unsourced. At least one (#6) is unreliable, as the text of the source originated from Wikipedia itself. Sourcing them all will likely be difficult because:
This is not an independently notable subject. The sources that are there aren't explicitly about this subject; they may mention it in passing, but it's going to be quite difficult to find sources that discuss this explicitly, and nearly none that discuss the fact that the "leader" is not the lead singer. This is because:
This topic is not an encyclopedic one to include; there's no particular relevance of this to the bands themselves. The fact that their leaders aren't their singers doesn't make them similar or comparable; having this list might suggest that there is some kind of similarity, which is synthesis without a reliable source.

A category might be better for this, because then it can be handled by a page-by-page basis, rather than this monolithic approach. But even then, it's probably overcategorization. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't have said it better. BTW, if this list is to be kept, it should be expanded to include every single band that doesn't have a singer, like the Kronos Quartet and such. In other words, it's a fairly silly concept. Drmies (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "leader" of a band is undefinable --Guerillero | My Talk 07:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eventually, almost everything I have to say, Writ already covered it on his nom statement. This fails WP:LISTN because there is surely no reliable source treating the topic as a whole, apart from being a severe case of cross-band fancruft (maybe WP:LC can be called here, as this is a list). I may understand that the topic (or the treatment) looks very engaging and interesing, but those are two things that only the prose should meet, not the whole list. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 07:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 07:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have nothing more to add than the nomination already says. Andrew³²⁷ 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Silly, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I directly accuse anyone voting keep of being Eddie Van Halen PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see the point of lists of things that are not certain things. Fireflo (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the 'leader' of a band isn't a clearly defined concept the way, say, the coach of a team is, this isn't and never could be a good encyclopedic list. Is the leader the main songwriter? The determiner of the band's creative direction? The one heard most often on the recordings? The one closest to the front of the stage? The one who controls and directs the band's business interests? The longest-lasting member? The most musically accomplished? The sole remaining original member? The one who speaks in interviews the most? The most famous one? While this might make an interesting late-night conversation with friends after a few beers, as an encyclopedia topic it's incredibly doofy, just like list of bands that have gotten worse over time or list of bands with a unique sound would be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRUFT. There is a silly concept behind it as well. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 22:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that quite possibly all of the valid points have already been made, except for the fact that this is a SNOW Delete. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LOL. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete There is no reason for this list, too vague and doesnt really make sense JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ascendancy (album). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dying in Your Arms

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

Unreferenced CD single. Not clear that the single is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONG. no evidence of charting. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Ascendancy (album), as a plausible search term. Certainly fails WP:NSONGS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ascendancy (album), no evidence of notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shogun (Trivium album). Courcelles 00:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Throes of Perdition

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

Single did not chart. Not clear why the single rates as notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Shogun (Trivium album). Fails WP:NSONGS for a standalone article. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to It's Not Easy Being Green. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Strawbridge

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

Nominate for deletion Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY as a musician. I think page should redirect to It's Not Easy Being Green, the reality programme Charlotte Strawbridge's family are a part of, and the thing she is known for. Boleyn (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection doesn't require deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article itself would disappear, so I wanted to gain consensus. Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom, no standalone notability at this point. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON so it might be worthy of expansion back to a bio later on. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please. I've !voted in several of Boleyn's AFDs and I see no pattern other than bios tagged for years with notability concerns. Nothing wrong with stirring the pot once in a while. If anything, it's far more honest to bring these to AFD for consensus than to simply PROD them stealthily. If there is a specific agenda you're worried about here, I'd suggest you bring it up over at WP:AN instead. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Deletion spree or not, there are no reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, not sufficiently notable on its own.--Staberinde (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shogun (Trivium album). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirisute Gomen

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Uranium grenade (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shogun (Trivium album) the album whence it comes. Lack of detailed reviews, didn't chart, so it's not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shogun (Trivium album). There are a good number of sources here, but as far as I can tell they are all unreliable, mention the song only in passing, or both. The song seems mostly to be noted for its online distribution, but this is already mentioned in the main article. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to WeltenBrand. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Das Nachtvolk

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BAND --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WeltenBrand as a plausible search term. The subject itself fails WP:NALBUMS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WeltenBrand. Merge if necessary. The Steve 07:51, 29 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WeltenBrand, I couldn't find any reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2013 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Costello

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject had self-titled sitcom on Fox in the mid-90s. The sourcing is terrible for this article, but alone a nationally televised program on a major network always assures full notability, and red-linking this would be an embarrassment. Nate • (chatter) 22:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Costello has had significant roles in both films and on television, including a role in the Oscar nominated film, The Fighter, and in a self-titled television show on a major network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnpatrto (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not well sourced, but there are refs to reliable sources there (I added a couple). She created a notable sitcom and has done other stuff that attracted critical attention. Searching proves there is press coverage in major newspapers (not all of which are available online), and her sitcom gets discussed in the usual places. --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the role in The Fighter was extremely small, so that isn't a big deal. Having one's own prime-time major-network TV show, even one that only lasted 4 episodes, definitely means she's not a total nobody though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, 10 January 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Yahoo

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

Stub article that lacks notability and sufficient references. Astros4477 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article meets credibility, written by industry professional, will find more sources later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. "I wrote it" is not a valid reason to keep. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a citation from the Chicago Tribune that gives a credible citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not notable though. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No subject is notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Currently, the article has one reliable source (needs multiple) and the coverage is not substantial. While the source proves it exists, the pebble stuck in the treads of my sneaker exists too. Neither one is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Before you shoot your mouth off about deleting a page, why don't you bother to do a simple Google News Archive search. Pages of materials proving notability come up from major newspapers. I doubt the pebble in your shoe has coverage in major newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.28.161 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.28.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - I did search. I did not find substantial coverage. If you did -- and if that is the reason for your "keep" !vote, please give us links to the substantial coverage you found. I have nothing. My !vote stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The subject is more than notable, and as mentioned in the article, there are sources to back up the notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC) — 108.17.102.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - As I said to the previous IP, if you found substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, please give us links to the substantial coverage you found. I have nothing. My !vote stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anton Schwarzkopf if reliable sources exist documenting that he designed this particular roller coaster. There is a already a list there quite suited for the purpose. The reference given does not imply notability, nor are the references I found searching, nor have any other such references been given. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Wikipedia's general notability guideline, the subject does not appear to meet several criteria to exist as a standalone article. However, it is worth mentioning that the guideline also states, "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article". So at least in that respect, it may still be notable enough to be included in the Anton Schwarzkopf article, assuming at least one reference can be cited. But as a standalone article? Not so much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yash ^[talk] 05:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem to me to meet the spirit of the notability guidelines, even though it might technically be allowable. The ride is closed, which leads me to believe that additional sources being added in future would be unlikely. David_FLXD (Talk) 19:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An article on the generic form of this ride exists, and unless something appears explaining why this individual version is notable enough to merit its own article, it shouldn't have one. --McDoob AU 93 06:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article is notable, Wikipedia is about expanding knowledge, not banishing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.29.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Stating an article is notable does not demonstrate it is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Julser1. - SummerPhD (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kent (author)

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

subject is not notable Nonsenseferret (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC) To update - I have searched for significant independent sources and cannot find anything which would substantiate notability for the subject of this article ---- _nonsense ferret 17:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The referencing on that article is terrible! Completely useless for finding anything. Searching myself, I did find a few articles from local press in West Midlands, Staffordshire, and Cheshire.[15][16][17][18][19] But it's all local interest: he generally writes about Mercia (a historic region of England) and his local football team Port Vale. And his books are all self-published and I can't find any reviews beyond one short piece about a Port Vale book on ThisIsStaffordshire.co.uk. I'm sure there's more local press beyond what I have listed, and I'm not sure about the directories the article says he's in. So there's still a chance he's notable, but I'll see if anyone can find more. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He appears only to be a further education college lecturer (=NN). Almost all the music and published works appear to be related to "Witan" - probably effectiely self-published (=NN). His Mercian Manifesto appears to relate to a movement seeking regional government, but with no WP article on the movement, I must suspect it to be consist of a mere handful of people (=NN). Occasionally several NN activities together may be eough to push a person over the barrier of notability, but not in this case, in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reason given for the proposed deletion as stated is a personal value judgement, with no supporting argument or evidence. The article has been present for almost four years, with no previous proposal to delete it and, in my opinion, the article and citations satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If they do not, how can the article (in a brief and undeveloped form) have been accepted as notable in the first place and how can it have survived for nearly four years without challenge? Over that time, there have been more than 9,000 visits to the page, which have proved its notability. That amount of traffic isn't great by the standard of very popular articles, but (at the most cursory glance) it can be seen to be considerably more than that received by numerous articles happily in place on here and seemingly not under threat of deletion. Year by year, this article's number of visits has risen and in 2012 there was more than 2.5 times the traffic that there had been in 2011. Therefore, the article must have been of notability and value to thousands of people who have visited it. Without any further investigation, the notability of this subject is proved by its listing in several published books of international biography for different achievements. The article's bibliography lists 21 published books written, co-written, edited or co-edited by the subject; the discography shows four albums by him to have been released and the campaigns section of the text indicates the subject to have had a dynamic involvement in English regional politics. By most standards, these achievements (especially when combined) would be considered notable, without having to consider any of the others of the subject. Whether a book is self-published or not is irrelevant as to the author's notability because the method of publication is looking at cause and not effect. Some self-published works have sold huge numbers of copies and are therefore notable. On the highly dubious criterion of works of notability having to be released by outside bodies from the creators, few 1970s punk rock bands (who preferred the artistic control of self-releasing their music) would qualify for a Wikipedia article. A majority of this subject's creative works clearly predate the Internet age and therefore will not have had online reviews, but paper ones, which will be more difficult to find. Nevertheless, the thisisstaffordshire.co.uk website alone lists 25 recent references to the subject. Also, there may well be relevant references to the subject in the numerous press cuttings I have on various topics and I can add any I find to the article's references if that would be helpful. Finally, although classification of the geographical nature of creative productions is fraught with difficulty, it is inaccurate to say that the subject's works have 'generally' been regional or local in nature. The article's bibliography and discography show a range of geographical types of the subject's works, from international in scope to regional and local, and eleven of the subject's books and records listed can arguably be classified as international in content and outlook. --Snoobysoo (contributor) Snoobysoo (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that the article has been here four years is specifically dealt with in WP:ARTICLEAGE, and is generally considered on wikipedia to have little weight in this discussion. The question of how many page views there has been is also pretty much irrelevant, see WP:POPULARPAGE. The 'Dictionary of international biography' mentioned in the article several times is an International Biographical Centre publication which is generally recognized as a vanity publishing scam (they search far and wide for people to include to obtain money from them or their supporters) and does not confer notability on anyone just due to the fact they are mentioned in it. The International Who's Who in Music and International Who's Who of Authors and Writers books mentioned are also formerly International Biographical Centre publications, the entries for which are solicited from the subjects themselves and so are neither independent nor presume any notability as far as I can see. As to the Writers and Artists it is not clear to me at all that this implies any level of notabilty. The fact of having published a book does not confer notability particularly - what I believe is key is the significant and independent coverage of that publication which will establish notability. Also as a side point, I'm not implying any sort of bad faith at all, but in the interests of openness in this discussion would you be prepared to declare your relationship to the subject of the article, thanks? I think references to specific newspaper articles would be particularly helpful, obviously these will have much more weight as regards notability if they are in the regular national newspapers rather than a local publication. ---- _nonsense ferret 17:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also - I think there is a slight misunderstanding in that the point is not that the subject's works are local in nature or not, that's not at issue, the question is I believe how widely known and significant those works are - you could definitely write a book about a local town, and if that book was on the national bestseller lists and was the subject of significant coverage in books and media, that would be pretty notable. ---- _nonsense ferret 23:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your references to the article age and popular page sections of the deletion discussions article. Although the state of play given there seems illogical to me, clearly your comments about the validity of the age and popularity of articles are correct. Regarding the international biographical sources listed as references at the end of the article on the subject (Jeff Kent), I haven't the first-hand knowledge on them to comment on the overall accuracy of their content. However, I have checked the "International Biographical Centre" website and it says 'We never charge for inclusion' in their publications, so, unless that is a blatant lie, by definition the "Dictionary of International Biography" cannot be a vanity publishing scam because vanity publishing consists of paying money to be published. Also, the "International Who's Who of Authors and Writers" and the "International Who's Who in Popular Music" are published by Routledge and the Wikipedia article on the company suggests nothing sinister about them. Also, their website says nothing about payments to have entries published. Therefore, unless you have evidence to the contrary, these international biographies don't seem to be disreputable. I agree with you that having a book published these days isn't all that notable, but only a very small percentage of authors have as many books published as the subject (Jeff Kent). Therefore the actual number of his publications is notable, irrespective of the quality of his work. It is perfectly reasonable for you to ask for my connection (as a contributor to the article and the discussion) to the subject. I do know Jeff Kent. I live in Staffordshire, in England, and he is very well known here. However, I have done everything I can to be objective (simply supplying facts known to me) in my article contributions and I am also trying to be objective, and put points purely from evidence, in this discussion too. I note your comments about the value of adding specific newspaper articles (especially national ones) to the article's references and I would be willing to play my part in doing that. I'm confident I will find some reviews in national publications, but it will take time for me to trawl my records. However, it will be futile for me to undertake such a big job if the article is going to be deleted anyway (the more so after the discussion ends on Thursday) or is likely to be deleted because I would be wasting my time. Obviously, you cannot guarantee that the article will not be deleted, but to undertake the task I would have to believe that there would be a fair chance of the article being retained if the proposed references above can be found. Therefore can you suggest a positive way forward? [[User: Snoobysoo|Snoobysoo] Snoobysoo (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re the IBC - if you follow the link to the article here International Biographical Centre you can see some references that might be helpful. You may also notice a link at the bottom of the who's who in music article to Who's Who scam. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a positive way forward, after the discussion ends the administrator could decide to keep the article, continue the discussion to obtain a better consensus, or delete the article. If the article is deleted and you wish you continue working on it, then all of the page can be transferred to your user space where you are free to continue editing until such time as it is suitable for reconsideration - this can be requested on the talk page of the administrator who carries out the deletion. In terms of establishing notability you are probably aiming to meet some of the requirements of WP:Author. I hope this is helpful. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one final point re the number of books published - by way of example, I could publish 100 expert books on a given subject and that of itself would not be notable, but if I published only one book and it was the subject of an in-depth review in the Times and Guardian newspapers, it won the Man Booker prize, and it sold lots of copies then that would certainly be notable. Jeff seems like an interesting chap and may well be an expert in his field, that in itself I don't think is notable until it can be demonstrated that he has obtained widespread recognition. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Yes, they are helpful. Perhaps there is something of a consensus, in that further, more wider-scale references are being requested for the article and that is okay with me. Is the precise and specific listing and dating of such reviews/articles sufficient as references in each case or do the reviews/articles themselves need to be posted on the subject's page? If the latter and they are pre-Internet sources, how can they be uploaded onto the subject's page from scanned original copies? Also, I may wish to ask your further advice. After the discussion has ended, how would I contact you if need be? Snoobysoo Snoobysoo (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand to be corrected but I don't believe any upload of articles is necessary - a clear citation that would enable others to find the same article is sufficient. Re contacting me, happy to receive any messages at User_talk:Nonsenseferret ---- _nonsense ferret 23:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A self-published author, with no evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE. A lot of the information is drawn from pay-to-publish "directories" like the Dictionary of International Biography, International Who's Who, etc. Googling is infeasible due to common-ness of name. Ray^Talk 17:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not dependent on the means of publication. It's dependent on the notability of the subject. On the denial of self-production logic, many punk rock bands could not be listed on Wikipedia because they began by producing their own records. The international biographies mentioned are a small minority of the citations of the article and if there's proof that they are pay-to-publish directories (because I've not come across any such evidence), please post it. As advised by Nonsenseferret above, if the article isn't permanently deleted at the end of the discussion, I intend to play my part in helping to improve it by seeking to add specific newspaper and magazine references, especially national ones. Snoobysoo Snoobysoo (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you could produce those references here, that would certainly help sway the opinion of commenters. But so far, what's dooming the article is the lack of any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I mean, there are very nice articles in regional websites saying that he's going to offer to guide a walk for tourists past local landmarks. That does not count as significant serious attention to his work in detail. Ray^Talk 19:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aiming to do as you say. Obviously, it will take time to do and so before I begin what is likely to be a fair amount of work, I will need to know what the outcome of the discussion is and if the article is to be deleted, to be reassured by an administrator that it can be resubmitted later. If the outcome is that the article is to be retained, or retained for a period, for improvement, then I will be able to begin work on references fairly quickly. Snoobysoo 87.114.138.130 (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He seems to be very prolific but that's not a notability criterion, and I'm not seeing any evidence of passing WP:GNG. Almost all the sources in the article are either vanity press sorts of things (e.g. related to the International Biographical Centre), his own works, or in one case the same Wikipedia article itself. What we don't have are any reliably published third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2013 (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. Naturally the article can be recreated if sources can be found per the last few comments in the AFD ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanto Seiken

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

Wikipedia is not a fan wiki, and it does not need to cover every single facet of fictional universes. Anything relevant in this article can be covered in either the main Fist of the North Star article, the episodes or the character pages. This is non-notable trivia.

The previous debate resulted in a redirect vote. But the page it was to redirect to is likely going to be deleted itself. Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the redirect target is also deleted, otherwise, re-redirect there. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is completely unsourced, violates WP:NOTPLOT, fails our notability guideline. I don't see the point of a redirect, as a fighting technique name in japanese is not a likely search term. Besides, the redirect should never have been reverted, that was an obvious violation of consensus.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial trivia of the absolute worst kind. Wikipedia isn't a fansite. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real world notability to be found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A fictional martial art without real-world coverage? Not notable. This belongs in a fan wiki, not in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am copying the content of this page to wikialpha, as it seems to contain information that would be useful to fans, even if it may not be notable by wikipedia standards. Mathewignash (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided that sources are found. I found the article to be interesting and informative. Bensci54 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not really a valid keep reason at all - just because you found an article to be interesting, doesn't make it anything other than a substantial failure of WP:NOTPLOT. It may be a good article for a fan Wiki, but that is WP:NOT what we are for. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add as well that there is nothing stopping someone from remaking the article if and when reliable sources are found, here on wikipedia deletion does not have to be forever. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2013 (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 a7, no assertion of notability (being a selfpublished author is not such an assertion). NawlinWiki (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Delirious

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

Non-notable living person. As discussed on the talk page, I tried looking for sources, but I could only find sources about a crime conviction for one event, which is not sufficient notability for an article according to WP:BLP1E. The original text of the article was promotional. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW PianoDan (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. While it's too early to forecast snow, this self-published author appears unlikely to cross those thresholds in the next few days. - Dravecky (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:AUTHOR and WP:BEFORE reveals little. Agreed too early for snow. Mkdw ^talk 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unreferenced BLP. should be speedy delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtwfan52 (talk • contribs)

Comment. I previously tried proposing deletion using WP:BLPPROD, but the tag was removed due to not fitting with those specialized rules. Would it have been OK to do a normal PROD on the article as a next step instead of an AfD? WP:PROD says "It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD", so I went with the cautious choice. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the BLPPROD was removed. There are 0 sources on the article. Possibly some wise admin will see this discussion and speedy delete it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, completely non-notable. GregJackP Boomer! 14:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only one of the two "Keep" comments addresses our inclusion standards. Sandstein 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Piatti

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

Subject does not seem to be notable Nonsenseferret (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) The coverage of the subject seems to comprise local newspaper coverage from the Hastings area, and a reliance on a questionable from the International Biographical Centre whose activities have been described as a scam. The tone and content of the article seem to be purely about self-promotion. I don't see multiple significant independent coverage --Nonsenseferret (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- self promotion perhaps, but the list of works sems long enough for notability: just. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I spotted any criteria in the WP:MUS that this article could fall within - can you point to something in the policy that might help here? Thanks --Nonsenseferret (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having created a lot of works is no evidence at all of notability. There are obscure and non-notable people who have created large amounts of obscure work, while others are extremely notable on the basis of one very successful work. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A long list of works means nothing in terms of notability. There is no verification that they've ever been performed, let alone reviewed. I have been unable to find any evidence that this person has made an impact as a composer. Virtually all of the works are unpublished or self-published as are the recordings. Impromptu Music and Seafront Records are his companies and only publish his works. Some of the earlier stuff was published by a small cooperative press in Germany, Verlag der Kooperative Dürnau. The article has such a long history of self-promotion and "economy with the truth" (to put it diplomatically), that I wouldn't believe anything in it that is not verified with a reference to a reliable independent source. See Talk:Polo Piatti, for more on this issue. Voceditenore (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google turns up very little material about him from reliable sources, and Amazon.com has just a single recording of his music (without any customer review). Toccata quarta (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, a tedious and excessive piece of self-promotion with peacock language ('known for his extensive work....' by whom exactly?). see also the similar self-promotion The Tides of Time also up (quite rightly) for deletion.--Smerus (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first I thought I'd be able to source this, but after looking in Google Germany and Argentina I have to conclude that this person is nowhere near WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am copying the following article for a user User talk:Zaza888 who has expressed an opinion on their own talk page about this article ---- _nonsense ferret 07:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many thanks for your recent explanation. I had a look at the guidelines and I cannot comprehend (with all due respect) why you would put Polo Piatti's notability in question. His CV, past activities and pedigree as a musician, composer and concert pianist around the world do speak for themselves! Unfortunately I am not very good at Wikipedia entries, etc. because I don't really understand how it all really works. But I am prepared to contact a third person supervisor or controller to ask for help because I would find it very inappropriate, unjust and simply unreasonable to delete this article. Finally I, would like to appeal to you to please help me develop or complement the article (only if you consider it necessary) instead of just deleting it. That would certainly be an error of judgement! Many thanks for your understanding. (I hope I have placed this comments in the right place!) Zaza888

I fully understand your concerns. However, for Wikipedia purposes, notability is not decided by what we individually think of a subject's "CV, past activities and pedigree" and what we personally think is "inappropriate, unjust and simply unreasonable". Instead, an attempt is made to use the more objective criterion of how much coverage a subject has received in independent reliable sources. Of course, this does not make it 100% objective, because it is still necessary to make an assessment of how reliable and independent a source is, and how much coverage is considered significant: that is why we have discussions such as this one. In this case, probably the most relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (music). I suggest that you have a look at that, and perhaps also a quick look at the general notability guideline. If, when you have read those, you believe that the subject does satisfy the notability requirements, then please come back here, and explain why, making sure that you provide some reliable sources to support your arguments. The guide to identifying reliable sources can be helpful there. (Sorry to have to point you at so many guidelines, which may seem confusing at first. However, I suggest, rather than try to read and learn everything there, that you have a quick glance through, find the bits that seem most relevant, and read those carefully.) If, on the other hand, you can't find reliable sources about the subject, then it probably isn't reliable by Wikipedia standards, and unfortunately you will probably have to accept that the article will go. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find important people who believe he is important. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:12, 18 January 2013 (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. Despite the substantial SPA activity on the Keep side of this AfD, there is still no strong consensus one way or another. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 18:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Online Film Critics' Poll

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article seems to be sourced mainly through blog type websites, and most tellingly, is hosted on Google Sites (https://sites.google.com/site/internationalonlinefilmcritics) which gives the impression of an WP:SPS. The site does not provide any criteria for how the critics are selected, so it's impossible to establish how qualified these "online critics" are. No significant coverage in the mainstream press or a prominent industry journal (Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Sight & Sound etc), nor any book coverage. I get the feeling Wikipedia is being used to promote a hobby site. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it is a notable award because there are a lot of reliable sources from USA, United Kindom, Italy, Poland and other states. I checked several times: also the Southeastern Film Critics Association, the Iowa Film Critics (that has a Wordpress site), the Detroit Film Critics Society, the Houston Film Critics Society, the Indiana Film Critics Association or the Dublin Film Critics Circle aren't named by Variety, Sight & Sound or The Hollywood Reporter, but this doesn't mean that these awards aren't notable. Robert Hardy (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I recommend for editors to review each reference one by one. I found the most credible to be this by Yes! Weekly and this by HitFix but am not completely sure about their reliability. However, the article appears to reference unreliable sources or sources that barely cover this award (especially in a database manner): 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, which are bloggish or even obvious blogs. ~~I'm leaning toward a weak keep based on the first two sources I mentioned~~ (changed !vote, see below), but I think this topic is more borderline in notability than the article's citation tags may indicate. Would like to hear others' thoughts. Please note that we do have a number of award articles that probably should be scrutinized as well, so "Other stuff exists" is not a meaningful argument here. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you Erik, but do you think that Filmweb, Dziennik Polska-Europa-Świat, Film e dvd, Eclipse Magazine aren't reliable sources? Robert Hardy (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example Eclipse Magazine is an italian newspaper, registered at the Rome Court (No. 260/2009 of 21 July) Robert Hardy (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see about Eclipse Magazine. Its website just did not convey any sense of credibility. The same goes for Film e DVD (which is what I meant by bloggish). Something like Yes! Weekly identifying the founder is useful, but a source like this does not quite seem like "significant coverage" to me. I guess I am looking more for sources that cover the award as its own topic, not just to repeat the announced winners and nominees. This seems to be more of a pseudo-list topic where press releases are re-posted. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say in another way what I mean, if you Google the award and George McCoy (the founder), you get nine results, only one of which is a reliable source. I don't know if that is the best criterion to use, but it seems to indicate in one way that the background of the award has not received "significant coverage". Erik (talk | contribs) 21:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but I found more than 100 reults. And for Eclipse Magazine: I absolutely know that it is a registered newspaper with a real editorial staff. Robert Hardy (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is reliable, but it has the same kind of coverage as Filmweb does, hence my mild iffiness. Do you mean to say you found more than 100 results of the award and George McCoy? If so, what are you searching for? (I'm using Google and search for "International Online Film Critics" "George McCoy".) Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The criteria is significant coverage; I'm sure you will get the odd hit for any award, it's not unusual for a star's publicist to slip in non-notable awards in interviews and press releases etc, especially when they are campaigning for major awards. If you take the New York Film Critics Circle for example, you get hits from the BBC, The Hollywood Reporter and the LA Times, and those are just the first few. Any heavy-hitter like that would be fine. I would even settle for an "awards summary" like you what you get at The New York Times: many critics associations and circles are namechecked here, but the International Online Film Critics' Poll isn't one of them (not to be confused with the similarly named Online Film Critics Society). As for Filmweb, it is a polish variant of IMDb, and if it operates on user-submitted info then as with IMDB it won't be considered RS either, but I don't know the specifics of the site; it could explain why many of these sources are Polish though, if they are reproducing content from it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Filmweb isn't a polish variant of IMDb. Robert Hardy (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of those sources discuss the award itself - its history, its significance to the field. They are simply reprints of the list of winners. I am not seeing anything in those sources that would help me determine whether or not the 'International Online Film Critics' Poll' is a significant award. It may be snobbish to say, 'real awards don't operate from Google Sites.' But... they don't, in general. Combine that with the fact that this poll seems to be entirely ignored by all of the major entertainment magazines, newspapers, and web sites- they don't even reprint its list of winners- and I am not seeing what I would expect to see in relation to a notable award. I have no way of knowing, looking at those sources, whether this is anything more than the hobby of some guy with a free web site. Not, I emphasize, that there's anything wrong with that, but that doesn't mean we need an article about it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HitFix and Yes! Weekly does not post periodicals on "the hobby of some guy with a free website". Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I talked to the gentleman editing the page about its current flaws. I am in favor of giving him say... 7 to 10 days to correct the page before continuing the delete process. I hope that he will use this time if given to make this page a worthy addition to the wikipedia family Andrew Wiggin (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you only registered three days ago, I advise that you should read WP:GNG. We are not judging the validity of the article, we are judging the validity of the topic. The editor is not compelled to undertake any further work on the article: a non-notable article should be deleted regardless of how well developed the article is, and a notable article should be retained regardless of its state. Notability is solely assessed by coverage in WP:Reliable Sources, not by the state of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow betty. Way to kick me in the face for being a "wiki 3 year old"! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a not-online independent and reliable source. It is an italian periodical: Ciak. In a page there is an interview to George McCoy that tells about a lot of details of the award (including the history of the award). Can tell you some of them? Robert Hardy (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no listing or significant coverage of when/where/how these online critics are polled and I see very little identification of who these online film critics are...what makes their opinion notable? I'm online, can I vote on these awards? The SAG Awards are notable because the members of SAG-AFTRA vote on them, the Academy Awards are notable because the members of the Motion Picture Academy vote on them, the Golden Globes are notable because members of The Hollywood Foreign Press Association vote on them. I would not say that the HitFix coverage conveys notability, because it's only a short paragraph with a listing of the nominees/awards. I found three mentions of people who attested that they voted in this "poll"...Mark Burger from 'Yes Weekly', film blogger Greg Klymkiw and Jeffrey Anderson/Combustible Celluloid/Thoughts on film and life, but the anonymous film blogger at The Columnist Without a Column also posted an invite he received from the Poll, so I am still puzzled as to who the poll participants are. Also, I can find no mention of the 'International Online Film Critics' as an ongoing entity with outside activities independent of the Poll. Shearonink (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is also an answer to Shearonink: I think that this award is notable because it is voted by film critics and journalists from Metroactive, Le Nouvel Observateur, Mymovies.it, Cinefilos.it, Las Vegas Weekly, Examiner.com, BBC, The Times, IndieWire and other periodicals and because these film critics come from United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Poland, France and Canada. And I think that there are also reliable sources about the award. Augusto Antonio (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very easily passes GNG, and "When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." The way the organization functions does not have a bearing on its notability. The organizations and its results makes the news, and that's what counts. (For transparency, the author PMed me at IRC and asked me to have a look.)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, upon closer inspection, FisherQueen makes a good point. Although 6 of the 12 refs are blocked from where I am, of those, only 2 discuss the organization, and not in much detail. Just a blurb before getting to the results. I'd like to see more refs before !voting keep. I'll see what I can come up with. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, I dug. I'm starting to click to what everyone's talking about. As an organization, there's not enough to pass GNG. The poll itself is real enough, but that sort of stands apart from the organization as a product. Does this product get mentioned a lot in mainstream media? Nope, not enough I think. Google page one tells the tale. It's blogs and rinky-dink sites, and not many of them, and the homepage of this org is google plus to boot. This looks like a small-time org on the make trying to use Wikipedia as a leg-up. Am I reading this right? Sorry for the 3 walls of text. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't right. Sources speak about this poll (not only about winners and nominees). I remember you that it isn't a society but a biannual polling. If sources didn't speak about the poll in itself we would not know that it is voted by polish, british, americans, italians, spanishes, canadians and french critics. Robert Hardy (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:CLUB makes a good point about the relevance of internationality: "Be cautious of claims that small organizations are national or international in scale. The fact that an organization has branches in multiple countries does not necessarily mean that its activities are truly international." Erik (talk | contribs) 18:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a club or an organization. It is a poll. Like the Indiewire Film Critics' Poll, the Sight & Sound Poll and Village Voice Film Poll. Robert Hardy (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All, see below. WP:ORG defines it simply. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not meeting the notability guidelines for organizations. Anna made me realize that this topic can be seen as an organization, and I had not considered the guidelines specific to organizations. WP:ORGDEPTH in particular was my earlier concern; even with reliable sources, the content amounts to routine announcements. In addition, upon reviewing Yes! Weekly, I just noticed that the writer said the following: "Founded in 2007, this marked the third edition of the IOFCP — and the first in which I was honored to participate" (italics mine). I think this disqualifies it as an independent source even as it provides a bit more history than the rest of the sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IT ISN'T AN ORGANIZATION OR A SOCIETY OR AN ASSOCIATION: IT IS A BIANNUAL POLLING JUST LIKE THE VILLAGE VOICE FILM POLL. NOTABILITY FOR COMPANIES ISN'T VALID. AM I WRONG? Robert Hardy (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use caps. It does not help make an argument. WP:ORG states, "Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose." I think it is appropriate to apply these guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. For Wiktionary:

a poll is an election or a survey of a particular group of people. Noun
an organization is a group of people or other legal entities with an explicit purpose and written rules. Noun

These are two different things. Best wishes, Robert Hardy (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a well-written article with a lot of informations. Sources are reliable and independent and the aricle can keep on Wikipedia. The award (and the argument) is notable. Samuel petan (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep I think the article is a notable topic considering a couple of the references, but the article does need a lot of work and expanding about the history of the poll, who is in it, etc. Some of the references might need to be removed as non-reliable, but I feel it may be worth keeping. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which references support the topic? I think that Yes! Weekly has to be discounted because the person who wrote the article is one of those who participated in the poll. Therefore it is not an independent source. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Full disclosure, I'm the AfC volunteer who accepted this article. I accepted the article because I saw evidence of notability in the sources. True, most of the citations were linked back to the subject, but the Yes! Weekly mention caught my eye. I am aware of the discussion above, but the fact that this award got a mention in a magazine with ~~national~~ large regional (This is why you don't edit when tired. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)) circulation gives it some claim to fame. Granted, the article needs work, but it's not at the level for an automatic AfD.[reply]
I would also like it noted that this nomination was BITEY. The tag was placed less than 20 minutes after I accepted the article. I was still working with the user on IRC at the time, and Betty drove him away from making additional contributions. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 18:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to observe WP:AGF. Robert brought the suggestion to the Film project where the creation of the article was discussed. I opposed it because I had concerns about notability, but Robert went ahead and created it anyway (which was his prerogative). I believe it didn't meet the notability standard so I nominated it for deletion (which is my prerogative). I think it's a bit much to accuse another editor of "driving an editor away" with an AfD nomination, when it was your action that rendered the ongoing discussion at the Film project redundant. Once the article was created, AfD became the correct place to debate its notability. As pointed out above, I don't believe "ongoing" work has any impact on notability: article state is not relevant here, the quality of the sources is the issue. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'd rather save my time than put in hours of work just for it to be deleted. I still believe it's not a notable award, but if the consensus is otherwise then so be it, Robert can continue working on the article with the assurance it will not be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Matthew, an article for this poll was discussed ahead of time here a few days before creation (including a comment from Betty), so I do not think the AfD process was that abrupt. There was also a discussion on my user talk page here at about the same time, and in which I stated some hesitation. This discussion led me to change my mind. As for Yes! Weekly, are you saying that you acknowledge that the source is not independent of the poll but should be counted anyway? I'm not sure if that reference was actually put in print. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was put in print! You can control here: [20] 79.17.186.108 (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there we go. I still think the author not being independent of the subject is an issue, especially considering that it is the only otherwise reliable source to name the poll's founder. Would he have written about the poll if he was not participating in it? Erik (talk | contribs) 19:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the only reliable source! You are wrong... 79.17.186.108 (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall which sources both name the founder and are reliable. What are they? I'm saying Yes! Weekly comes close if not for the lack of objectivity. I still think the lack of in-depth coverage, per the notability guidelines for organizations (broadly defined), is a key issue for having this article. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion you are wrong (and a bit racist) because from your comment we can read that you think that only english sources are reliable. But it is wrong! Ciak, Filmweb and others periodicals are reliable sources! 79.17.186.108 (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would discount HitFix per WP:ORGDEPTH because it lacks in-depth coverage. I was supportive of it before, but reviewing the notability guidelines for organizations, deeper coverage is warranted. I discount Filmweb for the same reason. It has to do with the amount of coverage concerning the nature of the poll. For example, Is there a better source than Film e DVD about the membership? It's not reliable, and I cannot find mention of membership in a reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment above. But the fact that you spooked him still stands, because I was talking to him at the time. He genuinely thought it was notable. The quick AfD was a bit of a blow. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 21:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well written, and the sources used are authoritative and independent. In addition, I know Italy and I also know that the Italian sources used in the article are excellent. In fact they are widely used in wikipedia in Italian language. The voice needs improvements, but it is also very good as well. This poll, just like the Village Voice Film Poll, is a topic with a great notability for media. In addition, members numbered (from numerous international newspapers) are important and famous critics. Mr. Taddeo (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mr. Taddeo's support was actively solicited by Robin: [21]. While I am not that concerned by the canvassing per se, I think Mr. Taddeo's support should be examined more carefully than that of the other editors that have contributed. In the interests of AGF, Perhaps he would care to highlight which sources he feels are reliable and independent, and why? Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty, yes you are right: my support was solicited by Robert. He asked me what I tought about the page: my opinion could be positive or negative. It was (and it is) positive. In the aricle there are a lot of reliable sources. You asked me what source I think are reliable, and I answer you: HitFix, Filmweb, Dziennik and Flickeringmyth. Why? Because these talk also about the award and not only about winners and nominees. Also Yes! Weekly is a great source because, also if the writer was a member of the poll, this doesn't mean that it isn't an independent source with a lot of informations. Italian sources (Ciak, Film e dvd and Eclipse Magazine) are all reliable because they are used a lot in the Italian Wikipedia as - independent - sources. I hope I was clear. Mr. Taddeo (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CSB and WP:NRVE. I see that in the link offered by Betty Logan we have a request made of Mr. Taddeo simply for an opinion with no suggestion that the opinion be positive, and neutral enough and not so widespread as to fall under WP:CANVAS. IE: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". Had the request been posted far and wide and requested only positive feedback to influence this discussion, THEN we'd have CANVAS. Toward the notability of non-Anglo-centric topics, we happily accept non-English sources to aid in our addressing an unintentional systemic bias agianst non-Anglo-centric topics. I would also suggest that we consider creation of an article on the International Online Film Critics themselves, to further increase our reader's understanding of the topic of their poll. And no... I was not asked for my opinion, but came across this discussion through my own patrolling of film-related AFD delsorts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FisherQueen, Anna, and per WP:WEB and WP:ORG. For what it's worth, I think it's extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible, that a website hosted at Google Sites, GeoCities, Angelfire, etc would be notable. If nobody can even be bothered to pay the $10 a year or whatever for a ___domain name, how do you expect media organisations to take you seriously? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 10 January 2013 (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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Fellowes

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

This is a new article where the notability of the subject may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines. There are a huge number of references but not much substance to many of them. I am not sure whether it should be deleted and am nominating it in order to get a consensus view. Please see the related article HelloWallet which comes from the same contributor and has the same issues. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) David_FLXD (Talk) 04:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Matt Fellowes fits the notability (creative professionals) guideline: "The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications." He is often quoted in independent, relevant national news publications as a consumer finance expert. In addition to being a business professional, Fellowes is an academic who after earning his Ph.D spent years at the Brookings Institution authoring his own research and serving as a commentator on issues of consumer finance across the country, including PBS, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, NPR, ABC, Business Week etc. ElisabethLesser (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Appears (barely) to pass the WP:GNG, given profile in Huffington Post and other press mentions. However, the lead of this article, and its contents overall, are ridiculously promotional and essentially amount to a puff piece on the subject. It could stand to be strongly trimmed and edited for neutrality. Ray^Talk 19:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as long as this is the same Matt Fellowes I'd say this article plus anything else is enough to establish general notability. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this is the same one. David_FLXD (Talk) 13:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only keep !vote implies that notability is inherited from potentially notable products (Genecyst and NESticle); it isn't. Salvidrim! ✉ 04:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodlust Software

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

Marked as questionable notability since 2009. I am neutral but leaning towards delete. WP:CSB is of note in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're neutral, why are you nominating it for AfD? Speedy keep per WP:SK1. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I am leaning towards delete. I nominated it because it has been marked as questionable notability since 2009. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article could be improved, the fact alone that Bloodlust is the developer of Genecyst and NESticle is enough to be notable. If Bloodlust had only developed a single notable program, the articles could be merged but since it's at least two programs, WP’s policy states that editorial judgment can justify a separate article. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There does not appear to be enough source materials to write an article using secondary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 10 January 2013 (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Golden Treasury of Nursery Rhymes

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

I'm nominating this video and its company for deletion because neither of them have received any coverage in reliable sources. I did a search and this appears to be one of many kids companies that popped up in the 80s/90s period and mass produced children's videos, yet never received any attention when it came to RS. They exist, but existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the above reasons:[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 3. Snotbot t • c » 09:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled page is a Business ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. PianoDan (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication given of notability, this is just not in any way worthy of an article. could be speedy delete.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and not really an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 10 January 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations Journal

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

A publication of the Public Relations Society of America that is adequately covered in the PRSA article. Suggest a redirect. CorporateM (Talk) 16:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has scant information and almost certainly can never be expanded. It is unlikely that sources will be identified which critique this journal, as even very popular journals often have no coverage in third-party sources. As the nominator said, the organization behind the journal is much more interesting than the journal itself. However, I routinely argue that journals should have their own articles because such journals are the source of Wikipedia itself and Wikipedia is made better when people are prompted to improve articles about the journals from which it came. I say this even about scholarly academic and professional journals which do not meet WP:GNG if they seem to be popular in their field of expertise, as this one does. At a minimum, this should be a redirect with the categories left intact so that it can appear in lists of journals. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I think it's expandable, and i expect to be able to expand it. The PR people do seem to have some publications which discuss each other, and PR is a recognized field of scholarship as well . The greater problem will be maintaining NPOV, since there are some mutually hostile factions. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 10 January 2013 (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) Mediran (t • c) 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jordin Sparks tours

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

Fails notability per WP:NCONCERT and possibly per WP:GNG too, — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't really see the problem here. This content would be fine within the Jordin Sparks article, but for space reasons splitting it off into a separate article seems sensible. It could do with a few sources, but given that each tour listed has an article, I don't see any other issues here. --Michig (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its an unnecessary duplication/summary of material that is already covered on the artist's page and the tour's pages. Its not a feasible search term. In the last 30 days its been viewed 76 times. Its more likely that someone wanting to know about Jordin Sparks tours will visit the artist's page and got to the tour section. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SAL; a navigational index of notable topics. The article is too large to fit into the main article, and a link is posted there. It does not matter how useful or visible it is, it is if it is warranted rather. Another difference is this article places the items in list-form, which is handy, but not absolute. As noted before, the main Jordin Sparks article contains far less, detailed information on the subject generaly. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It satisfies policy as a navigational index. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With only one headlining concert tour (and one co-headlining concert tour), she really does not have enough to warrant a stand-alone article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 09:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Status. Only one headlining isn't really sufficient. I voted keep for Aguilera's because of how many tours she has done, but Sparks is different. AARON• ^TALK 11:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per TBrandley JayJay^{What did I do?} 04:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per TBrandley, and I would also add that there would be a lot more views if it was directly linked to in the Jordin Sparks article, and not just in the template - and I've rectified this now. The tours article needs expansion, referencing, and perhaps a bit of Wikifying, but those aren't necessarily reasons for deletion. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dazi Bridge

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

it needs more information Starship9000 (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator's rationale is invalid, as there is already enough identifying information (even coordinates) present in the article. The notability guideline for bridges and other infrastructure is not clear, so I will defer to the judgment of others in deciding between redirecting or a full keep. GotR ^Talk 01:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence that it meets WP:GNG. Few secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain unless additional sources are found. Simply listing "not enough information" is not appropriate to explain the article's issues, there are several stubs but yet are notable. It is understandable that sources are going to be Chinese but I did find some English books through Google Books here (lists some information about the bridge but not much), here (also briefly mentions the bridge and the next two pages are omitted which talk about the bridge, according to the index) and here (fourth result from the top, Structural engineering & construction) which also does not provide much information but it seems to start saying "It is the longest span..." which could be relevant or irrelevant to this bridge. This last book also says it is larger than the Chaoyang Arch Bridge in Chongqing. A search at Google News did not provide anything relevant but I assumed this would happen so I searched Google Books first. Looking at the article's photo, the bridge looks like it was rather minor and simple work and probably wasn't a major and expensive project. The article most likely needs someone familiar with Chinese bridges and fluent with Chinese. If the article can't be kept, merging and redirecting to Dagzê, Dagzê would be a good option. I am curious if the book cited at Dagzê, Dagzê, Tibet: a travel survival kit, could mention this bridge but I wouldn't be surprised if it does not. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most Definitely Keep Who does it hurt to leave this? This bridge is listed in List of longest suspension bridge spans, and by creating this stub, it eventually found a picture, and coordinates, and hopefully someday there'll be more information. Just because there isn't, is no reason to delete it. While I haven't been very active in Wikipedia for a while, the fact that this is even being discussed is beyond my comprehension. What has Wikipedia become? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't keep articles because it doesn't hurt to keep them - we keep them because they're notable. If you want to argue that this article should remain, do so on the merits, according to WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT, not that there's no harm in keeping it. PianoDan (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards. We delete articles because they are non-notable, and by keeping them we would encourage similar non-notable cruft. This bridge is one of the 100 longest suspension spans in the world, and the longest in Tibet. It is found on published lists of the longest bridge spans. What do you find non-notable about that? I still don't understand why this is being discussed. Has Wikipedia been taken over by deletion-happy bureaucrats? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't a hysteretic property. Articles do not have a different bar for deletion once they are created than the bar for creation when they don't exist yet. We delete articles that are not notable for exactly the same reasons we don't create articles that are not notable. PianoDan (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe borderline notability, but the fact it's one of the hundred longest suspension bridge spans tips it for me. If deleted, it would be one of only two of these bridges not to have its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ it has no references --74.131.177.233 (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)— 74.131.177.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You must not have looked closely because the second external link mentions the 1984 establishment and my vote above provided some other references. As I also mentioned in my vote, if the article can't be kept, redirecting would be a good option (it is relevant to the city) rather than deleting it. SwisterTwister talk 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Starship9000. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [22] is usable for the specifications/statistics of the bridge, and also directly makes a mention of a book with some information on this bridge - there are passing mentions in that book. [23] There will also be information here: [24], and there is mention of it here: [25]. There are almost certainly countless Chinese, Nepalese or Tibetan sources on this as well - someone with more access to these books and those foreign sources will be able to expand this article quite dramatically. I question whether either the nominator, or the delete voters, have either read WP:BEFORE or truly looked for sources - all I did was search Dazi Bridge on Google and found these, without any specialist knowledge. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The second source makes a passing mention (trivial) and the third source states that it is based on Wikipedia articles (unreliable). Page 304 in the forth reference by R. Scott does mention that the bridge "became China's longest single span in late 1984." Funny ^Pika! 22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- surely a 500m suspension bridge is long enough to be of interest, hence notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The nominatior's "rationaile" isn't a policy-based deletion argument and, in fact, isn't a call for deletion at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe you mean "Keep", as there is no speedy keep reason here. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it needs more information" is not a deletion rationaile, therefore WP:SK1 should have been applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read all of SK1: "...and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." By the time you requested a speedy keep, two other editors had !voted delete. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Undecided~~ - We do not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, this bridge shows up in a list article. So what? If the only thing noteworthy about it is its length, redirect this to the list. The database listing (currently linked in the article) proves that it exists and a few reliable sources mention -- in passing -- that the bridge is the longest of its type in Tibet or China (depending on the source; feel free to have heated arguments about this on the talk page). What we seem to have is a permanent stub. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Redirect. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams) can be notable under Wikipedia's GNG. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a named natural feature that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans." The problem is what to redirect to. I don't see in the sparse sources any indication of the road it carries or the obstacle it spans. (This problem, of course, is entirely consistent with the lack of notability here.) - SummerPhD (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will certainly pass GNG with Tibetan, Chinese or whatever sources. We need an editor with access to these. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no basis for your assumption that "sources must exist. If, however, those sources do materialize in the future, the ONE sentence in this article should be easy enough to rebuild... - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The bridge does not have the year completed and it also does not have the main span meters or main span feet. --Starship9000 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be marked as a comment rather than a bolded "delete". That you want it deleted is implied by your nomination. LadyofShalott 03:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are even REMOTELY reasons for deletion... Have you ever read any guidelines on Wikipedia at all? Lukeno94 (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the repeat !vote, without comment on the argument/counter-argument here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rationale by the user nominating deletion does not call for deletion. This is a very notable bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.29.226 (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC) — 150.212.29.226 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Whether or not you agree with the nominator's reasoning, others are arguing the bridge is not notable. Your claim that it is is meaningless without explanation. Please explain which guideline(s) you believe it meets. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it's the biggest bridge in Tibet, then sources will blatantly exist. As I said before, we need an editor with access to Chinese and Tibetan sources on this. Also, I've presented several English sources myself in this, so I have absolutely no idea why people haven't attempted to evaluate those... Using Google Translate, I've found these: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. I wish people would actually bother to look for things - not all of these are detailed, but then, I don't speak Chinese, so Google Translate is all I've used. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep. The second of the above sources claims it as the oldest cable stayed bridge in (contentiously) China & an important bit of infrastructure, certainly the article needs expansion &c but being a stub is no reason to delete.TheLongTone (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its instructive to take a look at the nominators talk page, a long list of deletion notices for articles created, some on eye-wateringly trivial subjects. Imo this afd nomination is pure mischief making.TheLongTone (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The second of Lukeno94's Chinese links certainly looks reliable and substantial enough (though a couple of the others look to come from blogs or personal websites), and could decently extend the article by another sentence or so. Also, the BBC seem to have had a short item on the opening of the bridge back in 1984. Abd participants here have not been sufficiently inventive to try for alternative versions of the bridge's name. GBooks searches on Taktse Zamchen and Taktse bridge, using what seems to be a pre-Pinyin transcription of the place name, each seem to give a few at least slightly usable references. However, as the total information we get for the moment is unlikely to amount to more than a few sentences, I see no harm in merging to Dagzê, Dagzê, where it is situated, or the Kyi River, which it crosses. PWilkinson (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWilkinson: Just curious: Can you read Chinese? If not, how does the source "look" reliable? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per Bushranger. Note that in practice delete !votes do not per se prevent speedy keeps. Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a Speedy Keep per the second rule of Speedy Keeps. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably close to (or at) a snow keep, but not a speedy 2: "... and (since bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination) nobody unrelated recommends deleting it." - SummerPhD (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- Enough to be kept.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The only notable thing I found was in Lukeno94's sixth reference at chinatibetnews.com - that it was the longest suspension bridge in China at the time (1984). Other mentions were either unreliable or trivial. Tried searching via simplified Chinese and pinyin ("德庆桥", "德庆吊桥" and "dazi bridge"). Funny ^Pika! 22:07, 18 January 2013 (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.