Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 January	30 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xat

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

An article that has been entirely unsourced since it was created in February 2005. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources per the General notability guideline thus the band does not meet the notability criteria for an article in Wikipedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Andrew³²⁷ 05:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:06, 17 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the reference appears to be to their social media page making this esentially a garage band Seasider91 (talk) 22:32, 29 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) Mkdw ^talk 11:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huang He (actor)

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huang He (黃河) means Yellow River in Chinese. You'd probably need to search with the term "actor" to get any relevant hits. Funny ^Pika! 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to me that winning a Golden Bell would be a pretty clear indicator of notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:01, 17 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, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 23 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being youngest person ever to win 'Best Actor' at Golden Bell Awards. Young actor, yes, but WP:ENT is met and this seems a suitable stub that can grow over the course of time. A lack of effort is a reason to encourage such for a notable topic, not delete. Note: Awards need not be notable only of or to the United States to be notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. yes, this article needs input from Wikipedians able to search for and read Chinese language press, but such work does not mandate deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Q. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 2 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total Stretch! with Lawrence Leritz

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

Non-notable exercise video, fails WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:44, 25 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and was unable to find anything that would show that this exercise video is notable. Performing or lecturing on a boat doesn't really give notability in and of itself. The sources on the article merely show that the video exists, not that it is notable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:00, 30 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hookson

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

Sorry but this is a non notable marketing agency who have created their own article and it clearly fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:36, 25 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - so its a company that does stuff, mostly releasing press releases, and it once got sacked by the church of scotland for announcing their relationship without permission - encyclopedic and notable? not per WP:GNG ---- _nonsense ferret 02:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- reads too like an ADVERT to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 1 February 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, default to keep. My reading of the debate below is that every attempt to invoke policy in the debate, whichever way the policy points, has been refuted. There is a split vote, and I can't see this discussion getting unstuck anytime soon, so I'm closing this as NC. Der yck C. 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with surname Jones

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

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob and other precedents listed there, there is a consensus that lists of people sharing name are not useful when there are very many notable people with that name. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Is there a precedent for deleting a list of people with the same surname, on the "list too long" theory or otherwise? Whatever one may think of the result at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob, I would anticipate (and maybe agree with) the argument that a surname-based list is potentially more helpful to navigation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked, but did not find one. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a slight difference between lists of people that share a common forename and one that shares a common surname. Especially given that Jones is one of the most common Welsh surnames out there. This list is an extension of the Jones (surname) page. Most surname pages are in a sense disambiguation pages, and list a number of notable people who share that name. ~~So if anything this page should be Merged with it.~~ Funny ^Pika! 22:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the page looks far too long to merge together. Looking through this category Category:Lists of people sharing a surname there's quite a few lists of surnames. Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for inclusion, I'd still say the list should be kept in some form like Arxiloxos states - as a means of searching for articles on people named Jones. Possibly by breaking down each section into separate pages based on occupation?

Previous attempts at consensus is listed here: Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. Funny ^Pika! 23:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that the page was created by splitting it from Jones (surname). I am glad that you do not want to merge it, and I would certainly oppose re-merging. As for the others in Category:Lists of people sharing a surname, I would advocate deleting others that are too long to merge back into the surname page, such as List of people with surname Johnson and List of people with surname Williams. Pages in it that are regular surname pages (anthroponymy articles), which include a list of notable examples anyway, do not need to be in that category; I intend to prune it, but will defer that until after this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is useful, for example someone looking for a singer called Jones but not sure of the first name. When pages get too long they need to be broken up, which is presumably why it got split off from Jones (surname). It is over 500 lines long already, which is probably unmanageable for someone trying to navigate it on a mobile phone. I would oppose deletion but splitting it into different categories as FunnyPika suggested is the best solution I can think of. Jll (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would merge the "See also" section (listing Alan Jones (disambiguation) etc) back into Jones (surname), but as for the biography articles, I have added a link for All pages including "Jones" in the title and IMHO that is enough.
- If I wanted to look for a singer named Jones, without this list, I would simply search Wikipedia for singer jones; this first brings up Joneses that have "(singer)" in the page name, then redirects, and after those it shows others that have the word "singer" in the article.
- Wikipedia has a policy page which says Wikipedia is not a directory. As a matter of policy I think this page should go. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can have a reasonable discussion about whether this page is useful and appropriate in its current form, but to haul out the "policy" nuclear option to attack something like this seems incorrect. If WP:NOTDIR really prohibited the creation of navigational disambiguation pages intended to help readers sort through existing articles, then it's WP:NOTDIR that would need changing, not this page. But that's not what the policy is about. As far as the suggestion that using the search engine is enough: Look at the 18,142 results you get[1]. The search engine spits them out titles first, yes, but otherwise in more or less random order; not to mention, of course, that it won't distinguish between first and last names, and (except for the rare articles that actually have "singer" in the title) it won't distinguish between articles that are about a singer and those where the word happens to be used somewhere in the article, and it presumably won't identify articles that use a different word like "musician" instead of singer. My own experience is that the Wikipedia search engine is often not very helpful for working through larger batches of results; Google may be better, but why, exactly, do we need to get rid of a proper disambiguation page just because it's big? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it is not a (proper) disambiguation page; see MOS:DABNAME. It is clearly a directory.
    - Moreover, it is a very incomplete directory, and the potential contents are so large that I think it would be unmanageable to try to finish it. Special:Search/intitle:Jones gives over 4,300 pages. Doing the same search for jones singer and jones musician gives 24 + 43 = 67 pages, but only 12 of those 67 are currently in the 50 or so currently listed under Music.
    - If people want to keep directories like this, then start a discussion at WP:NOT. Meanwhile, WP:ILIKEIT is not a good argument. The task of the participants at AfD, especially the person who closes, is to implement Wikipedia policy. If we delete this and later on the policy does get changed, the page could always be undeleted and then split, expanded or otherwise improved. However, it seems to me that WP:NOTDIR is a clear and strong line in WP policy. – Fayenatic London 14:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be a directory, but as are most lists that Wikipedia encompasses. For me, inappropriate directories in Wikipedia are those that just list schedules or point to an external link (List of breweries in South Carolina). Here the list is pointing to a page on Wikipedia and could help users find articles on people named Jones.

WP:NOTFINISHED is an equally poor argument. Most pages on Wikipedia are unfinished, but that does not mean we should delete every unfinished page. Yes, the list is extremely large and borderline indiscriminate. Yet I don't understand why your suggestion that it could be "split, expanded or otherwise improved" cannot be done prior to deletion rather than after, as per WP:NCLL. Funny ^Pika! 16:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree about List of breweries in South Carolina, as none of the contents have Wikipedia articles, so I have proposed it for deletion.

My argument about this Jones list is that it should only be kept at all if Wikipedia policy is changed. Although I sometimes work myself on a page during an AfD to see if it can be rescued, I would not encourage editors to do extensive work on a page which I believe does not belong here at all under the present framework. WP:NCLL is about breaking up pages that are justifiable and should be useful when complete; I do not believe those apply here. – Fayenatic London 17:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well something useful happened today -- another editor has rescued that list of breweries! The whole list is now supported with an external citation. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is well structured so that the contents index guides the reader well. There may be a better way of doing this but, per WP:PRESERVE, we should keep the blue link and edit history as a foundation. Deletion would just be disruption. Warden (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE is a good one, and I normally give it a lot of weight. However, because this is (i) so incomplete and (ii) practically impossible to complete and maintain, I do not think it is desirable to encourage further work on it. – Fayenatic London 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems quite complete to me. For example, off the top of my head I think of three famous Jones: Tom Jones (singer); John Paul Jones and Jones the cat. I find that they are all in the list and so we're good. Warden (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the problem: it consists of the most famous people and some editors' favourites. If it was complete, it would list about 4,000 existing articles. See the stats I added earlier today: only 12 of 67 pages that include Jones as well as either singer or musician in their page name are listed.

Lists are not required to be exhaustive and complete. That's why we have the template {{dynamic list}} which states "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.". Lists such as list of numbers are provably infinite. Lists such as list of rivers tail off into inummerable minor streams and creeks. It is quite normal, natural and expected that we should concentrate upon the more famous cases. Warden (talk) 07:46, 6 February 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, →B music ian 03:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST; "Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." - we're gonna need proof that everyone named "John" is equally reliable per sourcing in order to attest they belong as a member of the list. So solly Ren99 wha? 05:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — that is not a problem, just a matter of work through drawing over a citation from each of the articles supporting the person being so named ... assuming that a biographical article actually has a citation supporting the person's name in association with the identity of the person being described. I would be interested to know if you have examples where this assumption is incorrect; such examples should be deleted ASAP, I would think. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jones. To have such a list would be an indiscriminate collection of people who just happen to share the same, very common, surname. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Jones. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -looking at Wikipedia is not a directory it states "...there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic" and clearly none of the folks in this list are famous because of their surname. I'm not seeing any rationales for keeping being presented other than I like it. J04n(talk page) 20:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its use as a navigational page was presented as a valid argument. As was the statement: long lists are indiscriminate directories. The proposal is for users who want to search for people based on a surname and an occupation to be able to find a list that points to an article for that person. The searchbox in this case would be more indiscriminate, displaying a random list of people named foo in no particular order. The article is possibly salvageable if split, so I believe there's a format problem here rather than a content one.

In reference to WP:NLIST, I don't think anyone here is debating whether foo belongs in said list. If you really want to go down that route you'd just have to prove WP:V (or WP:N), something all biographical articles should meet. WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue in reference to whether people named Jones should be included in lists of Joneses. Funny ^Pika! 00:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDIR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. There's nothing in WP:NOTDIR which is relevant. It does not forbid long lists and we have many such, e.g. the humunguous list of minor planets. Warden (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I almost presented a "keep" argument, saying that we should ignore the letter of the rules here, and that this list is inherently useful. However, I could not find an instance where the search box would be any less useful than this list. If you know a person's last name and what they are notable for, using Google and/or the Wikipedia search function will take you to their page. I don't see any reasonable use for this list. Jujutacular (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I put "jones cat" into the search box, thinking of the character in Alien (film) then I get zillions of false hits such as Doctor Jones because the word cat is used in a technical sense. I am an expert in searching for things and it isn't easy. What you need are multiple approaches and tools. Depending upon a single tool is unwise. Deleting a useful index just because you can is disruption. How is such deletion supposed to help the encyclopedia or our readership? Deletion just seems purely obstructive and unhelpful. Warden (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what wiki is not. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about anything but you provide no evidence. The actual evidence is that Wikipedia has many such lists:

List of people with the surname Abney

List of people with the surname Beaman

List of people with surname Clarke

...

List of people with surname Vogler

List of people with surname Williams

See Category:Lists of people sharing a surname for many more examples. Why should we discriminate against the Jones? Warden (talk) 08:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion they should be deleted also. I'm not nominating them at this time however it would probably be a good idea. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some in that category should be removed from it, others merged/converted into surname articles, others deleted; see my comments above timed at 14:21, 30 January 2013. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a subpage of the main disambiguation and surname pages, and like disambiguation pages it's a list for navigation purposes not a list as a presentation of encyclopedic content. It's no more a directory than any disambiguation page or set index. Peter James (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of arguing for deletion of these things one by one, why not find a broader discussion somewhere, and determine if Wikipedia should have these sorts of list or not? Category:Lists of people sharing a surname has 163 entries. This list aid in navigation. You search for the last name of someone, you can then see which person it is you are looking for. You could call it a disambiguate page instead of a list if you wanted to. That is what it is after all. Dream Focus 13:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jones (surname). Generally speaking, that's how lists of people by last name are covered p b p 14:51, 6 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kho (surname)

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

Nominating on behalf of User:K.b.cheng. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Sven Manguard Wha? 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some WP:CIR issues. I'm still on email with him trying to explain to him how to participate in the AfD. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: I just want to delete this article, next time maybe would create a new one. K.b.cheng (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xu (surname) because that article covers this topic. _dk (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't redirect to Xu(surname) this article not for redirect, it was stand alone page, next time will create another one. Just want to delete it first. May i know when can delete this Kho(surname) article? Maybe next time i would prepare to use another article title so now was waiting Wikimedia to delete it as fast as possible. K.b.cheng (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadkid dk, your assessment is incorrect. There is a substantive difference between Xǔ （许） and Xú （徐） in Chinese. That the characters in the two pages look completely different should be a dead giveaway (pun intended). Sven Manguard Wha? 03:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down, you'll see that 許 is right beneath 徐. I don't have any misgivings about a new article covering 許 exclusively, but for now this page (Kho) will have to be a redirect. _dk (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but my point is that they need to be two separate articles because they are two separate characters. A redirect is a bad option. The content at the Xu (surname) that applies to 许 should be moved over to Kho (surname). Sven Manguard Wha? 14:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it should be moved, it should not be to a non-standard romanization. A similar situation at Li (surname) led to the creation of surname articles like Li (李), Li (黎), Li (利), etc. I suggest we follow that precedent. _dk (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes there is a very substantive difference between the surnames Xǔ （许） and Xú （徐） in Mandarin Chinese, and Cantonese etc, Korean, Vietnamese. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:06, 4 February 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, →B music ian 03:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since it technically failed a G7, given the page history and lack go good options for a redirect; since the primary editor requests deletion, I would support it. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xu (surname) per Deadkid dk, because it's clearly redundant as a regional phonetic variation of a standard name. This can be a redirect, but should not be a standalone article. If it's felt that Xǔ (许） and Xú （徐) need to be disambiguated, then create another article. Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 06:42, 5 February 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 policy-based arguments are made by those favoring deletion, and these arguments are fairly strong. A lack of reliable secondary sources that are independent of the article's subject is essential to meet WP:GNG. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Idea and Ideology

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

Another self-published book by Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The only independent source used to establish notability is also self-published. A redirect to Sarkar's biographical page would be fine, but I think deletion without redirection is warranted. Garamond Lethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per~~ as nom. Garamond Lethe 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware it was possible to nominate and vote ---- _nonsense ferret 21:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought the convention at RfA was followed here. I'm happy to revert or strike, whichever you feel is appropriate. Garamond Lethe 22:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen AfDs with and without. It's no biggie. The closing admin will surely see your signature... bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks! Garamond Lethe 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; lacks independent sources, seems to be part of the same walled garden as other recent articles brought to AfD... bobrayner (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... but why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and Bob's compadres at Fringe/n would cast a Delete vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus, and decide to either delete or redirect. So there's no need to dedicate much energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a head count, neither does it have to be unanimous. Closing administrators are experienced enough to determine a rough consensus in an AfD based upon policy, common sense and strength of the argument. Besides, this discussion is listed on five different noticeboards, not just FTN. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 12:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, CorrectKnowledge... another compadre and a familiar pseudonym... would that the CK pseudonym were so! Just for the record, I never said that consensus necessarily means unanimity (although it is commonly interpreted as such). However, in respect to Wikipedia, WP:CON makes clear that consensus does need to be more broad than just a unanimity among a "limited group of editors", for example, a group of editors presenting only a particular perspective (involved with an article, not involved with an article, conservative, liberal, mainstream, new-age, fringe, anti-fringe, or whatever). Nowhere at WP:CON do we find the concept of consensus diluted to your (CorrectKnowledge's) "rough consensus". In effect, asserting a "rough consensus" is just a specious way of avoiding an admission that there is "no consensus". According to WP:CON, no consensus is not adequate justification for removing an article. Quite the contrary. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before claiming that I had originated the concept of "rough consensus" and that it was a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus", maybe you should have gone through Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CK, did I assert that you had originated any concept? If so, I apologize for overrating your creativity. But the way you use this concept is indeed a "specious way of avoiding an admission that there is no consensus". The Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus that you cite only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted. That case is "bad faith". It amplifies that case with the following example: "If a rough consensus holds that the nomination was made in bad faith, the page may be speedily kept." So I am sorry to tell you this, CK, but you seem to have shot yourself in the foot with this one. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...only mentions one case in which a "rough consensus" may be accepted" really? That is just an example. The section also mentions how strength of argument should be looked at and arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact etc. can be discounted. That is pretty much what I said and that is exactly what happened in all the previous AfDs where you !voted keep. Crying no consensus with absolutely no reasonable arguments will not help in an Afd, but if you want to have a go at it, suit yourself. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that so many articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users, with various excuses, seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mention Sarkar's "vast literary production" &c on very many pages. It might be helpful to turn that down a little. bobrayner (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another typical example of respect for WP users/editors signed by Bobrayner.--Cornelius383 (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. The book does not find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 20:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Lack of coverage in independent reliable sources means this fails WP:NBOOK. I also have heavy concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX given the context of many similarly-created articles. Location (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to very poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 4 February 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. While product cited, WP:NALBUM appears to be meet as described by the keep arguments. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Out the Sun (Sevendust album)

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

There is no evidence that this is a notable product. Should probably be deleted and converted into a redirect to something. Stefan2 (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable third party sources were found extremely easily. Meets the WP:GNG. Additionally, it passes WP:HAMMER - name, release date, and track list all known. The article may look a little rough, but AFD is not cleanup, nominator should probably read up on WP:BEFORE, etc.
- Sources:
Keep - Plenty of sources, has been confirmed. Proposing this for deletion is ridiculous. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)TheSickBehemoth[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is currently unreferenced, but there are are enough available sources (identified above by Sergecross73) to create a "reasonably detailed" article. Gong show 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I really quickly added some info using 4 different sources. Still needs plenty of work, but at least now it has prose supported by four separate reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 02:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Track listing, album title and release date are all listed at Blabbermouth.com. "Decay" peaked at 29 on Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks. --Jax 0677 (talk) 04:21, 2 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Litten

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

There is no evidence that this subject comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (The article was written by a user called Andrewlitten, evidently with a conflict of interest, and early version of it contained a good deal of promotional content, but it has since been substantially cleaned up, and I am not putting promotion forward as a reason for deletion. Deletion was proposed per PROD, and supported by another editor, but the PROD was removed by Andrewlitten, without giving any reason.) Searches for information about Andrew Litten have produced his own website, websites of galleries and businesses exhibiting or selling his work, promotional sites (e.g. ArtLyst, which describes itself as "a web project created by Artists to help Artists, Designers, Galleries, Collectors and Art Professionals to connect and promote new ideas..."), Wikipedia, Twitter, FaceBook, Vimeo, etc etc, but I found nothing that could be regarded as coverage in independent relaible sources. The references in the article are as follows: * A page about him on the web page of another gallery that exhibits his work. Not an independent source. * An exhibition review in The Ne York Times, which includes a single one-sentence mention of Andrew Litten. Not substantial coverage, by any stretch. * A web page of a gallery that exhibits his work, which merely includes his name in a list, together with 68 names of other artists. Neither substantial coverage nor an independent source. * A piece which begins with the sentence "THE MILLENNIUM Gallery in St Ives is pleased to present ID Smear, a solo exhibition of new work by Andrew Litten, pictured, until February 28." It has all the appearance of being publicity, probably a press release, and it is published on a web site dedicated to information about a particular county, and the web site says of itself "We have a portfolio of market leading print and digital brands." In is purely local publication of what appears to be essentially an advertisement. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is pure WP:PROMO, with insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. A couple of the sources have the veneer of appearing to be genuine, but once you look at them closely, you see that they are based on material generated by the subject himself, and therefore are in fact no better than WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, no substantial independent coverage ---- _nonsense ferret 21:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

Please do not delete the page so soon. I am sorry for a lack of attention at times as I am combining this project with my A'levels so can always devote myself to it. I do not want all this effort to go to waste. I am bias, as Andrew is my Father but I want this to work out successfully. He has been involved in major exhibitions as an Independent artist with no PR or agent or dealer and this is incredibly rare and it is an interesting story for people. This is why a lot of the references are very difficult to cite - his career has not been managed in the way other artists have and many of the early galleries have now closed. I hope it will meet your requirements as soon as possible. I was not familiar with editing Wikipedia and admit to an embarrassing beginning. Sorry. I did not even realise until yesterday that there was a TALK PAGE so did not offer reason for my mistakes in the past. Apologies for not reasoning with the removal of the PROD BOX. It was my mistake.

Please do not delete this page. I am working so hard to make it substantial. It does need other contributions and this will happen but not in one week. The page has not even made it too a high google listing yet so others will not be aware of it.

The newspaper article that you refer to that contained only one line about Andrew, was in the New York Times. They only review significant exhibitions. The exhibition included Renoir and Epstein and was major, but the names Renoir and Epstein were deleted by an editor. Also, you have not allowed a listing of an exhibition at Tate Modern that Andrew was included in. You dismissed it because the exhibition filled the entire Turbine Hall and therefore had lots of artists were included. This seems strange. It was Tate Modern and I do not see how one editor can deem the exhibition not worth citing even though all the references were listed. It was a significant event and a festival of Independent artists. Andrew is an Independent artist who has achieved a lot and people will be interested in this. He exhibited at the Venice Biennale which is the biggest art event in the world. Thankfully you have allowed this. He exhibited an Anti Art painting made with paint and pubic hair during Frieze art Fair Week. It was seen by hundreds of people in Vyner Street's First Tuirsday but you will not allow it to be listed even though it is a major part of his 'independent artist' identity and would interest people.

I totally agree that other editors need to contribute to this Wikipedia page. Please do not delete this so soon before it has a chance to happen. The information is correct, referenced and will be of interest to people who are not entirely aware of his presence. It is important that the individual voice can be heard in a big world.

There is nothing corrupt going on with this wikipedia page. Would you please view Andrews contemporaries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzo_Marra and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Waller and please tell me what is significant about their status or exhibitions.

I will do everything I can to improve this page and prompt independent editing. The exhibitions listed are significant and there are many more to be cited but this should {I imagine)be done by other editors.

Isobel Litten109.157.24.144 (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel, there isn't an editor here who doesn't understand that you mean well. But your involvement is so deeply steeped in conflict of interest that you either can't or won't see how this doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, nor understand what constitutes a reliable source or a notable exhibition. You're communicating with editors who are familiar with both the guidelines and the means of finding sources that would support notability. The discussion will be open for a week, at which time an administrator will close it and make the determination to keep or delete. That finding will be based on the quality of evidence put forward here, not on a count of votes. Best, 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to sign in, so that there is no confusion about you participating in this discussion or editing the article while using two separate accounts. 99.12.243.171 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are times in life when all you can do is quote from Barry Lyndon: "In my profession we hear many such stories. Yours is the most intriguing and touching I've heard in weeks. Nevertheless, I cannot grant your request. But, I'll tell you what I will do. I'll allow you to keep those fine boots, which normally I would have for myself." Qworty (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isobel, you raise a number of points, and it would take a long time to answer every one in detail, but I will try to give some sort of answer to some of what seem to me to be the major points.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information about anything. About seven years ago there was a substantial debate on the question of what kind of evidence of notability should be required for a topic to qualify asthe subject of a Wikipedia article. The outcome of the debate is contained in the general notability guideline, which is also accompanied by various other guidelines, the most relevant in this case being Wikipedia:Notability (people). I suggest that you look at those guidelines, if you haven't already, but the main criterion is that a subject is considered notable if it has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Unfortunately, if a subject has not done that, then it is unlikely to be considered notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article. While I fully understand your point about why your father has not received such coverage, why he hasn't is not directly relevant: if he hasn't then he hasn't.
Notability is not inherited by having associated with other notable people, worked or exhibited with notable people, or been included in a notable exhibition: we need evidence that he is notable in his own right.
You don't need to apologise for not giving a reason for removing the PROD. I mentioned it merely as a way of saying that I could not comment on the reason, because I didn't know what the reason was, not to criticise you.
As far as I know, nobody thinks there is anything "corrupt" going on. I do not have the slightest doubt that everything you have done has been done in good faith, but that, like most people who are new to editing Wikipedia, you have done so without being aware of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Almost all of us make mistakes when we start editing: I certainly did. I was lucky, in that my first edits were just minor changes to existing articles, so when I had things reverted I didn't lose a lot of work, but I have every sympathy with editors who, like you, dive straight into writing substantial new articles, only to see them disappear.
As for your remarks about Enzo Marra and Daryl Waller, it is natural for anyone new to editing Wikipedia to look at existing articles for evidence as to what is acceptable. However, unfortunately, it is not a reliable guide, a new editor very often has the bad luck to choose articles which are not suitable, and which would have been deleted if they had been noticed. Among the four million and more articles on English language Wikipedia, there are many unsuitable ones that simply haven't been noticed and deleted. Daryl Waller is certainly one of those, and it has now got its own deletion nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daryl Waller. It is not obvious to me at a quick glance whether Enzo Marra satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines or not, but it may be that that one too should go.

I hope that my remarks have helped to clarify things for you. However, as far as saving the article is concerned, I'm afraid your father really does not seem to satisfy our notability standards. If the problem were that the article was badly written, then it could be solved by rewriting it, but no amount of rewriting an article will change the notability of the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop press: I have now checked the article Enzo Marra, and have confirmed that it fails Wikipedia's notability standards by a long way, as can be ssen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzo Marra. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, basically nonsense ferret Widefox; talk 08:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - created in good faith but clearly fails WP:ARTIST, WP:BIO and WP:GNG.Theroadislong (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article says nothing but that he has taken part in several exhibuitions and that one museum bought one of his paintings. He could be notable, but sofar the article does not establish that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ARTIST and GNG Tiggerjay (talk) 04:56, 5 February 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 merge to Florida Gators. MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left–Right

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

This article consists entirely of original research for which no references are given. The two included references don't cut it: one is dead, the other one doesn't mention the topic, and either way they only seem to verify that the Expos became the Hammerheads. A Google search appears to verify the existence of such a chant, but it is nothing related necessarily to UF. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:55, 16 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, Courcelles 01:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Florida Gators. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If merged or redirected, should be moved to Left–Right (chant) first, as just "Left–Right" is ambigious enough to not be desirable as a redirect, which must be maintained per the attribution policy if content is merged from it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:48, 28 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge fails WP:GNG alone. Might be okay in Florida Gators Tiggerjay (talk) 04:57, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trademob

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

This AfD exists thanks to Tomaso67, who called its notability into question, leading me to check it out, and find that Tomaso67's doubts seem to be fully jusrified. The article was originally written as an unambiguously promotional piece by a single-purpose conflict of interest account called Trademob. Fortunately, much of the promotional content has now been removed, but it is still somewhat promotional in tone. However, the reason for nominating it for deletion is that the subject does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards. Of the five references cited, one does not mention Trademob at all, one is on a self-declared PR site, and the others are on marketing/business promotion sites. Searches for coverage also fail to produce evidence of notability. On a Google search, for example, the first page of hits includes www.trademob.com, Wikipedia, CrunchBase (which is an open wiki, largely used by businesses to post promotional pages about themselves), a web-business promotional site called thenextweb, linkedin, twitter. Looking further down the list of Google hits, one finds many pages about Trademob, but on examination almost all of them turn out to be on sites that cannot be regarded as independent reliable sources, as for example a page which looks like a news report, but is posted at http://www.kennet.com/news/press-releases/mobile-mobile-app-marketing-platform-trademob-raises-15-million-in-series-b-funding-led-by-kennet-partners/, which, as the URL suggests, is a press release. The overall impression is that there is a lot about Trademob only because Trademob has put a lot of effort into publicising itself, rather than because reliable independent sources have paid significant attention to it, and the Wikipedia article was clearly part of this effort. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. My analysis broadly concurs with JBW's. I consider all of the current sources to be basically worthless. The best source I could find is [2], which gives some indication of what Trademob does (besides raise venture capital and write press releases). I think that could be a solid supplementary source, but can't support the article on its own. Kilopi (talk) 04:10, 30 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, →B music ian 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom's assessment that the article is still somewhat promotional, and befittingly for a mobile ad company, they really know how to pump out the PR. I found one article that qualifies as an independent source and is in depth: GigaOM article on click fraud. Is GigaOM considered reliable? If so, then this source counts as an RS. But one RS is still below WP:GNG notability guidelines and below WP:CORPDEPTH notability guidelines as well. Unless more reliable sources can be found, I recommend deletion with no prejudice to recreation if more RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 05:20, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Keyes

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

May fail the general guidelines for notability, no cited references. I performed a Google search and found the website for the organization where he is supposedly the CEO . Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 20:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I placed a {{Prod blp/dated}} tag on the article. -- LuK3 (Talk) 20:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying this should be kept, but the PROD could be addressed by this source, even if it is not an independent source. This AfD is probably the way to go.—Bagumba (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only significant source I found was not independent—he is the CEO of the company. The rest is just trivial mention in WP:ROUTINE game coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 5 February 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. Consensus is that the subject fails notability guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Farnborough & Fleet area

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

This article cites no sources to establish notability. It is unlikely that reliable secondary sources will ever be found to establish the notability of this set of routes. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Several similar articles have recently been deleted including Framlingham, Stradbroke and Laxfield and Stowmarket and Needham Market. Charles (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, area is too small to be of any significance. Arriva436/talk/contribs 20:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources at all have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sigh I think consensus gotten so clear on this that we don't need to waste AFD bytes, just WP:PROD them bus routes. Secret ^account 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of them have been prodded or AfDd before and so cannot be prodded again.--Charles (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to English Wikivoyage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:46, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Carter (New Orleans)

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

Unreferenced, promotional, resume-like treatment of an individual who has only been the subject of limited press coverage, all within New Orleans as far as I can see. A previous version of the article included references, but even then didn't clearly pass WP:GNG. (And it's a bit WP:WAX, but New Orleans city councilmen don't tend to have articles.) --BDD (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Local official only. Enos733 (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other New Orleans (Orleans Parish) Council members are in Wikipedia. Their constituencies are larger than those of legislators, who are included. Why delete this one? Rammer (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because of WP:BIO, specifically WP:POLITICIAN. If you mean state legislators, they're almost always notable as "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." A politician who hasn't at least held any sort of statewide office needs to meet WP:GNG, which I don't think Carter does. --BDD (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, has received multiple mentions in multiple reliable sources, however none I would consider meet significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Therefore, I have to go with deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per my standards for lawyers. He appears to me to be fairly notable on the local scene, but not beyond that. I'd like to have more information, i.e., a leading editor (managing editor, editor-in-chief, executive editor, president) of a law review or journal at an accredited law school, moot court competitions, bar association activities, Inns of Court, etc. He's not a tenured, full-time law professor. He's a city councillor. I could be convinced to "keep" if there were more facts that show notability. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 4 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Wilson (criminologist)

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

I have marked this article for deletion because the author does not seem to pass the notability test for academics, or for that matter the general notability tests. In particular, the article has no secondary sources and there is no evidence in the contents of the article that the author has made a significant impact within their discipline. The article has been marked for two-and-a-half years as failing the WP:ACADEMIC tests and no one appears to have added anything in that time that justifies retaining this article. That said, this is the first time I've nominated an article for deletion and it's only based on my reading of the two cited guidelines.144.82.171.231 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am completing this nomination on behalf of the above IP editor, using the rationale posted on the article talk page and at WT:AFD. I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [3] Gscholar h-index of 4, which is insufficient for WP:PROF#C1, and there appears to be no other claim to notability. Ray^Talk 10:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The citation counts for his papers that I'm seeing on Google scholar are in the teens, not enough to convince me of a pass of criterion #C1. And the total lack of third-party sourcing in the article is also a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:56, 2 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Ann Fairley

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

While this person seems to have had a role in forming a regional nursing association, I'm not sure that meets our notability threshold. Others may disagree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person is notable sir. As what you have said, she had a role in a regional nursing association. She is notable for most of her works sir in the Canadian society, to the Ontario society to be exact. An award was also named after her for enormous contributions to patient care and nurses rights. For me, she is notable and that is backed up by credible and notable references. Though quite few, I think those are enough to merit her notability.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 18:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just wanted to note that there was an obituary in the Windsor Star 20 July 2007, NEWS p.A3 - I didn't see that reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseferret (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- This nomination lapses from the advice of WP:BEFORE. I added the following references, from 1974, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1985 -- which show that Fairley was a notable leader, whose comments were regularly sought. I am always profoundly disturbed when a nominator drafts a vague nomination like this one -- where a red-linked talk page shows they made zero effort to use the talk page to express their concern. Nominations, like this one, which are vague, and don't cite a specific policy, lapse from the widely accepted advice of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It would have been far better if the nominator simply voiced their concern on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Henderson (1974-07-15). "Angry Nurses Seeking Support". Windsor Star. pp. 51–4. Retrieved 2013-02-04. Mrs. Lois Fairley, who represents the Ontario Nurses Association in the tri- county area, said the demonstrations are part of province-wide effort "to ...
"Hospital Officials Disappointed Over Cutback Order". Windsor Star. 1976-01-09. p. 60. Retrieved 2013-02-04. Lois Fairley, representative of the local Ontario Nurses Association with (ON 1.000 registered nurses in more than four city hospitals, said she didn't know ...
"Chronic Cases Said Cause Of Hospital Bed Shortages ". Windsor Star. 1977-04-07. p. 60. Retrieved 2013-02-04. At least 40 to 50 chronic patients are occupying active beds in Windsor's four hospitals and are contributing to a shortage of active beds, Lois Fairley, President of the Ontario Nurses' Association said Wednesday.
Chris Zdeb (1979-11-05). "Nurses: Overworked, understaffed". Windsor Star. Retrieved 2013-02-04. Lois Fairley, a past president of the Ontario Nursing Association and a head nurse of a medical/surgical ward at Grace Hospital, asks the question but isn't sure of the answer. It's like sitting on a time bomb, she says, and nurses are afraid patients may die because they haven't the time -- or the expertise -- to handle an overloaded roster of duties.
Chris Vander Doelen (1985-11-23). "Cutbacks at clinic deplored". Windsor Star. Retrieved 2013-02-04. "I think it's really a bad move, and I think it's going to affect the community," said Lois Fairley of the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, which has grieved the change.

just to clarify, are you claiming that this falls within "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." under WP:BIO ---- _nonsense ferret 14:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan, I think it has long been agreed that a person is not notable for merely appearing in the press when part of their role is to act as a spokesperson. That said, I don't put much effort into looking for sources when dealing with paid editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense-ferret, Ms Fairley was one of the founders of, and as an early president of, an important union. Am I asserting Ms Fairley's years as founder of and President of an important union -- combined with having an annual prize named after her, are sufficient to establish notability? Yes. Geo Swan (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious as to which of the WP guidelines you were using - WP:PEOPLE? ---- _nonsense ferret 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 5 February 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 Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PROUT in a Nutshell

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

This 26-volume collection of the speeches of Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature when a quotation from Sarkar is required, but I've not been able to track down any discussion of the collection itself that would establish notability. I should probably add that while this collection is certainly an artifact of a "political or religious movement" I haven't been able to find any independent sources that attest to this collection having influenced such a movement. Likewise, Sarkar is a minor player in 20th C. Indian religious movements and as such his life and works have not been a common subject of academic study.

Garamond Lethe 17:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or merge as nominator. I wouldn't object to a redirect to the Sarkar article. Garamond Lethe 17:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) as nom.[reply]

As nominator, it is assumed you support deletion/merge - no need to also "vote".--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a remarkably weak nomination. The nominator effectively admits notability in almost every sentence of his nomination: "cited moderately often in peer-reviewed literature", "player in 20th C. Indian religious movements", "a subject of academic study". That anyone would actually nominate 26 volumes of work for deletion on the basis of so many explicit or implicit admissions of notability only tends to call in question the many other AfDs that have been recently submitted - and amazingly pushed through - all of them connected with Sarkar's books. So I vote Keep... for the very reasons stated in Garamond's AfD nomination. --Abhidevananda (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those points concern the notability of Sarkar. This is not an AfD on Sarkar. It is on "PROUT in a Nutshell", and notability is not inherited. bobrayner (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, here, Bob. (1) The first point was not about Sarkar but rather about the series of books under consideration here. (2) All three points were raised by the nominator and not myself. If two of those three points are indeed irrelevant, then the nominator should not have mentioned them. In that case what we come up with is simply the nominator conceding that these 26 volumes are "cited moderately often in the peer-reviewed literature". That admission makes this AfD nomination appear frivolous. But why don't we save everyone a bit of time and trouble here? I am willing to stipulate that all of Garamond's and your compadres at Fringe/n would or will cast a Delete or Redirect vote here. And I am even willing to predict - not stipulate - that some Wikipedia admin will come here after seven days and simply tally the votes, ignoring the fact that there is no consensus and that the nominator's remarks only prove that the nomination should not have been made. Let's not waste our energy putting lipstick on this pig. --Abhidevananda (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in my academic career, a handful of months removed from the end of my postdoc, I have four papers with 50+ citations (two where I'm first author). None of these papers are notable (in the wikipedia sense of that word) because the citations are referencing the ideas in those papers, not discussing the papers themselves. PROUT in a Nutshell has ~25 citations, all of which are referencing the ideas in the book and not discussing the book itself. If you can get the wikipedia notability guidelines changed to take citations into account, great! Until then notability is established by independent, reliable publications discussing the work. Garamond Lethe 14:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, Garamond, but I don't think that sour grapes regarding your four papers is a bona fide justification for an AfD nomination on an article about a series of books (21 volumes, I believe). But, hey, I wish you well in your academic career. --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; still short of notability. It's impossible to develop neutral non-fringey content without sufficient coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar; as usual. History2007 (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's long comment & note for the closing Admin.: for nearly a month the same group of users is proposing the deletion of dozens of articles I had written on WP. All articles belonged to the vast literary production of a single author. Let's suppose that some articles were poorly written, or that others were even not very encyclopedic. But that all articles can be proposed for deletion by a single group of users with various excuses seems to me absurd and suspicious. WP was born to spread the totality of human knowledge, not only a part of it. Everyone is invited on WP to cooperatively create/maximize/improve new articles not to delete them. Deleting an article should only be an exceptional case and not a way of working of a group of editors. Censorship is an ancient art. I am experienced enough in history to be able to say that. Some expert users on WP seems not involved at all in the hard task of building new articles but in the relatively easy job of deleting many of them. Using bureaucratic quibbles as a weapon to censor/delete the encyclopedic representation of the part of knowledge that they simply don't like or don't understand.

Instead of devoting their energies to increase the number of new articles, literally they chase you all around WP, analitically examining your talks and articles to find loopholes or a reason to stop your editing if they don't agree with the contents. What I am saying are not chatter in the wind: you can easily check it by just doing an analysis of the historical contributions of many "deleters". Hundreds of hours used in inconclusive, furious quarrels, personal attacks, angry deletions reserved for the "enemies", many "good tips" and very, very few or no new articles at all.

My opinion is that this is the best way to kill WP: if everything will remain so many editors will go away one after another. At the same time the increasing volume of human knowledge will require in the near future an increasing number of editors... Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for the reasons above.--Cornelius383 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Does not appear to pass our book guidelines, but a redirect makes sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 3 February 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 Restored as per Dr. Blofeld, below. If someone does wish to recreate an article at this title, please discuss somewhere (WT:AFD, WP:REFUND, or the like) before removing this redirect. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodri Giggs

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

He may be the brother of ryan giggs but doesnt given him enough notability to have his own page Telfordbuck (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was redirected long ago, we know he doesn't meet professional requirements. AFD unnecessary as the article shouldn't even be there. I've put it on my watchlist.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:50, 29 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 merge to Berea City School District. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grindstone Elementary

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

Propose merging into the Berea City School District article or deleting. Most elementary schools, such as this one, do not warrant a standalone article for the limited content available that can be cited. GoneIn60 (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Elementary schools don't typically have their own article.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I have come to agree with Astros. — Ṟ ṈΛ 03:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the school district, which is standard procedure for elementary schools. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Berea City School District. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Berea City School District. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 2 February 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) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Bülowius

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

fails WP:BIO. She is an art history student who participated in a reality show. I quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knappik (participant of the same reality show but not just a student) "reality show participants are not considered inherantly notable here even if they garner some press as BLP1E kicks" Petr Ferreira (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator, as the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Of course I thought it through before I took the time to create this article, I wouldn't spend my time on it otherwise. But I noted the recent creation of the subject article on de.wikipedia and it being listed among the most popular articles on that wikipedia in this last week (68,000 views in days). The nomination is simply incorrect that "she participated in a reality show." She has participated in at least four "reality shows" in Germany over the past few years (and will soon appear in one more), with so much German media coverage that Stern has noted she is the "German Paris Hilton." Of course, not every (nor many) run of the mill single-show reality contestant merits an article. Sarah Knappik is a different person who received less coverage, even if the delete close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knappik was iffy (and it was kept at de.wiki despite their penchant for deletion over there).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:GNG, as shown by refs in article and in German version. The rules excluding reality TV stars are for those who're not famous beyond their participation in one show. She has been on multiple reality shows, and done other things attracting press interest. She could be compared to British celeb Jade Goody, who had a similar career based largely on reality TV. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A comparison with Jade Goody is even as absurd as a comparison with Paris Hilton. Their entries on the Internet Movie Database have the hundredfold size. The deletion discussion in German Wikipedia still runs and it seems that they do not think that she is as notable as Sarah Knappik. I also count just two reality shows which have an entry in the Internet movie database or Wikipedia and not four. --89.187.142.72 (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German press compare her to Paris Hilton, not us. The de.wiki deletion discussion is a mess because its filled with commenters disgruntled that she is so popular in Germany (one of whom likely joined en.wiki just to start this deletion discussion, as he probably did for the Knappik discussion). But even there, there are many "behalten" (keep) votes. Her appearances include the German Bachelor, German Get Me Out of Here, I'm a Celebrity, and at least 2 proseiben channel appearances prior to that (Teen Cruise season 2 being one). It also includes Celebrity Dinner and Celebrity Boxing (IMDB is not a reliable source for such things., always.) But this is not a counting exercise, you can't discount the continuing pervasive coverage of her in German media.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the coverage in reliable sources. Personally, I don't understand the fascination with these pseudo-celebs who are famous for being famous, but there's much in this world I don't fathom. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The German deletion discussion closed in a keep, de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/21._Januar_2013#Georgina_Bülowius_(bleibt), along the same grounds as Whpq's comment.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:08, 4 February 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. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation from http://www.kirkrichards.com/bio.htm JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Richards

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

The article is basically an autobiography copy-pasted from the person's personal home page. A Google search, Google Scholar, or Google News Archive don't find anything about the person. He is mentioned in one book about painting along with two other people which IMO is not enough for notability. --Farzaneh (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:52, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Gardner (knight)

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

This person probably did not exist. See the article talk page for discussion. Essentially it seems that the creator of this article, User:Lonewolfcg, made a lot of articles about people called Gardner, many of which have already been deleted. A now defunct web-page speculated that a soldier named William Gardner killed King Richard III AND that he was the same person who married Helen Tudor and became the father of cleric Stephen Gardiner. It seems that these are all different people and that there is no evidence whatever that any of them killed Richard III (or anyone else). This has become a minor case of "I read it on Wikipedia" syndrome, as some mainstream newspapers repeated the William Gardner tale after the recent discovery of the body said to be Richard's. An article in the journal The Ricardian (see article talk page) demonstrates that this William is a bloated conflation of multiple medieval Gardners. None of these are notable on their own. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think he did exist, but not in the form described in this article. Unless someone is prepared to take the trouble to research the subject fully, it is better to delete it than leave it as stands - at least that will be a warning to others in the future. Deb (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Humm, yes, let future Gardners be warned! Yes there were several Billy Gardners, but there's no evidence any were knights. There may have been a halberdier called Gardner (though there seems to be zero evidence for this) and there's no evidence he killed anyone. There was certainly a London businessman and a Bury-St-Edmunds cloth-merchant. Different people, neither notable as far as I can see. Were they one man, they might just be semi-notable for their spouses and offspring, but the big claim to notability seems to be chimerical. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article on his alleged son says that gives a differnet parentage. The article itself says that he was a commoner (i.e. not a knight). I cannot check the alleged Welsh sources, but the whole think looks unreliable to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 1 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Dombrowski

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

Nominating on behalf of the subject per OTRS Ticket Ticket:2013012310000322. Given that the majority of the coverage is from the Outstanding Teen competitions in 2008, I can see this as possibly falling into the category of WP:BLP1E and WP:PSEUDO (yes, it's multiple events, but the present sources don't cover much beyond her participation in the pageants), although I haven't looked into it at depth yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article was created by a single-purpose account, probably as a vanity piece by someone known to the subject. It has been vandalized three times ([4], [5], [6]), by someone inserting libelous material. Two of the three links to sources are now dead. I have tried to find online sources to replace them, but I have not found any that are reliable. The subject is notable for a single event - winning the Miss Wisconsin's Outstanding Teen 2008 competition. None of the other winners of this competition, from 2005 to 2012, have WP articles, suggesting a general lack of notability for this event. Given the lack of verifiable sources for this BLP and the questionable notability of the subject, I recommend deletion. -- Mesconsing (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When someone wants an article about themselves to be deleted, we should respect that wish unless there's some compelling reason to keep it.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per request of subject, whose notability is borderline at best. Mabalu (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The state pageant is not a major one. I do not see the coverage that would establish that any of our iclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability is borderline (as it is here), deletion at the request of the subject is well-precedented. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article suggests it meets WP:ANYBIO. Considering the OTRS I am inclined towards delete immediately. Mkdw ^talk 12:40, 4 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League

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

PROD tag was not removed, but was contested by article creator with this edit summary so I am bringing it here. This is a wholly non-notable, minor, local, amateur sports league - no evidence of any notability whatsoever. Giant Snowman 15:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for a similar reason; PROD contested by same article creator in edit summary, this is a team which plays in the league, no evidence of notability.

Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both clearly fail WP:NSPORT. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Govvy, fails WP:NSPORT iComputer SaysNo 15:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these also fail the general notability guideline as there are very few ghits to be found on either, short of directory pages and Facebook. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Articles' creator put the below on the talk page of this AfD, I move it here to ensure that everyone sees it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to editing on Wikipedia and so apologise for not doing things correctly so far. I have been reading the Wikipedia help section to try and remedy the problems. The two pages I have created concern for one - the South Manchester and Cheshire Christian Football League (SMCCFL). This is genuine league that has taken place for years. The SMCCFL's website can be found at http://www.leaguewebsite.co.uk/smccfl/Home to verify its authenticity. The second is a page for one of the teams - Kay Street Baptist Church Football Club. Again, I consider them to be of notable interst as they are a football club that anyone can join as part of the Church's role in the community. Their website can be found at http://kaystreetbaptistfc.co.uk/, which again proves their authenticity. I hope that you agree that these are notable and could suggest any revisions needed. Thanks, TJPGrey
Comment to article creator - please note that nobody doubts that the league and team exist, however the nominator contends (and several people seem to agree) that they do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, namely that the subject of an article needs to have been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, third-party sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The individual teams are certainly NN. I am not familiar with the level to which articles are allowed on leagues, but at best it can only be on the margins of notability. My own church has a football team, which plays in a local league. This is not the local secular league, because they play on Sundays, probably so that they could traditionlly watch their local League 1-4 team from the stands. The Christian leagues tend to play on Saturdays, so as not to interfere with church attendence. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both league and teams are not notable. There is a churches league in my local area and I have never seen any coverage of it at all, not even in the fairly parochial local paper..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:12, 2 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toshiaki Sakoda

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

This person doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria I can find, such as Wikipedia:Notability. He is a Japanese composer and arranger. but His Articles in the Japanese wikipedia has been deleted as Non-notable.--ぱたごん (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%89%8A%E9%99%A4%E4%BE%9D%E9%A0%BC/%E8%BF%AB%E7%94%B0%E6%95%8F%E6%98%8E

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bensci54 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party sources or in-depth coverage to verify notability or justify a self-standing biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 23:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if his Japanese article was deleted due to a lack of notability and independent coverage, then what more here? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it very strange that he is not mentioned on any of his album articles. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Mkdw ^talk 02:25, 5 February 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zaguehi

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

Very short, unsourced article about a surname. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT. - Mr X 13:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT. Andrew³²⁷ 13:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article has not encyclopedic value. It is just a meaning of a african name. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 13:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research unless it can be supported by a reliable source and then subsequently an assertion to notability in multiple reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 02:26, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tam Sheang Tsung

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It states in the infobox that he has played on the Malaysian national team. Bensci54 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. It states that he has not played for the national team. WP:NSPORT excludes those players who have been called up, but never played for a national team. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - until he actually plays for the Malaysian national team, then I can't see how he is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level. Also fail WP:GNG, as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 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. WP:CSD#G7 author request. No need to use AfD for this. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firoza Khan

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

I create this article some time ago and provide some references too but unable to find any reliable reference for this BLP.Moreover,the person is not so notable to remain as i realize.Please delete it. ---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 12:09, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of songwriter collaborations

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

No clear criteria for inclusion. Terms like "few", "lengthy", "influence", "measured in decades" are completely subjective, and assigning any actual number would be arbitrary. For instance, The Peach Pickers have dozens of hits, but would theirs be of lasting impact? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, long, and non-notable IMO Vaca tion 9 12:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incomplete, unmaintainable and non-notable list, it lacks several influential duets, and also does not cite any source to back-up what is claimed in the article. Wikipedia is not a personal playlist or any of some sort. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually like to insert threaded replies in such discussions, but in looking this over again I think I'd better. Almost all lists are incomplete—this is Wikipedia, the ultimate work in progress—so the claim of incompleteness is specious. There's zero evidence in the article history that the list has had maintenance problems, let alone has been "unmaintainable". It does meet the notability guideline. It not only lacks "several influential duets" but lacks any duets: it's a list of people. (Ditto re your mention of playlists.) So of all the points you crammed into that short !vote, we're left only with the issue of sourcing (which has already been addressed below and can be fixed in the article). Please consider actually looking at the article in question before commenting here. Rivertorch (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is pointless and unencyclopedic. I say pointless because it only lists names, and unencyclopedic because lists like these are not proper encyclopedia references. Besides, most of these songwriter collaborations can be mentioned on the article songwriter. Epzik8 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the simple criterion "This is a list of famous songwriting teams." References aren't all that hard to find[7][8][9][10] and the academics have sunk their esoteric teeth into the subject.[11][12] It just needs some cleanup and sourcing, along with eras and genres. Clarityfiend (talk)
Keep. This is a tremendously useful starting point for anyone seeking information about collaborative songwriting, and I'm not aware of any other article that could appropriately have similar scope. (Songwriter? Absolutely not.) The inclusion criteria can easily be tightened up, and perhaps they should, but they've actually worked quite well thus far: the article has actually been well maintained, entries that don't meet the existing criteria have been removed, and constructive discussion about the criteria has taken place on the talk page. As Clarityfiend notes, sourcing wouldn't be difficult, but it's also not an urgent problem, since the content easily meets WP:V and isn't controversial. Just a list of names? Yeah, at the moment. But a brief description can be added to each entry to explain who the names belong to and why they're noteworthy. Missing entries? Well, of course. Is there such a thing as a finished Wikipedia article? Even Featured Lists have been known to have omissions! The fact that a list is imperfect isn't a valid reason to delete it. A more appropriate solution is to improve it. Rivertorch (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how do we improve it? Any sort of criterion would just be arbitrary. Those that have written X amount of songs over Y years = arbitrary. Those with a "lasting impact" = totally subjective and unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point on the talk page last year that impact is subjective. That's not an insurmountable problem, though. Lots of criteria for lists (both standalone and within articles) involve setting various thresholds. It's not a completely arbitrary process—it just requires someone making a reasonable proposal and other editors agreeing with it. I do not believe impact is unverifiable. There surely are ample reliable sources testifying to the lasting impact of lots of songwriting teams. Rivertorch (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that there's a problem here. We don't have to (nor should we) set arbitrary standards. The criterion is simply that reliable sources say they're notable collaborative teams. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've started a major overhaul. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic of "songwriter collaborations" is a notable one. This book, for example, focuses entirely on seven songwriting teams. This Rolling Stone piece also discusses many of these teams at length. Another book contains a 66-page chapter on British songwriters, with much of it devoted to collaborations (e.g., Carter/Lewis, Lennon–McCartney). Billboard magazine has this article from 1995 on the "team-writing trend" in Nashville. This 1977 column from the magazine ranks the songwriting teams with the most number-one hits. These books on the business of songwriting address the process of collaborating (with notable examples) in detail. So, the topic satisfies WP:LISTN in my view. As to what the list's criteria should be, Clarityfiend's suggestion of "famous songwriting teams" works for me as a starting point. The Peach Pickers would seem to qualify (Billboard and Reuters call them a hit songwriting trio). To use a request from the list's talk page, Mark Hoppus and Tom DeLonge would not qualify for inclusion here as I'm not seeing reliable sources identify them specifically as "songwriter collaborators". Gong show 21:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Warden (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure, but keep I guess. Songwriting collaborations (mostly duos) are a notable phenomena. The points about inclusion criteria are valid, but so are the rebutting points. FWIW I watch this page and try to keep to it trimmed somewhat. If if ever goes unwatched it could turn into a mess though. On the other hand the new format changes do add more useful info. Herostratus (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Gong. As to the argument "this is incomplete", that is true of a high percentage of our lists. We don't generally delete on that basis. Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 2 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Richmond

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

BLP of questionable notability. The only sources I was able to find was the subject's member profile on the subject's web forum. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 12:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per WP:N. Only sources, as the nom said, were self-published or just a forum. Vaca tion 9 12:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dubious BLP, the sources on the article are fabricated by the person which this article is suppose to describe. This violate the principle of neutrality. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:57, 30 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) 23:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spanishpod101

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

Doesn't pass WP:CORP. I couldn't find any sources about this online, and the only sources in the article are primary. The parent company, Innovative Language Learning, also does not seem notable. (However, one of their products, Japanesepod101, does pass WP:CORP.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is a related deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovative Language Learning. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I could find a couple reviews - it seems this software is widely used. I don't know why it would need to pass WP:CORP either because it is software. [13] is one example. It's a bit on the edge but I would give it the benefit of the doubt. Vaca tion 9 12:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about WP:CORP#Products and services, but probably saying WP:GNG would have been better. About the link you posted - it looks very much like a self-published source, and we can't use those to count toward notability. Do you have a link for the other review you found? Maybe that one will fare better with relation to WP:RS. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Stradivarius said, that source I linked isn't really a reliable source. The other one wasn't reliable either. Don't know what I was thinking at the time, but I'm changing my vote to delete. Fails WP:GNG. Vaca tion 9 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This company and its roost of softwares are not notable, with the sole exception of the Japanesepod101, there are few reviews from few unreliable or self-published sources, only mentions or whatsoever. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't meet the notability guidelines. More coverage is needed to satisfy this. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 31 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace

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

unintelligible to the point it's not even clear where this is, and unsourced Jac16888 ^Talk 18:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Similar articles Cheng Huang Temple and God Temple are also nominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Huang Temple & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Temple ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this article is supposed to be about a building in the Zuoying District of Kaohsiung, but I haven't been able to identify from the article which one. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 12 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) 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is about this temple [14] Uaat (talk) 16:02, 18 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, Courcelles 00:56, 22 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As the nom said, you can't tell what they even mean. Nothing for a Google search for the subject; doesn't appear like it exists or if it does it isn't notable. Vaca tion 9 12:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Uaat pointed out, it's about a building located near Lotus Lake named "先樹三山宮". You'll probably not find much with a partially translated Chinese phrase. Plus, a poorly written article isn't a valid criteria for deletion. Funny ^Pika! 00:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TNT is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 5 February 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 City god. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Huang Temple

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

unintelligible and unsourced Jac16888 ^Talk 18:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly verging on the unintelligible, but independent sources can be found: [15]. That leaves the question of whether the place is notable? AllyD (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A page with this has been recently deleted by a administrator. The recent page was also proposed for deletion. --74.131.177.233 (talk) 00:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Similar articles Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace and God Temple are also nominated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian Ju Three Mountain Palace & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Temple ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:38, 10 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are there multiple Cheng Huang Temples in Taiwan? I was looking through Google Books and found some independent sources which describe Cheng Huang Temple in Hsinchu City, Cheng Huang Temple in Taichung, Cheng Huang Temple in Taipei, and Cheng Huang Temple in Tainan (which AllyD pointed out). I couldn't find any listings of a temple in Kaohsiung. Am I missing something? Braincricket (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng Huang(城隍) is City god. Temples worshiping city gods are called "Cheng Huang Temple", so there are hundreds of them. The article being nominated was about one of them: "Zuoying Cheng Huang Temple". I rewrote the article about the general Cheng Huang Temple and redirected "Zuoying Cheng Huang Temple" to a section about it in Lotus Lake.Uaat (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City God. As Uaat mentioned, the article was initially created for Zauying Cheng Huang Temple in Kaohsiung but has evolved into a general definition. City god already covers both subjects in detail so I don't see a point in another content fork. Funny ^Pika! 21:55, 20 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, Courcelles 00:58, 22 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to a correspondent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to city god. In English, the current title is slightly misleading; this is about a class of temples, not one temple of Cheng Huang; and the subject seems to be best covered by the chief article. If an specific city god temple is notable an article can be written about it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 29 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) 01:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd. Masood Ahmed

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

This subject fails WP:BASIC notability guidelines for want of substantial coverage by unrelated parties. He also fails alternative criteria at WP:PROFESSOR; at least no part of the text before BLP & RS cleanup contained claims approaching that threshold, and no reliable sources that I've found indicate those criteria are met. This subject also fails WP:POLITICIAN despite his political connections and public positions, none of which confer automatic notability or even indicate substantial coverage of the subject because he is most often covered as a spokesperson, speaking about other (possibly noteworthy) topics. This living person's biography seems to be dedicated to promotion of a non-notable figure. JFHJr (㊟) 00:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:03, 10 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) 22:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Googling is infeasible due to popularity of names like Mohammed, Masood, and Ahmed. As nominator has noted, insufficient coverage in originally supplied article to pass GNG. A review of the subject's CV on his own website doesn't have anything jump out at me as likely to help provide a pass of WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 17:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a strong possibility of the subject passing WP:PROF criterion 6 as principal of the Deccan School of Management, a government-accredited higher education institution, and president of the Association of Indian Management Schools. I don't recall any instances of any equivalent institutions in the anglophone West not being considered major enough for the purposes of this criterion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say so. A stand-alone school hosting a 2-year program with 120 students per year, with a total of 10 faculty members, is not a "major academic institution" in the sense of WP:PROF criterion 6, nor would I consider the Deccan School of Management a "highly regarded academic independent institute or research center." There is actually am ambiguity here, since the Deccan School of Management falls under the Dar-us-Salam trust which manages several other schools, which together may constitute an institution of some importance, but if we take that interpretation, the head of a component of a school is not the highest academic officer. There may be a claim with respect to the Association of Indian Management Schools, but since that organization bills itself as a "networking organization" on its website I don't think it falls under the academic rubric, and we revert to the GNG. Ray^Talk 19:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that Phil's position may be tenable on a cursory reading of the guideline and of that particular criterion. But according to the general WP:PROF notes, the criterion notes, and WP:GNG, meeting one criterion tenuously on a single ground is not adequate, especially when the reliability of sources giving substantial coverage is in question. Here, no reliable source appears to provide substantial coverage, and overall academic impact is apparently negligible. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 20 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, Courcelles 00:53, 22 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I only found social networks and youtube videos with a search. This doesn't pass the BASIC guideline and thus delete. Vaca tion 9 12:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, a quick search only results what my comrades already stated as above, a bunch of youtube videos and social network profiles. Unless someone provide some reliable source to sustain its notability factor I don't see why this person deserves an article within WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:15, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SKB Cases

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

Appears to be a non-notable corporation. Unable to find significant independent coverage. Danger ^{High voltage!} 10:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable manufacturer of cases for musical instruments. Google News Archive found a few passing mentions and a few press releases; not nearly enough to meet WP:CORP. Unreferenced for the past six years; thanks to Danger for finding and nominating it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please thank instead an employer of a competitor who used it to argue OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Danger ^{High voltage!} 17:38, 13 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, ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:32, 15 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, Courcelles 00:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I recognised the name immediately - I'm pretty sure you could buy these in any music shop in the UK. It's a really tough call, there isn't a lot of goog-lable news coverage exactly, but my instinct is that it is such a well known brand in the music world that there must be something out there, and I find it hard to believe its not notable. ~~I'll keep looking~~ I looked and couldn't find much save some video reviews of their products in NME videos, not really worth reproducing, shame ---- _nonsense ferret 19:33, 22 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, Mediran (t • c) 10:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable manufacturer with extremely short article. Per nonsense above, there isn't anything that indicates the subject's notability per WP:GNG. Vaca tion 9 12:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unverified stub about a seemingly non-notable manufacturing company. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This business makes cases for musical instruments. No showing of significant effects on history, technology, or culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:40, 29 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. An unnecessary sidetrack, but consensus is clear.Kubigula (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary war

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

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

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

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

There's no there there. Contains only a list of "unnecessary wars", and a list of "See also" entries, most of which would be inappropriate even if there were an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. Not only is there nothing of interest in the present article, I can't imagine an encylopedic article being written. Even a definition would be problematic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been greatly expanded, but with nothing related to the topic. I do ask those who have !voted to consider whether the changes would affect their decision or reasoning. It doesn't affect mine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having served in Afghanistan for a year, it's hard to think of a more notable topic. --Xerographica (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the topic wasn't notable; I said that there is not and is not likely to be anything in reliable sources about the topic, as opposed to about individual wars (necessary, or not). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read through all the reliable sources that I included in the article? --Xerographica (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? The material in the article consists only of an unsourced quasi-definition, a list of wars said to be unnecessary, a "See also" section (mostly irrelevant). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the sources in the "References" section. It's the section immediately after the "See also" section. --Xerographica (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In context, I should only need to look at them to see if they support the lead. Whether or not they do, the lead doesn't have anything which can be supported, or would support the existence of an article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a classic example of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. None of the claimed "references", with the exception of this one (and possibly another which requires subscription), are actually focused on the term. The rest just used it as a descriptive phrase in normal language, not differently from how a food columnist may call a place a "good restaurant". As such, those refs do nothing to support the existence of the article as a distinct concept. On the other hand, Unused highway, which seems equally absurd as an article, was previously kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help me understand why so many people think that Wikipedia is a dictionary? Because according to core policy...it's really not. --Xerographica (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your query. Where did anyone say that this article should be a dictionary definition? It currently seems pretty much like one though, as it lacks in-depth analysis of the concept citable to reliable sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do below, several hours after this exchange. This stub is in the form of a dictionary definition. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an interesting case. This reads like original content and aren't any sources directly about this topic. It's a bit like an ESSAY as well. Vaca tion 9 12:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not surprising. In his time here, Xerographica has racked up a long record of "articles" that are basically original research and synthesis, often presenting them more as essays than anything else. If you try to call him on it, he says you're an ignorant amateur and should shut up. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair. 1. The merits of this discussion turn on the value/merits/whatever of this article, not the original contributor or his behavior. 2. His recent comments on talk pages have been quite civil. He may even qualify for a Barnstar in this regard. – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet WP:SAA. it is hard to see how this could be anything other than "advocacy and controversial material". Each of the entries is someone's opinion that particular wars were unnecessary. And then the list would go on and on and on. (Too bad we do not see Pig War listed.) To balance the article, other peoples' opinions would have to be added to say "no -- that war was necessary." If the article is intended to talk about war as an unnecessary event in general, then pacifism and anti-war are available to cover the subject. It won't work to say "'Unnecessary war' is a concept that should have its' own article -- look at the RS that use the term." They only use the term because the RS is advocating their views about those particular wars, and not about unnecessary war as an overall concept.--S. Rich (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No encycloped value, is this some kind of philosophical or motivational poster. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's easy to argue all wars are unnecessary; or that every war is necessary. This article would never be able to be neutral (the title itself already marks it out on a specific side) either. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Also a classic example of my own Timbo's Rule No. 14: "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I will state though that philosophers have for centuries been debating the question of what constitutes a "just war", and conversely, what makes some wars "unjust" or "unnecessary". A rewritten article referencing prominent philosophers discussing this topic could be encyclopedic and satisfy WP:NPOV. However, just war theory already covers this subject reasonably well, so introducing an overview of this philosophical debate into the article in question would simply be redundant. Moreover, my Google searches do not suggest that "unnecessary war" has become a widely adopted phrase, so I don't see the need for a redirect to just war theory. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, I beg of you folks. Please, please, please, please learn enough about economics in order to make an informed decision on the topic. Otherwise, you're simply doing me, and the readers, a huge disservice. Please see the talk page for my explanation of basic public economics. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not one of economics or government spending or even the wisdom of various government policies. This discussion is about a particular article -- the problem with this article is that it can only serve as a soapbox.--S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look over the entry. I hastily added some relevant and useful content. There's plenty more reliably sourced content that can be added. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't notice you said that. It doesn't affect my reasoning, but I also ask that those who have !voted to consider whether the changes affect their votes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't affect my reasoning either. Some of the freshly added material in the section entitled "Opportunity costs of war" is, in my opinion, worth discussing from the standpoint of just war theory - which is precisely where it is best to discuss it. In my view, it has still not been sufficiently demonstrated that the need for a separate article exists. --Mike Agricola (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I posted on this talk page? It's the difference between philosophy and economics. --Xerographica (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were to focus on the economic aspect of wars, you'd have to find some reliable sources to support your claim (for example case studies or research papers). Then find sources linking this to the phrase "unnecessary war". At the moment, I can only see opinion piece references describing wars as unnecessary. Funny ^Pika! 01:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you dispute what I posted on this talk page? --Xerographica (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're trying to merge two distinct issues into one extremely subjective topic. I still can't see a verifiable link between the two. Funny ^Pika! 02:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the two distinct issues? --Xerographica (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps philosophy and economics?--S. Rich (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Xerographica, yes I did take a look at the Talk page to which you linked. The problem as I see it is this: Although the article could (conceivably) be rewritten to satisfy WP:NPOV, the subject matter just isn't sufficiently unique to warrant its existence as a separate article. Some of the arguments made do touch on philosophy (e.g. value of human life). The cost of conflict already discusses some of the economic arguments including the opportunity cost of war. Indeed, cost of conflict would be a good merge destination for some of the material that has been recently added to the article, especially as cost of conflict already has its own subsection entitled "Opportunity Cost". Other relevant articles like antiwar have already been mentioned. Moreover, it also needs to be demonstrated that "unnecessary war" is an established idiom of economics, analogous to "just war" in the context of philosophy. --Mike Agricola (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up a lot of good points. Honestly I didn't even know that there was a cost of conflict article. But there's an article for unused highway and bridge to nowhere...so it didn't seem that much of a stretch, given the numerous reliable sources that have covered the concept, for there to be an article on unnecessary war. From the economic perspective...there's absolutely no difference between an unused highway, a bridge to nowhere and an unnecessary war. It's simply where the government has supplied a greater amount of a public good than the public truly demands. This is a direct result of the preference revelation problem... User:Xerographica/Preference_revelation. Can all this be covered in the cost of conflict article? Sure...just like it can also be covered in the opportunity cost article...and in the article on the parable of the broken window. But, from my perspective, based on a thorough review of public economics...User:Xerographica/Principles of taxation...this topic is certainly notable enough to warrant its own entry. Unfortunately, it seems doomed by a consensus of Wikipedia editors who are not familiar with public economics. So I moved it over to a subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're certainly more than welcome to give me a hand developing it. --Xerographica (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that some of the editors here are not economics majors, or experts in the field? "Unnecessary wars" is not an issue, in my eyes, that has ANYTHING to do with economics - to me, that title is to do with morals, and whether one perceives a war has removed a perceived oppression, or not. Any economical aspect in this article is a duplication of the opportunity cost and cost of conflict articles by default, and belongs there. Anything else will almost certainly violate WP:NPOV. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor who has voted here was even remotely familiar with public economics then they would have replied to my post on this talk page with an informed comment. --Xerographica (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad assumption. You can't assume everyone will go to the talk page... Lukeno94 (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You're arguing that in any given group of editors...there's going to be a reasonable amount who've read James M. Buchanan and Elinor Ostrom? I WISH! No, your assumption is extremely far-fetched...while mine is based on a firm understanding that our society is based on a division of labor. Isn't it a moot point though? There's a clear consensus that this article should be deleted. It's very unfortunate...but that's just how Wikipedia works...sometimes...too many times...User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs. Personally, I think the solution is that, given that a division of labor increases productivity, the deletion review process should occur at the relevant projects. --Xerographica (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how consensus works, and goodness knows that would be a disaster (take the MMA setup, for example...). As people pointed out on the talk page, that essay has absolutely no relevance to whether this article should be kept. And just one properly informed member would be enough to swing a consensus, which is based on policy-based arguments, not vote counts. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A firm understanding of policy is useless if somebody doesn't have an equally firm understanding of the topic in question. And clearly, based on a complete lack of counter-arguments on the talk page, nobody here has a firm understanding of public economics. Therefore, the outcome of this AFD will simply reflect a lack of relevant knowledge. --Xerographica (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't, and no, it doesn't. The thing you put on the talk page is borderline inappropriate, and is irrelevant to this deletion debate anyway. The fact you still fail to see is that this is a combination of two Wikipedia "sins": duplication of other topics, and it will be impossible for this not to violate WP:NPOV. You can make good judgements based on policy without knowledge of a field, as they're generally written well enough for an evaluation to be made. If you want to keep your information about the financial aspects of war, then by all means contribute to the appropriate articles, as, being blunt, this particular one belongs in the bin. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article should be deleted because it would be impossible for it not to violate WP:NPOV? LOL. That's ridiculous. Articles don't violate NPOV...editors do. So basically you're saying that this article should be deleted because editors, such as yourself, would not be able to maintain a NPOV. Is there something in the article that currently violates NPOV? If there is...then DIY and correct the deficiency. --Xerographica (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you go over that last comment again you might realise that most people here are trying to correct that by advocating for its deletion. There are many issues on this page, so it would be easier just to delete then start over. I am not against this article in principle but it currently reads like an opinionated essay rather than an encyclopedic article, which may put off quite a few people. To summerise the main problems on this page:

The only useable content is currently a dictionary definition. The lead would have to be expanded to cover more analysis on the phrase for it to pass as an article.
Most of the sources on the page are biased ones. The phrase itself is not supported by any reliable sources. People will continue to debate whether the term is notable or original research until this happens.
The term "unnecessary" is contentious because there are many ways one can view it. The fact that it comes just before a list of recent American wars does not help it maintain a neutral point of view. Include more non-American/historical examples with why they were referred to as an "unnecessary war" to balance it out.
The addition of economics only serves to add more problems to the article rather than support it. The link between economics and "unnecessary war" is not obvious and should be explained. It is not that the majority of people here do not understand economics, but rather how economics relates to the term "unnecessary war".
Some links in the See also section may not directly relate to the subject and instead infer a point of view. Either explain their relevance in the article or replace them with more relevant links e.g. Cost of conflict and Just war theory

Try and improve the article addressing the above points. Funny ^Pika! 17:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FunnyPika, those are all great and wonderful suggestions, and clearly it's not a mission impossible to build a neutral article on the subject of the main reasons why people perceive a war to be unnecessary. But somehow it strikes me wrong, and against the very idea of a collaborative project, for there to be the expectation for me to do all the heavy lifting of creating a half-way decent article. Clearly the article is going to be deleted...so I moved it over to my subpage...User:Xerographica/Unnecessary_war. You're more than welcome to post your suggestions on the talk page and, if you're so inclined, also more than welcome to make whatever contributions you see fit. Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fed up of this, so won't continue the debate, but the majority of people here also agree that this would never be neutral... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xerographic's pretensions of being an academic are funny, in that at least one of his pseudo-articles ostensibly on economics was nominated for deletion by an actual Harvard-educated professor of economics. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which pseudo-article was it? --Xerographica (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xerographica, himself, has not made any pretense about being an academic. And comments in this regard are unfair. Furthermore, they detract from the topic at hand -- whether this article should be deleted. Let's drop this unnecessary and unhelpful PA.-- – S. Rich (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Baloney -- about Xerographica's pretension of knowledge, the claim my statement is a personal attack, AND that it's "unnecessary and unhelpful". Xerographica has -- here and elsewhere -- proclaimed authoritative knowledge AND claimed implicitly and explicitly that others do not have said knowledge. This empty assertion of authority should be highlighted.

Which pseudo-article was it? I'll let you figure it out. More amusing was your attempt to lecture the aforementioned economics professor on his field during the AFD. --Calton | Talk 12:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the consensus is to delete this article (and I wish the discussion would close). But my point is that Xerographica has not claimed he is an academic. He only goes about saying he knows a lot of stuff. In any event, whether his statements are empty assertions of authority, here or in any discussion, does not matter much. Let's simply get this discussion over with. – S. Rich (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calton, if there was any truth to your claim, then you would have absolutely no problem substantiating it by sharing the "psuedo-article" that you are referring to. --Xerographica (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the slightest difficulty with backing up the simple truth of my claim -- and it is straightforwardly factual, so I'll expect your apology after you figure it out -- but perhaps you should be used to dodging proof of claims made (though in my case I have actual facts on my side). But given your crack research skills, it should be child's play, right? Further hint: it's at least TWO pseudo-articles which were nominated for deletion by an actual economist. Even among the pile of your WP:OR quote farms that you've had nuked, that should narrow it down, don't you think?

But I'll make you a deal: explain 1) where your authority as an economics expert derives; 2) your specific education in economics; 3) how you know, exactly, that this background outweighs all the editors you've proclaimed incompetent (and for which you've been blocked for proclaiming); 4) how you know what the other editors' backgrounds are. Do so, and I'll reveal the really simple fact you don't seem to be able to figure out.

And Srich32977, has both claimed to know things AND said that no one else is competent to discuss his edits. Including to you. Which is, you know, false. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any "expertise" on my part derives from being interested enough in the articles I edit to actually read the relevant reliable sources. That's it. It's really as simple as that. But because I do make the effort to read what the RS's have to say about the topic...I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Despite the fact that these other editors have never read a single RS on the topic...they still feel qualified to make substantial content cuts to the article. That's a problem.

Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying that I should apologize to this unknown economist for disagreeing with them? LOL. That's too funny. --Xerographica (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I apologize if you actually substantiated your claim? For your constant -- and pure imaginary -- implication that the simple (and easily checkable) claim is false and for your laziness in making that implication without even the slightest attempt to substantiate it by simply looking at a few user pages. And speaking of which...

I can easily identify other editors who have not read what the RS's say about the topic. Except that, given that the subject of one of your "identifications" and subsequent snotty lecturing was, in fact, the aforementioned Harvard-educated economics professor, I'd say your psychic powers aren't as reliable as you think they are. In other words, the answer to numbers 3 and 4 is "my imagination".

But thank you for clarifying: you've mistaken amateur reading for education,: that is, you've never actually tested in any real way what you think you know against what is actually known, which is a basic part of education. It's the sort of thing which leads to garage tinkerers thinking that they've invented perpetual motion machines, and to basic logic fails like this. --Calton | Talk 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's your claim...so why should I have to be the one who substantiates it? The burden of proof is on you. Once you provide your proof then I'll look it over and decide for myself whether there's any credibility to the editor's claim. But what difference does it make if the editor truly is a Harvard-educated econ professor? When it comes to content disputes...whether somebody is "right" or "wrong" should be determined by what the RS's have to say about the subject. And thus far, really the only editor that I've interacted with who has shown any real interest in what the RS's have to say about the subject is Thomasmeeks... Talk:Public_choice_theory#Hansj.C3.BCrgens.27_Definition. Pretty much everybody else is far more interested in discussing their opinions on the subject. --Xerographica (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a soapboxing essay on a topic that can never be neutral. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article doesn't even stick to its ostensible topic, but instead switches to editorializing in favor of tax choice (violating neutral point of view). If, somehow, this article manages to get kept, it needs to be revised to avoid systemic bias -- every war that this article suggests may have been an "unnecessary war" is a war that the United States engaged in during the last 65 years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see that the editor is putting a lot of effort to put this article into a encyclopedic format, lets give him/her a break, and see where it goes. So far it is lacking neutrality. It is a delicate subject, but I think that if the editor put some effort into it, I'd even sum up´my effort to the editor's. The subject is clearly notable, it needs to avoid any devise. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 05:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely impossible to define. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - regardless of the effort puts in to this subject, or any canvassing going on in here, my vote still stands - as I stated, anyone can argue that all wars (not just war X) are unnecessary, whilst also anyone can state that all wars are indeed necessary. This article will also be highly unlikely to become neutral. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Buckshot; having an article with this topic is like having an article on 'bad books' or 'Unsuccessful politicans' - it's about a generic viewpoint, and not something which can ever be defined in a sensible or consistent manner. The fact that the article as written is an essay basically illustrates this problem. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Buckshot, Bushranger, and Nick-D. Intothat darkness 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination is correct. This article is irredeemable. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapboxing quote farm, padded with a bunch of irrelevant "See also" links. Trying to format it as an encyclopedia article makes it as actually encyclopedic in the same way that building a wooden framework would really get you a DC-3. --Calton | Talk 17:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously as a Quaker I consider this term redundant; obviously others would disagree with me. There is no way on earth a NPOV encyclopedia article on this subject could be written. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - silly article that will never be NPOV, whats next? Necessary war?--Staberinde (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, see WP:NOTESSAY or WP:NOTSOAPBOX.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a "Speedy" reason. Perhaps it should be. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Would the Opt Out of Iraq War Act have been neutral content for the unnecessary war article? --Xerographica (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. Still no real indication that the war is/was "unnecessary" as a statement of fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% SYNTH, OR, POV, and SOAPBOX. SPECIFICO talk 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - maybe this should be closed as a Snow Delete? Lukeno94 (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the deletion arguments in fact illustrate uneasiness with the article's title, which indeed contains an implicit opinion. It should rather have been called "Necessity of War". This is indeed a notable philosophical issue that has been debated for millenia (Plato devoted a book to it). This article should contain a summary of various notable opinions on the issue. At most it should be renamed. The topic is adjacent to Bellum iustum but is distinct from it. Imperfection does not mean the debate does not exist. Alfy32 (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good argument for Delete. There's nothing in any revision of this article which should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days have elapsed since this AfD was initiated. Dear non-involved administrator -- please close this discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Farrell (soccer)

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully pro league. PROD contested based on the fact that substantive news coverage was found, and seemed likely to be notable according to the person that contested it. However, there is still no significant coverage for the article to meet GNG. – Michael (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only just. At the moment he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but the honours he has recently won (Big East Defensive Player of the Year and First Team NSCAA All-American) are pretty notable awards, and the media coverage they've given him are just about enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines, in my opinion. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, and the coverage he has received is routine, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Although he hasn't yet played, but he has been drafted into a pro league. He has also received multiple awards. Bensci54 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was the overall number one draft pick at the just-concluded 2013 MLS SuperDraft, and has been the subject of piles of coverage in reliable sources, which discuss not only his performance as a college star and his prospects under his new MLS contract, but also his interesting background story as a kid from Louisville who learned to play soccer in Peru where his parents were missionaries for 10 years. Passes GNG, and I can't see how deleting this article would be a net positive for Wikipedia's coverage of American soccer.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep based on post-secondary awards garnered and prominence of being chosen first in the MLS draft which seems to meet GNG. However, I do see that he currently fails NFOOTBALL. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as noted he was the first overall draft pick in this year's draft, there's no doubt in anybody's mind that he will be the most "used" rookie in the MLS and making a page is inevitable. Look at previos MLS SuperDraft and anyone at the top does not go unnoticed 2012 MLS SuperDraft, 2011 MLS SuperDraft, 2010 MLS SuperDraft, etc. .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpapolo716 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)— Gpapolo716 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the #1 draft pick by the top professional soccer league in the United States plus significant coverage in reliable sources sufficient to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Has significant coverage in reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received significant coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:10, 5 February 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DoctorKubla (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations

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

Repeated listing; refer List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names Ninney (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had nominated the article for deletion on grounds of duplication but later realise (only after clicking on the EDIT tab) that it is actually calling an article (transcluded) & not maintaining a list on 2 separate articles. This is the original article & this is where it is actually listed again. Generally, I had seen that the main article has a wikilink of the sub article but this was not the case which led to confusion.

About half an hour later, after clicking on the EDIT tab to update the article for _TOC_ which I thought was a must for the article, the truth of the way the listing has been done was unfold, I realised I had unnecessarily marked it for deletion & that was the reason I undid my revision (Refer this edit). Later, Snotbot found that there is no AfD template, but article is still at AfD & hence it reassigned the 'Bot adding template' & issued me a level 1 warning [[16]] on my talk page.

Anyway, now I am suggesting a Speedy keep, since The Transhumanist had done the necessary requisite changes in the main article & the confusion has been solved & logically this sub article is now needed for the main article & hence to be retained.

Thanks DoctorKubla, DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER, Cnilep & The Transhumanist

I withdraw the nomination for deletion. - Ninney (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Template namespace. This article began life as one of the adjectival and demonym templates that are transcluded into List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. In January 2009, User:BD2412 somewhat inexplicably moved several of these templates into article space, resulting in the redundancy referred to by the nom. This article should be moved back into template space, along with the following:

DoctorKubla (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the previous AfDs, here and here. Neither of these discussions really address the redundancy issue, though. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:BD2412 commented, "Move to better namespace for this content" when moving it to Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations in 2009. User:The Transhumanist moved it to its current name on 6 January 2013. I have notified both users about this discussion. There was also relevant discussion in 2007 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 28, which reached no consensus. Cnilep (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The last AfD discussion on this was less than a month ago. Too soon for another. Wikipedia:Deletion policy states:

Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.

...(cont.): By the way, this article is no longer transcluded in List of adjectival and demonymic forms of place names. Because this is a rather extensive list article, now there is a link to it from there. Also, AfD is not the appropriate venue for move discussions. That's what we have talk pages for (see also the notice page Wikipedia:Centralized discussion). This AfD thread should be closed, and the discussion concerning moving it restarted on the article's talk page. The Transhumanist 08:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After some weighing of the pros and cons, I would keep this as is. Harmless, possibly useful. No need to put it into a template. bd2412 T 17:01, 31 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 05:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Amin (politician)

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

Unsourced BLP. I haven't been able to find any useful sources to add to the article to provide evidence of notability. If anyone can find reliable sources I would be happy with a speedy keep. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Members of national and sub-national legislatures and ministers of sub-national governments are considered to be inherently notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: same logic as provided by Necrothesp.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:POLITICIAN. This document [17] lists former members of the Rajya Sabha between 1952-2003, with surnames beginning with the letter A. Amin is listed midway through the 8th page. He's also listed here [18] as having had two terms (1988-1994 and 2007-2011). Funny ^Pika! 01:48, 30 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. Clear WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of gay premiers in Canada

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

A list article is not needed for one entry. 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with 117Avenue. A list article of one is unencyclopedic and unneeded. Jus da fax 07:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As unneeded as a List of black presidents of the United States article - not enough entries and content to make a list article encyclopedic. Hwy43 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dickie Hatfield of NB was apparently gay, but never formally came out; but even so, two names do not a list make.Skookum1 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient entries to constitute a valid list. Carrite (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list of one is not needed. Insomesia (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misleading title - one item does not make a list. Unnecessary split as well since she's already been added to List of first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada. Funny ^Pika! 02:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons. Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (looks snowy to me). We don't need this at all; including her in List of first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada is all that's necessary or warranted here at this time. When there've been five or six or twelve or twenty of them, then maybe this can be recreated. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:LISTN. We cannot have a list of one single item because it is not a list; it contradicts the purpose of lists. And also, as a list, the topic has not been surely discussed as a whole on a non-trivial fashion to be deserving of a list. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 05:43, 31 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. Jujutacular (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenBVE

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

Open source package with no assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of every single software package and this one simply doesn't belong. We have Wikia for stuff like trainspotter software. Biker Biker (talk) 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete There is a somewhat in-depth review of openBVE at Rock, Paper, Shotgun, some in-depth information about the program at railsimroutes.net, and a one paragraph review at TechnoZoom. I think all of these are secondary sources. Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a reliable source and TechnoZoom and railsimroutes.net look reliable. ~~Right now, it looks like a marginal keep.~~ Update: Looking more closely at the railsimroutes.net website, there is a connection to OpenVBE, so the source cannot be considered independent. Given that, we only have one independent RS and the topic does not meet WP:GNG notability guidelines. Thanks goes to DreamGuy for encouraging me to take a second look. Mark viking (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Should article BVE Trainsim on related predecessor software also be deleted? Microsoft Train Simulator, Microsoft Train Simulator 2, and Trainz would also fall into this arena. GrayMace (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources listed above, only Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a chance of qualifying for consideration of WP:GNG. The other two aren't reliable and one paragraph is clearly trivial coverage. We need *multiple* independent, *reliable* secondary sources giving *non-trivial* coverage of the topic in order to justify having an article. Looks like an interesting game. It might qualify someday if other sources take notice of it, but it's not up to us to make others notice it. Similar software that doesn't meet WP:GNG rules should also have their articles deleted for that reason, not just because they're similar types of games. The Microsoft games seem like thye'd very easily have multiple qualifying sources. DreamGuy (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:13, 30 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☆★ 05:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. There seems to be very little coverage of this piece of software in reliable sources. — daranz [ t ] 17:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Open source software will always be at a disadvantage in establishing notability since commercial software will have a company website and will attract more independent reviews that can be used to establish notability. One feature of openBVE is the fact that users can create their own content and, as a result, there are a large number of community websites, in several countries, set up to share this content. Does a large number of users websites in several countries indicate notability?

I can offer a few more references for notability: http://vr-blog.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/openbve-has-arrived.html , https://apps.ubuntu.com/cat/applications/natty/openbve/ , http://sourceforge.net/projects/openbve/reviews/

There was a problem with openBVE in 2012 in that the main programmer left the project and closed the official website and user forum. These have now been re-established, but it seems that some openBVE users have been trying to use the Wikipedia article to provide information during this period of uncertainty. One user HijaKuda opened an Wikipedia account on 25th September 2012 and since then has almost completely rewritten the article in that it has become a list of features and a list of external links. He has does not seem to understand Wikipedia policies on these matters or has chosen to ignore then. He has not contributed to any talk page to explain his views. This editing removed the references that gave the article notability, which led to a refimprove tag being added.

The constant edits and reversions of the same material have brought the article to the attention of experienced Wikipedia editors who have now proposed deletion.

My view is that the article should be kept, but reverted back to the version of 13th August 2012.The openBVE users who have added inappropriate information since this date should be asked to put this on the user website instead.Chris1515 (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's some coverage in Eurogamer as well, though I realize that might not count as "significant" coverage. -Thibbs (talk) 06:36, 5 February 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. Although the author requested deletion, it doesn't qualify for G7. After 3 full listing periods, a consensus for deleting wasn't fully established. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grono.net

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this before policies were more clearly defined. Obviously it never met requirements. Shii (tock) 22:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pl wiki article (pl:Grono.net) has a number of reliable references in Polish media suggesting this site is (was...) notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:17, 18 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, Courcelles 01:17, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:36, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moo Moo Generation X

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

Non-notable video game map. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Deletion recommended under WP:GAMECRUFT. Mkdw ^talk 05:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, nor is any claim to it made. Likely self-promotion, based on the author's username. InShaneee (talk) 06:23, 29 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☆★ 05:10, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Osteopathic Association

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

Non notable, for profit organization that only references sister companies as references. Appears to exist only to promote and advertise themselves. Mike (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that this is not a genuine professional organization but more of a referral source. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 4 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Loney

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

WP:N Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could be speedily deleted. No legitimate assertion of notability and could not find any widespread coverage to meet WP:BLP. Mkdw ^talk 06:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any coverage. Getting lots of YouTube views is impressive, but it doesn't always translate into wider media coverage necessary to meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. It's borderline, but the claim of 2 Million+ Youtube views is a claim of notability, thin though it may be. Now, if there were sources that discussed his youtube stardom, we might have an article - but I can't find anything, really. This might also be a case for WP:USUAL; he seems to be early in his career. If he does become notable, then an article would be a no-brainer. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 22:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage and not meeting WP:ENT, despite the NUMBER of Youtube hits, there are Youtube pages and channels with FAR more "hits", Facebook pages with far more "likes", and creators with far more coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:14, 5 February 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. Consensus to delete UBLP following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erfan Qaneifard

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

Notability has not been established, unsourced BLP -- Patchy1 09:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little or no grounds for notability, no references, little context. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:54, 26 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, -- Patchy1 _{REF THIS BLP} 03:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per unsourced WP:BLP (could have gone by BLPPROD) and lack of asserted notability (could have gone by db-bio). DMacks (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too old for BLPPROD. -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 04:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a little digging around and couldn't find anything. Does not meet WP:BLP. Mkdw ^talk 05:14, 29 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malawi–Malaysia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. originally the article was a direct copy of this. I can find almost no third party coverage of this relationship except this article. all other coverage is multilateral and passing mentions. [19]. Bilateral relations are not inherently article, if you want to show they meet the 5 pillars of WP, demonstrate actual significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Lack of third party coverage, if at all. hmssolent\Let's convene 04:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While bilateral relations are (as I've said before many times in these discussions) a core and essential encyclopedic topic, this "article" is literally only "X is Y, and both A and B are Z". There is literally no content on the subject of the article here. WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please note that I have improved the article since it was nomintated. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to 99of9 for expanding the article significantly. More expansion is feasible using sources which demonstrate formal bilateral relations such as this. Warden (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, this discussion and others like it make me think that we need a solid consensus on bilateral relations. Where should I look to start a discussion on this? Howicus (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Well doen! --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 143.105.49.234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editor has been blocked as a sock. Mkdw ^talk 07:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Encyclopedic topic, adequate sources showing to pass our General Notability Guideline, in my estimation. This, additionally, sorta well done as far as these Country A-Country B Relations articles tend to be... Carrite (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 99of9 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be well sourced due to subsequent expansion.'Malawi–Malaysia relations' is basically an omnibus title. Searching for things such as the individual trade agreements reveals potential expansion of which information would be suitable for this article. The more of these AfD's that appear show a clear need for a policy on diplomatic related articles. Mkdw ^talk 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I cannot see any circumstances where diplomatic relations between 2 sovereign nations cannot be notable. Unless we're talking Vanuatu and the Conch Republic - which Malawi (10 m) and Malaysia (26 m) aren't. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral relations are not inherently notable, over 100 have been deleted. Significant coverage in sources not population size is what determines notability. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And far more have been saved. It usually depends on how many people notice and show up to comment. Dream Focus 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is still wrong to say bilateral articles are inherently notable like say a geographic ___location. Inherently notable is not an argument for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These nations share knowledge with each other, learn from each other, and join together with one other to set the price of their main product, tea. They have a notable relationship. Dream Focus 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the level of trade using 1996 figures is only a meagre $1M, does not indicate even a minor trading relationship. One article about tea (noting this is far from Malaysia biggest agricultural product) is far from significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 4 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shafig bin Laden

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

Non-notable person. Notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITED. There are numerous problem with the article (although that can be edited out). Part of it is a copy vio of [20], it contains trivia, it countains irrelevant info, and it has unexplained acronyms. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, not notable enough in his own right. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:52, 16 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, Courcelles 02:17, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable beyond being Osama's half brother. No Arabic references found, either. ~dee^(talk?) 20:07, 1 February 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. While the article needs improvement, the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. SouthernNights (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Pugmire

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

Delete The subject of this article is non-notable. The article itself reads as promotional material. There are no references to independent secondary sources that demonstrate the subject's notability. The cited sources that do appear are by personal friends of the subject, and therefore violate the principle that cited sources should be independent of the subject. For these reasons, the article should be deleted as soon as possible. Pernoctus (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:15, 16 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, Courcelles 02:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I find it rather remarkable that this page even exists. Having championed Wikipedia since its inception, I can't even begin to imagine why the encyclopedia would not include references to someone as respected and influential in the world of Lovecraftian fiction (a genre that grows in popularity with each passing year) as W.H. Pugmire. I do not know Mr. Pugmire. I've never met him. But I certainly am aware of him and his influence. I would add references to corroborate that influence, but I see that others have already done so, and a simple Google search should put this issue to rest once and for all. Let's keep Mr. Pugmire exactly where he belongs--in the pages of Wikipedia. I thank you for your time and attention. --Brett J. Talley, Bram Stoker Award Nominated author of That Which Should Not Be and The Void. --113.190.56.237 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pernoctus, what you're ignoring here is that within the community that encompasses Lovecraftian authorship, scholarship, and fandom, it is almost inevitable that people will eventually become acquaintances, friends and even collaborators. It would make no sense to reduce someone to non-notable status once they become friends with the major experts in the field, claiming that one could no longer find unbiased references. GCL (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am Julia Morgan, better known on the internet as MorganScorpion. It is true that I am a friend of W H Pugmire, but I became his friend because I am a fan of his work, and Mr Pugmire has always been very kind to his fans. He has been publishing stories in a Lovecraftian vein for at least 15 years. I am providing a few links that may provide evidence as to why his Wikipedia page should not be deleted. The first is a link to S T Joshi's online autobiography. http://www.stjoshi.org/biography.html

The second is a link to an Amazon page detailing books written by W H Pugmire. http://www.amazon.com/W.-H.-Pugmire/e/B002CQONYO

The third is an interview published in The Arkham Gazette. http://www.arkhamdigest.com/2013/01/interview-wh-pugmire.html

Even a casual search of the internet will throw up countless articles about and by Mr Pugmire who is extremely well-thought of in the Lovecraftian community; not just for his stories, but for his kindness and graciousness to budding authors, artists and creative people of all kinds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MorganScorpian (talk • contribs) 18:26, 1 February 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to this process, so I am wondering how long all this re-listing will continue. Indefinitely? The lack of any ensuing discussion seems to reinforce this person's non-notability, and that the article should be deleted.Pernoctus (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Pernoctus, there's some difference of opinion among AfD regulars about how to interpret lack of participation, and whether repeated relistings are appropriate. In this case, I've been hoping someone more familiar with Seattle and/or Lovecraft might show up to opine, but since that didn't happen, I'll take a shot. Based on what I could find in the usual online searches, it appears that Pugmire is a colorful local character of some note around Seattle (The Stranger called him a "community anti-icon"[21]; also see e.g. [22][23][24]), but probably not notability since I could not track down any significant coverage in reliable sources. His writing does have some coverage (as in the sources in the article) but I am not clear whether any of these qualify as reliable sources. So I have to conclude that notability is not established, though I'd remain open to being convinced otherwise if more substantial coverage shows up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a fallacy to conclude anything based on lack of replies. It could be that editors simply have bigger fish to fry. In my case, I reviewed the source material a couple weeks ago and simply couldn't decide. Pugmire seems to come up a lot in fan works, and some semi-professional criticism. There might be just enough to pass the bar, but then again, maybe not. I decided not to waste other editors' time saying "no opinion." So I said it by saying nothing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I agree with Dennis Bratland's comments: in particular, I would be more comfortable about deciding this if we could hear from someone familiar with the Lovecraft world who could opine on how much weight to give to those critical discussions of his work. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely know I will not write this note correctly, because I don't edit Wikipedia as you guys do (just use it frequently!). I'm the publisher of "Lovecraft eZine", which is a very popular online magazine. I say that not to pat myself on the back, but just to make it clear that I'm very much a member of the Lovecraftian community, and many in that community look to me for my opinions on HPL, etc. Anyway: W.H. Pugmire is one of the most revered authors in said Lovecraftian community. He has also been called "the world's greatest living Lovecraftian writer" by MANY. He has published many Lovecraftian books. Any other specific questions, please ask and I'll do my best to answer. -- Mike Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.77.38 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - I would think Mr. Pugmire's widespread professional publication credits in the Lovecraftian field would speak for themselves on this topic. The world-renowned Lovecraft scholar S. T. Joshi has already cited Pugmire's credibility in Lovecraft literary culture on the existing page for W.H. Pugmire. Independent online interviews with Pugmire such as http://nicolecushing.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/fiction-that-is-audaciously-ones-own-an-interview-with-w-h-pugmire/ also lend evidence that he's a notable figure in Lovecraftian horror literature. H P Lovecraft himself was a member of a close-knit circle of writers and readers who appreciated his brand of fiction; the fact that Pugmire's page cites material or is assembled via close associates should not suggest he is not otherwise notable outside of his personal circle just as Lovecraft was notable beyond the familiarity of his close associates. Writing in his scholarly "The Rise and Fall of the Cthulhu Mythos, S. T. Joshi notes that "Pugmire's volumes... contain some of the richest veins of neo-Lovecraftian horror seen in recent years. (p. 268). -Randall Larson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjscoml (talk • contribs) 18:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Lovecraft scholar of note, but I AM a Lovecraft fan, and have been for over 20 years. I have never met WH Pugmire, nor do I know him personally, but I CAN attest that he is one of THE best Lovecraft-inspired writers in the industry today. I read, watch, listen to, study anything and everything I can find that is Lovecraft related, and it would be a shame to delete this page. If you have any doubts as to his writing ability, and his place on Wikipedia, I urge you to please read some of his work and judge for yourself. As a Lovecraft aficionado, I can tell you that the horror community LOVES Pugmire, and strongly feel he should remain featured on Wikipedia. Thank you so much for your kind consideration! Sabella M Hess — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.14.54 (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a friend of W.H. Pugmire. I’ve never met him. Also, I have never been to Seattle. I am a 43-year-old advertising copywriter, aspiring screenwriter, and a Lovecraft enthusiast. I have been collecting and reading the works of H.P. Lovecraft and those authors who made up the Lovecraft Circle since I was a teenager. I also actively collect and read the works of the many contemporary authors who write Lovecraftian/weird fiction – magazines, anthologies, novels and so on. W.H. Pugmire is probably the most significant Lovecraftian author alive today. His impact on the genre is tremendous. These are big statements, I know, but they are true. I don’t know what more I can say on the subject. - Bill Barnett — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.52.14 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not limit the scope of information provided by Wikipedia!

Few (if any) have captured Lovecraft's dark aesthetic like Pugmire. Perhaps those outside the Lovecraftian 'circle' are less familiar with his work, but since when has Wikipedia been an exclusive club? It's strength lies in its broadness of scope. Removing Pugmire would limit the depth of knowledge Wikipedia provides about Lovecraft, his influences and those he has influenced. In short, the information you provide would be incomplete. You would be hard pressed to find a better and more highly regarded Lovecraftian writer alive today. In fact, I would encourage you to read his work before making any decision about this article. A few choice stories and a closer look at the modern Lovecraft circle would undoubtedly convince you to retain this article.

Wikipedia is valuable because it is (normally) inclusive and because it encourages thoroughness in all its articles. Pugmire is an extremely influential author, and a mainstay of the modern Lovecraft circle. Removing his entry would provide users of your tool with an obviously incomplete picture. JasonERolfe (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Jason Rolfe[reply]

Comment. The comments just above confirms one side of what I think is the main problem here. Pugmire's literary output seems to have been almost entirely short stories and poems, most of them published in small-press magazines and anthologies aimed at Lovecraft enthusiasts - and Google searches strongly suggest that within the community who read these, Pugmire's reputation is sky-high. Basically, if we can take "Lovecraft eZine" or any similar publications (online or in print) as reliable sources by Wikipedia standards, then Pugmire is certainly notable. However, if we can't, then establishing Pugmire's notability becomes far more difficult. Given S. T. Joshi's standing as a critic and Lovecraft scholar, I regard the quotations given in the article as certainly contributing to Pugmire's notability - but equally certainly as not being enough to establish notability by themselves. But going beyond these to more general recognition of Pugmire's talent seems difficult. He seems to have had several stories published in Weird Tales under Ann VanderMeer's editorship - but I have not found reviews of them. There was apparently an in-depth review of a collection of Pugmire's stories in the October 2011 issue of The New York Review of Science Fiction, but I have not been able to see it. And there could be enough more in publications we generally accept as reliable to firmly establish notability - but if so, it is not very visible. PWilkinson (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pugmire's work has also recently been selected by notable weird fiction editor and critic (S.T. Joshi) for inclusion in an upcoming hardcover book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.63.118 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My name is Derek Ferreira, I'm 29 years old and I work in the Hospitality Industry in Providence, Rhode Island. Forgive the potentially improper formatting as this is the first edit that I have ever attempted. I am a fan of the Lovecraftian horror genre, which (if you are interested in reading great new material) pretty much predestines me to having become a fan of W.H. Pugmire's. Of the authors working in the Lovecraftian microcosm W.H. Pugmire is the most notable; both because of his incredible talent and his welcoming, amiable nature towards the Lovecraftian community as a whole. Willum is a driving force within the community and as others have pointed out above, beloved by those in the same strange, wonderful circles. If you have any interest in the genre, you would be doing yourself a favor by checking out W.H. Pugmire's 'Sesqua Valley and Other Haunts,' or any of his numerous publications. The fact remains, if you're serious about Lovecraft, you know the name W.H. Pugmire. - Derek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Ferreira (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Robert M. Price cites Pugmire in the role of editorial influencer of emerging Lovecraftian work in the introduction to his book The New Lovecraft Circle. His publications are deemed of enough merit to be noted multiple times in The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror summations, (8th Annual, 13th Annual, 16th Annual, 17th Annual), an industry standard. The editors at the very pinnacle of Lovecraft's hometurf besides the pages of Arkham House, Weird Tales magazine, mention him as "a noted Lovecraftian." [Editors (Betancourt, John Gregory et al). "The Eyrie." Weird Tales. #337, July 2005 Published: Page: 17. Print.]. There is more, but if these major notations in addition to those already mentioned in the discussion do not suffice, what will?

In addition, when you're dealing with a niche subject matter such as the Lovecraftian field, in which many notables know each other personally due to the field's size limitations and general tradition of camraderie, it seems counterproductive to discard noted opinions and documentation of someone's career simply due to the collegial relationship of the person stating the material. So far as my own authority pertains to the discussion, my name is Michelle Y. Souliere. I am an independent blog and print editor, published author, artist, and bookshop owner operating on the mere fringes of the Lovecraftian field, and even I know of Pugmire's reputation, and have for some years. Please excuse any errors in protocol here -- this is the first time I've had need to engage in one of these discussions. Misfitgirl (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE As the organizer for the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival, which has been running continously for the last 18 years, I can attest to the fact that Wilum H. Pugmire IS a notable celebrity in the community of cosmic horror and weird tales authors. He has been a featured guest several times at the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival & CthulhuCon when his schedule permits. Centipede Press published and sold out a limited edition collection of his work which featured an introduction by S.T. Joshi, who is one of the most highly regarded Lovecraft scholars. Despite being such a noted author, in person, he is also a charming and warm individual, and is exactly the kind of celebrity who should be lauded on Wikipedia. http://hplfilmfestival.com/2010/portland/guests/wilum-hopfrog-pugmire^[1]Arkhambazaar (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT- My name is Mark McLemore, and I just recently became a fan of W.H. Pugmire's work. Where can I find a list of his works so I may read more? Wikipedia. Great. WHAT? There is no reference to W.H. Pugmire on Wikipedia.

       I did this comment to show how Wikipedia is used for finding such information. I am thankful I can look up many things on here. The moniker I have heard for the years of Wikipedia is "The Free Online Encyclopedia". Well, let's take that at face value and keep adding to the work here.  Just because someone sees it as free advertisement, it is actually a great place to find information leading to other works by published authors. This alone should allow the page to remain. I believe there should be some citations set as to who you are Pernoctus to come to start this debate. Who are you? What are your credentials? And furthermore, who really cares?  I mean, as far as I know, you could be some envious or wrathful person seeking to restrain others from furthering their knowledge of Mr. Pugmire. We don't know, because you offer no citations. Seriously, Pernoctus, WHO ARE YOU? Should you be someone I should be worried about if I become a published author and wish to put my works up for others to find? You are quick to cite evidence why the page should be taken, however, you lack any depth to reason with. You almost sound like someone with a fake name who likes to start arguments. Then again, who am I? I am just a reader and a hobby writer. I have read a few works by the author for whom this debate was begun.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Mclemore1973 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pugmire - I don't know the man. I've never been in the same room with WM Pugmire - I'm a bit agoraphobia so I don't do conventions. I'm sure my psychological handicap physically hampers my dreams of success being self-published.I've never even spoken to him but I am envious. Regardless, damn him to Hell, but don't delete his history. Such an affront would mirror the legacy of jealous Egyptian kings and pharaohs. Please, don't begrudge the small infamy he's gained. Keep this article about him. He is larger than life. He's been a beacon and milestone and his renown will grow postmortem. And here is my impetus to beg on another man's behalf. My own writing is inspired and modeled upon the horror of HP Lovecraft – note I am too divergent to be labeled a Lovecraftian. But after coping with a hundred rejection letters, I sought the examples of modern and productive aspirants. WM Pugmire is a shining example, not so young but he is earnest. Wikipedia helped me to re-discover him. Removing the article will close this avenue. He's earned his place and obscurity on Wikipedia would come undeserved. Isylumn (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. One of my biggest complaints with Wikipedia is that the standard of notability, especially in specialized areas of interest, is not how notable that person actually is within their field, but whether enough AfD regulars respect that area of interest to begin with. A good example being the fact that the Lovecraft community being small enough that Willum Pugmire is acquainted with the majority of significant figures in the field, which should be a sign of his own significance, is counted against him because those people are not considered ″objective″ enough. I don't think I've met Mr. Pugmire, though it is possible as we both live in Seattle and I know several members of the local horror community. I've read his work in a number of anthologies. From the quality I've seen in his work, I have no doubt of his skill as a writer, and understand why he is highly regarded in the Lovecraft community. Rhonan (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Speaking as someone who is neither a "friend" nor a "member of the circle" of W.H. Pugmire, I find it disgraceful, embarrassing and moronic that his page would be even briefly considered for deletion from Wikipedia. There is only one possible reason that anyone has called his "notability" into question, especially given the overwhelming mass of links, evidence of publication, interviews and public appearances attached to his page: BIGOTRY, plain and simple. Pugmire is not a conventional personality and his lifestyle causes offense to the small-minded and mundane. He draws ire just as other queer authors did before him: see the life history of Oscar Wilde and so many others.

It is a testament to the enduring power of the childish bigots to damage ALL aspects of public knowledge that this discussion even needs to take place. I personally would request that whoever has moderator authority over this issue do the following: 1) Close this discussion immediately, 2) remove the "Deletion" notice from the page of an author and critic whose "Notability" is beyond all question, because it is an EMBARRASSMENT to Wikipedia and to the community of Lovecraft and weird fiction scholarship, 3) Ban the person who created this problem from having any further power to edit, vandalize, or otherwise damage Mr. Pugmire's page.

Wikipedia is a public trust, not a bathroom wall for bigots to scrawl their imbecilic hatred upon. This whole affair is inexcusable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.41.198 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wilum Pugmire, gifted with a richly evocative prose style, has produced noteworthy short specimens in such works as Dreams of Lovecraftian Horror (1999) and The Fungal Stain (2006)." Excerpt from the entry "The Cthulhu Mythos", by S. T. Joshi, page 123 in ICONS OF HORROR AND THE SUPERNATURAL. An Encyclopedia of Our Worst Nightmares. Volume 1. Edited by S. T. Joshi, Westport, Connecticut - London, Greenwood Press, 2007. ISBN 0-313-33780-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreaBonazzi (talk • contribs) 22:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now I'm convinced. There really isn't anything substantial enough to meet Wikipedia's standards. There's a lot of material out there in the fan and fanzine and forum world, but it never quite reaches the level of professionally edited publications that is required for notability. Fails the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. User Rhonan's !vote of "strong keep" rests on an objection to Wikipedia's standards of notability themselves, not an assertion that the community's standards have actually been met. We should not keep this article to prove a point. In addition, it's an unfortunate misconception among non-Wikipedians that a person is a nobody until they have a Wikipedia article, and that information is "lost" if you delete an article. The information remains right where it was before Wikipedia came along, and the subject's stature remains what it ever was, and an article that was getting under 500 hits a month has no effect on that stature. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I normally don't like to comment on people directly is such discussions, but Dennis Bratland's comment needs to be directly addressed, because it shows that he is either not a very good reader, or was intentionally misreading what I said. I did not voice any objection to Wikipedia's standards of notability, I objected to how they are frequently miss-applied in these discussions. Wilum Pugmire has had work published in significant Lovecraftian anthologies, as well as literary journals of note within the field. He has had works of criticism of his work published in significant journals of horror fiction. In short, any reasonable person should be able to recognize that he has met the standards in WP:AUTHOR. Of course, I recognize that the standards of reason and logic are not used by everyone in AfD discussions. I have found that to be especially true with Wikipedia purists who want a Wikipeda that meets their high standards. I'm a pragmatist, and think Wikipedia itself is nothing more than a tool. My standard is whether the inclusion of an article makes Wikipedia more useful to people. Does Wikipedia answer questions people have? If 500 people are looking at Pugmire's page in a month, that means that a good many of them probably had at least one question answered. That's notable enough for me. Rhonan (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with maintaining Pugmire's page? He's a talented writer with a relatively small fan base. Wikipedia shouldn't be a popularity contest! It should be a source of information.98.93.155.70 (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WHYN. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I am the editor of Lovecraft zine, Innsmouth Free Press. We've published work by W.H. Pugmire and considered it a major coup because he is a prominent living author in the field. Deleting his bio shouldn't even be in question. With all due respect, anyone who is so unaware of Pugmire's reputation in Mythos fiction as to be unsure whether or not he merits inclusion on Wikipedia as a Mythos writer is simply not qualified to make such a judgement. Everybody and their mother in the field knows about Pugmire. Whom will you delete next, S.T. Joshi?

I also can't help wondering if this is not more a comment on Mr. Pugmire's sexual orientation than on whether he's "famous enough" for Wikipedia - as in, would this page even be up for deletion if it were a page for an equally well-known straight Mythos author? The suggestions for deletion, on top of their belittling and ignorant attitude toward Mythos fiction in general, give off just the faintest whiff of homophobia. All things considered, I think Wikipedia would be better off erring on the side of inclusion, if only to avoid the question of whether it's choosing to marginalize authors that don't fit certain editors' extremely narrow worldviews. Paula R. Stiles —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfounded accusations and personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia's civility policies. There is zero evidence that this has anything to do with anyone's sexuality. This type of thing does not help you keep the article. Rather, displaying a lack of understanding of Wikipedia and the use of fallacious reasoning undermines your own credibility. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE I am a voracious reader and enjoy Mythos fiction among others. Within that community, the prolific Mr. Pugmire is very known and equally well respected not only by me, but also by respected authorities in the field such as S. T. Joshi. In addition to excellent short stories and poetry, he is a prolific reviewer of Mythos fiction and media whom people like me look to for advice. I do not understand why only writing short stories and poems (of which there are many) would determine the reason someone is "notable" within the realm of Wikipedia. As a regular financial supporter of Wikipedia, I do not understand the rationale for removing an author: I appreciate being able to find information about many topics on Wikipedia. I agree having someone on Wikipedia shouldn't be a popularity contest determined by people who don't read the genre.Tanuki2001 (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Wilum Pugmire of one of the most interesting living authors writing horror-fiction in the field. To delete his Wikipedia entry in an outrageous act of discrimination considering how talented he truly is. The persons advocating the deletion really need to examine their own motivations in a non-biased way. It is ridiculous that someone is to have their page deleted because a hipster does not consider them to be famous-enough or conventional-enough. Blackwingbear (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Darren Mitton[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Pugmire is certainly a nationally known author of Lovecraftian fiction and poetry. This year he will be a guest of honor as Poet Laureate at the Necronomicon-Providence convention. He knew or corresponded with several important figures in the Lovecraft Circle (Robert Bloch, H. Warner Munn, Fritz Leiber, J. Vernon Shea, L. Sprague de Camp, and others), and is now habitually anthologized with authors at the top of the Lovecrafian subgenre, as evidenced by his stories in such major releases as The Book of Cthulhu, The Book of Cthulhu 2, Black Wings of Cthulhu. Blastr.com named his story "The Fungal Stain" one of the 15 top Lovecraftian stories to read not by H. P. Lovecraft (click through to image 11 at the link). While Pugmire was once a writer for fanzines, he has emerged in recent years as a major voice in Lovecraftian fiction. His work has certainly been edited by professionals in the field, as evidenced above. --Chezdon (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"DO NOT DELETE" Mr. Pugmire is a well established Lovecraftian author, lately producing 2-3 hardcover books per year that are snapped up by collectors. He is valued as a guest speaker at Lovecraftian conventions and has a loyal following on his videoblogs. I have reviewed hundreds of books of Cthulhu mythos and Lovecraftian fiction, and write a quarterly column about the mythos scene for a Japanese magazine. After sifting out much chaff for a little wheat, I know his artistry is quite unique. Many authors in this genre can merely ape the master or churn out tired pastiches. With Joe Pulver and Caitlin Kiernan he has brought a much needed high level of craftsmanship into Lovecraftian fiction. If Wikipedia is supposed to be educational, this is one avenue for someone just beginning to dabble in Lovecraftian fiction to discover what heights of expression they can aspire to. What constitutes a celebrity? Furthermore he is very generous with his time with aspiring artists. Here is a partial list of his books:

The Fungal Stain and Others (Hippocampus Press, 2006, 978-0977173433) The Strange Dark One (Miskatonic River Press, 2012, 978-0982181898) Weird Inhabitants of Sesqua Valley, CreateSpace 2009, 978-1448699544) Gathered Dust and Others (Dark Regions Press, 2012, B00AGAZK22) The Tangled Muse (Centipede Press, 2010, 978-1933618784) Sesqua Valley and Other Haunts (Mythos Books, 2008, 978-0978991142)\ Uncommon Places, A Collection of Exquisites (Hippocampus Press, 2012) Some Unknown Gulf of Night (Arcane Wisdom, 2011, 978-1935006114)

These are all professional publications, not self published. It does not attempt to include his short fiction included in other anthologies. In the current Lovecraft circle he holds at least as important a place as Robert Price, Ramsey Campbell or ST Joshi. - Matthew Carpenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.214.132.211 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE It is clear that someone has publicized this proposed deletion to the Lovecraft fan community and requested that they come here to support the subject of the article. This is fine, I suppose, and I am happy to see the discussion begin--provided that the subject's supporters understand what "notability" is, according to Wikipedia.

The problem, though, is that the "do not delete" voters appear not to grasp Wikipedia's notability standards. If they did, then they would understand that merely being a well-known local personality and a popular figure among fan fiction aficionados, with multiple non-professional publication credits, is not enough to establish notability, as Wikipedia defines that term. The suggested databases for establishing notability--JSTOR, Google Scholar, and the like--should offer an idea of what sort of outside recognition is required.

S.T. Joshi's testimony might be probative, if he hadn't appeared in videos such as this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXZAORWEFH4. In any case, and as another commentator has indicated, Joshi's praise alone does not establish the subject's notability.

As Dennis_Bratland summarizes, "There's a lot of material out there in the fan and fanzine and forum world, but it never quite reaches the level of professionally edited publications that is required for notability. Fails the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC."

In essence, all that is offered in support of the subject's notability are a gaggle of anecdotes about the subject's high standing in a relatively small community of fandom and small/vanity horror presses, spiced with a few rants that fail even to make an attempt at rational argument, and falsely accuse me of bias (and hover perilously close to libel in doing so).

To summarize: Nothing in the above series of "do not delete" votes has convinced me to change my mind. This is a non-notable author who is published and touted only in the small press, or by print-on-demand outfits such as Hippocampus, via a reciprocal chain of promotion. For this reason, the article should be deleted at the earliest opportunity.Pernoctus (talk) 03:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wilum has appeared in small presses AND large commercial ones. He has stories in:

Book of Cthulhu (Night Shade Books) Children of Cthulhu (Del Rey Books) The Recent Weird (Prime Books, 2011) Future Lovecraft (Originally Innsmouth Free Press, reprinted by Prime Books 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.234.115 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC) \[reply]

I find some of the delete viewpoints deeply problematical. There seems to be a lot of subjective goalpost-changing going on. First, there is the complaint that Pugmire isn't important enough (Really, so all those people listed on Wikipedia who are famous mainly for having killed someone are important now?). When posters gave references showing that Pugmire was quite well-known in his field, and therefore "notable," the complaints change to the lack of academic sources and Pugmire's allegedly localized celebrity. Unfortunately, the objectivity is marred by the classification of some sources as being "fan works" unsuitable for sourcing on Wikipedia. This classification is vague, emotive and not at all academically rigorous. Before you can dismiss a source as a "non-notable" "fan work," you first need to define what that is and how that applies to the page at hand, which that commenter failed to do. In short, the criterion for a good source here seems to be whatever the commenter and his friends believe it is, based on their own interests.

And the complaints that the posters arguing against deletion don't understand Wikipedia rules for validation are rather amusing. Academics target Wikipedia as a place of poor scholarship (which, I'll grant you, isn't universally fair) specifically because Wikipedia's criteria are so arbitrary and so much can be put up on its pages with little or no attribution. That's what happens when anybody can contribute. Yet, a well-known genre author suddenly has to have references to his fame that are suitable for an academic press or his page will be deleted? Why is that? And why the denigration of the preeminent Lovecraft scholar, S.T. Joshi, as some kind of Pugmire fanboy? That's going to make the sourcing on the Lovecraft page very iffy, should you choose to follow that argument to its logical conclusion.

If you really want to present this as an argument for deletion due to lack of appropriate attribution, then set out specific guidelines that have some authoritative basis somewhere (cited properly, of course) and stick to them. What's required? Print sources? What kind? Pro sales? How many? Appearances in Google News? How far back? And how do these rules correlate with how other author pages are judged? If you're going to claim that the page doesn't follow Wikipedia rules, then how about listing the rules it doesn't follow and how it, specifically, doesn't follow them instead of mocking the newer posters as newbies who don't understand the rules? Otherwise, the comments of "Nope, not convinced" are, shall we say, very unconvincing.

For example, it is not at all clear why articles like this interview from Lovecraft News Network: http://lovecraftnewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2009/09/lnn-interviews-author-wh-pugmire.html or this one from Motley Vision: www.motleyvision.org/2010/pugmire-interview/ or this one from the Arkham Digest: http://www.arkhamdigest.com/2013/01/interview-wh-pugmire.html are dismissed as self-promotion or fanlove, or chats with friends. Nor is it clear why his extensive bibliography (as here: http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?11256) makes him not good enough for Wikipedia. The man hasn't been self-publishing all these years. He is indisputably a noted pro horror writer, even important enough to appear prominently in Horror Writers Association press releases: http://stokers2012.lisamorton.com/spress.html.

A far better approach would be to suggest that the page needs improvement without getting into the sticky thicket of whether or not Pugmire "deserves" a Wikipedia page (these being two different issues, anyway). I think there would be much more support for a product that is worthy of inclusion on the Wikipedia site, if improvement were suggested over deletion, rather than the current argument started due to arbitrarily deciding to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were. Paula R. Stiles

You've been given links to Wikipedia's guidelines, but everyone is falling over themselves to rush to their keyboards to bang out long speeches, instead of taking the time to click on the links and read. The main one to understand is Wikipedia:Notability. What is a reliable source? Read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and especially note WP:SPS. Are there specific guidelines for a writer and critic? Yes. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), more specifically, WP:AUTHOR and Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Excellent advice can be found at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions.

The publications everyone is citing are wonderful, but Wikipedia's community consensus is to draw the line for sources demonstrating notability above that of amateur and fan works. They need to be serious academic journals, national level media, or books from major publishers.

All these words by fans of Pugmire aren't going to help; you have to first understand the guidelines and cite sources that clearly meet those requirements. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, as I understand what is being said here, unless you are Stephen King, Daniel Steele, Dan Brown or Shakespeare, you shouldn't be a writer covered on Wikipedia. Also, will we be deleting the pages for the books that most people haven't heard of? Whatever the guidelines may be, I would think it goes against the spirit of the site to say that we won't have information about someone that isn't quite as famous as other writers because they aren't as famous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.177.59 (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Dennis Bratland has offered a cogent reply to my most recent respondent, so I needn't waste further words rebutting her response.

What I do want to make clear is that I studied the Wikipedia notability guidelines very carefully and performed several database searches before I posted both the "notability" tag--which was an invitation to interested parties to improve the article--and the request for deletion. I wanted, and I still want, to be fair to the subject. The unfortunate but unavoidable conclusion, however, is that he and his work do not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Of course, some relatively obscure writers do meet the guidelines--Malcolm de Chazal comes immediately to mind--but this person does not.

Not surprisingly, some here have tried to "move the goal post" by making the discussion about the validity of Wikipedia and its standards, or their alleged misapplication. I would be the first to admit the subject's notability, if "notability" in Wikipedia parlance meant "notable to a subset of fan fiction enthusiasts". Unfortunately for the latter, however, "notability" according to Wikipedia does not mean that, and my use of that term has always been in the sense that Wikipedia intends.

If articles such as this one are allowed to stand, then what is next? Un-deletable pages devoted to the most popular authors of Harry Potter or Twilight fan fiction? Unlike others here, I am not trying to tell Wikipedia what its standards should be. I am trying to uphold Wikipedia's standards in their current form by requesting the deletion of an article that clearly does not meet them. Unless Wikipedia intends to expand its definition of notability to include recognition by the amateur press, bloggers, and the like, it should take a strong stand and delete articles such as this one.Pernoctus (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Doubleday an amateur press? Is Tor an amateur press? Is Daw Books an amateur press? Because Pugmire has been published in those presses, which are all large, commercial presses. Anthologies that he has appeared in (Black Wings, Book of Cthulhu) have been reviewed and mentioned in places like Wire http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/09/the-cthulhu-sized-cthulhu-books-review/ Why, his name is on the cover of Book of Cthulhu I and II, right next to Neil Gaiman and Ramsey Campbell. As far as dismissing him as a fan fiction writer, this shows little understanding of the Lovecraftian writing community. Ramsey Campbell started off writing Lovecraftian stories and then went on to write some other stuff, becoming a well-known horror novelist. Laird Barron has written many Lovecrafian stories and one of his collections won the Shirley Jackson Award. Elizabeth Bear won a Hugo Award for Best Novelette for "Shoggoths in Bloom", a Lovecraftian story. If you are going to dismiss all Lovecraftian inspired stories and authors, you need to delete entries for Thomas Ligotti and Caitlín Rebekah Kiernan, who are also notable Lovecraftian writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.234.115 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Having a handful of stories published in anthologies that contain works by truly notable writers--as opposed to the bulk of this writer's corpus, which appears mainly in small fandom editions--does not establish notability. For instance, the story published by Doubleday is in such an anthology, and is not even the sole work of the subject; it is co-written. The story in the DAW anthology was edited by a friend of Pugmire's, Karl Edward Wagner, about whom Pugmire has written, "Karl was extremely supportive when I was a young beginning writer, and I loved him for his kindness and generosity as an editor." http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/525599-karl-edward-wagner-thoughts.html.

2. Further, such publications alone do not establish notability. From the Wikipedia notability guidelines: "Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject. In establishing notability, those sources must meet the guidelines found on the reliable sources page." In other words, not only must the subject be considered notable by those outside fandom, and outside his personal circle of friends and admirers, but he also must be considered notable by those outside the publishing industry, e.g., by critics and reviewers in major, reputable publications.Pernoctus (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. Pernoctus is, I think, being rather over-stringent in his/her reasons for rejecting the various claims put forward for Pugmire's notability, both in the article than here, though I do think most of the claims fail anyway. I am not sure that any of the claims of personal friendships with possible sources actually stand up to the point where we would reject the sources just for that reason, and some of the claims obscure the actual reasons why suggested references don't help establish notability. For instance, the evidence for "friendship" with Karl Edward Wagner is a blog comment by Pugmire himself, made years after Wagner's death - the reason why the inclusion of a story by Pugmire in one of Wagner's anthologies (which may by itself have led to Pugmire's blog comment) does not contribute to notability is not because of friendship but because inclusion in anthologies never does unless that has led to the story concerned being discussed in reliable sources. And, despite the rhetorical question, we do have Wikipedia articles on Twilight fan fiction (for instance, Fifty Shades of Grey - though that is admittedly a distinctly exceptional case). For that matter, Wikipedia rightly has many articles on what is at least in some sense Lovecraft fan fiction, right through from the early days of Arkham House to recent (admittedly rather more peripherally Lovecraftian) works such as A Study in Emerald and Shoggoths in Bloom. But in these cases, we are looking at work which has received significant (and sometimes award-winning) recognition beyond the core Lovecraftian community.

In Pugmire's case, that doesn't, at least yet, seem to be there - though, in one way, the [Horror Writers of America]] press release mentioned in a comment above, announcing a Bram Stoker Award for one of Pugmire's publishers, comes tantalisingly close. However, it is in practice unusable for several reasons - Pugmire is only mentioned in passing (even if in a list with ten other authors, nine of whom have Wikipedia articles), press releases are in practice only regarded as reliable on Wikipedia as an expression of the releaser's opinion (though the HWA's opinion of who has won a Bram Stoker Award is definitive), and this copy of the press release is not from the HWA's website but from a personal one (though this point might be arguable as the person concerned had apparently been appointed by the HWA to organise that year's Bram Stoker Awards ceremony). If Pugmire himself had won the Award, we would pretty definitely assume he was notable just because of that - unfortunately, he hasn't, at least yet.

So we are back to critical notice from reliable sources by Wikipedia standards - of the material now in the article, I still judge S. T. Joshi to be a reliable source but quotes should be cited and from what are intended as scholarly works, the Publishers Weekly quote may be usable (but there are often differences of opinion in deletion discussions about whether a PW review counts toward notability) if it was cited from Publishers Weekly rather than from the Hippocampus Press website (even if a company is notable, its website is only reliable for direct facts - such as author, title, ISBN - about its publications, not critical reaction), but the other quotes can only really count towards notability if they are from (and can be cited back to) reviews in reliable sources - and quotes apparently produced for use in blurbs would never count as reliable.

Finally, this deletion could look distinctly stupid in twenty, or even two, years' time if Pugmire has meanwhile won major awards, achieved even mid-list status as an author or received significant (and quite likely deserved) critical attention - as Wikipedia would do now if articles on H. P. Lovecraft or August Derleth had been deleted during their lifetimes (as, by Wikipedia's current standards, they might well have been). But Wikipedia does not try to guess the future - so we are where we are. Also, Wikipedia could be undervaluing the reliability of some of the Lovecraft community's internal news or critical publications, print or online. But if so, that is probably for a more general discussion - and would need at the very least some evidence that at least some outside reliable sources (news, literary, academic, whatever) were from time to time picking up on them. PWilkinson (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate PWilkinson's input. In response, let me reiterate that I am not trying to be over-stringent. I am simply trying to present the opposite side of the case, so that those who finally decide the issue can do so from the broadest perspective. The mention of the relationship with Wagner, for instance, is not absolutely disqualifying, I agree, but it ought to be noted. By contrast, I would still insist that Pugmire's close personal relationship with S.T. Joshi disqualifies the latter from consideration in establishing Pugmire's notability. On the other hand, I think it is a point in Pugmire's favor--though not a strong enough one for me to change my mind regarding deletion--that Harvard's library owns a copy of one of Pugmire's Hippocampus short story collections.

For the rest, the key point is "recognition beyond a given community of fans". One person alludes to Ramsey Campbell as having begun his career as a Lovecraft imitator, but what matters is that Campbell quickly outgrew this phase. His subsequent acclaim was for fiction produced outside fandom, and for work published by major publishers. Likewise, a book such as Fifty Shades of Grey rapidly outgrew its narrow origins and became a popular culture phenomenon. When something similar happens with Pugmire's output, then I will happily withdraw my objections. But, as PWilkinson rightly observes, Pugmire is not there yet, and at present his work does not merit a Wikipedia entry, still less one of the length and detail it currently has.Pernoctus (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"By contrast, I would still insist that Pugmire's close personal relationship with S.T. Joshi disqualifies the latter from consideration in establishing Pugmire's notability." - So, you're stating that Joshi is a poor scholar, since he allows his critical faculty to be over ridden by personal sentiment? Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.169.94 (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to ascertain Pugmire's "notability" by taking note of major universities that carry his work in their libraries, then we should note that: "The Children of Cthulhu" is held by Yale's Sterling Memorial Library, "The Book of Cthulhu" by the University of Baltimore's Langsdale Library, "Cutting Edge" by William Paterson University of New Jersey's David and Lorraine Cheng Library, the City College / CUNY, Queens College's Benjamin Rosenthal Library, and Adelphi University's Swirbul Library, "Black Wings" by Yale University's Sterling Memorial Library, Harvard University's Harvard College Library, and the University of Virginia, "The Fungal Stain" by Harvard University's Harvard College Library, the University of Michigan, and Texas A&M University, and "New Cthulhu : The Recent Weird" by Hamilton College's Daniel Burke Library. Pugmire's "Sesqua Valley & Other Haunts" is held in the University of Michigan's library (itself an institution known for its literary scholasticism). "The Tangled Muse," a retrospective compilation of W.H. Pugmire's work, is part of the University of Denver's Penrose Library collection. Pugmire's fiction is referenced in literary scholar Michael Ashley's "The Supernatural Index: A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, and Weird Literature," reviewed in Robert A. Collins' "Science Fiction & Fantasy Book Review Annual," discussed in Daniel Harms' "The Encyclopedia Cthulhiana: A Guide to Lovecraftian Horror," and Cosette N. Kies' "Supernatural Fiction for Teens: More Than 1300 Good Paperbacks to Read for Wonderment, Fear, and Fun." I'd also like to point out that I serve as an intern at Hippocampus Press, a widely-respected publisher of not solely Lovecraftian literature, but books of literary scholarship and criticism by such international luminaries as Messimo Berruti (professor of Semiotics of Art & Literature, narratology, and Interpretative Semiotics at the University of Helsinki, author of "Dim-Remembered Stories"), S.T. Joshi (whose influence on literary criticism cannot be understated), Douglas A. Anderson (the world's foremost expert on textual issues in Tolkien, editor of the peer-reviewed academic journal "Tolkien Studies," co-editor of Barlow's poetry), Stefan Dziemianowicz (a senior editor at Barnes & Noble), Jim Rockhill (one of the most knowledgeable and well-respected scholars of J.S. LeFanu), Gary William Crawford (contributor to the "The Penguin Encyclopedia of Horror and the Supernatural," author of bio-bibliographies of Ramsey Campbell, Robert Aickman, J.S. LeFanu, and others), among countless others. Hippocampus Press is the leading publisher of the corrected texts & scholarly editions of Lovecraft's works, including the whole of his letters, fiction, essays, and soon, poetry, and should not be dismissed as a "vanity press" or a "print-on-demand" publishing imprint/outfit. Hippocampus Press utilizes the same printing and binding services as Ingram, a major provider of books and content to libraries and bookstores. 68.196.217.23 (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Michael J. Abolafia[reply]

"If we are to ascertain Pugmire's 'notability' by taking note of major universities that carry his work in their libraries"

We aren't, actually. We are to assess Pugmire's notability by using the criteria of Wikipedia as they currently stand. I merely mentioned library ownership in the interest of fairness and objectivity. I also mentioned that it is not enough to make Pugmire a notable subject.

"S.T. Joshi (whose influence on literary criticism cannot be understated)". I assume the intended term is "overstated", but the statement is accurate as it stands.

As to Hippocampus, no one is "dismissing" it as a print-on-demand press. That fact is mentioned because, well, it is a fact, and not a mere statement of opinion (such as, for instance, "Hippocampus is a widely-respected publisher"). As such, that fact ought to be considered in the discussion, for individuals to weigh as they choose.Pernoctus (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pernoctus, I appreciate your taking the time to reply to some of the points raised in my last brief missive. I examined carefully the author standards criteria enacted and upheld by Wikipedia, and fail to see precisely where W.H. Pugmire falls short:

——1.) "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

Nobody would argue against this, Pernoctus. This has been amply defended, and I imagine you would not contend the validity and/or extent of Pugmire's influence, even if it is largely within one "niche" area of literature. "Tales of Lovecraftian Horror," a magazine Wilum edited in the 80s and 90s, published fiction by writers like Thomas Ligotti, Donald R. Burleson, Robert Price, Michael Cisco, Darrell Schweitzer, Gary Myers, Peter Cannon, Richard Gavin, and Joseph S. Pulver, Sr. This is also noteworthy, I think.

——2.)"The person is a significant contributor to, a subject of, or used as an expert source by major news agencies or publications."

The phrase "major news agencies or publications" presents an ambiguity that raises some thorny issues. Pugmire has been "the subject of" articles in such publications as Seattle's "The Stranger" (one of its largest newspapers) and "The Seattle Times" (see: "Ghost Writers -- Seattle's Horror-Fiction Authors Find Our Region's Gloomy Days Nourish Their Creative Spirits") -- these have already been noted. He has contributed letters and editorials to "The Seattle Weekly," was cited/acknowledged in the article "Supernatural Verse in English" by Steve Eng, and has a not insubstantial role in a recent documentary on Forrest J Ackerman (an "expert source," arguably).

——3.) "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."

Wilum Pugmire's Sesqua Valley, a fictional locale situated in the Pacific Northwest, is considered by the Lovecraft community at large to be among the most significant and original contributions to Lovecraftian literature in recent times. Pugmire's fictional country was referenced in the Darkest of the Hillside Thickets's song "Six-Gun Gorgon Dynamo," and lauded in "The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror," ed. Ellen Datlow.

——4.) "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

No question that he has played a major role in creating a significant or well-known collective body of work. His books have been reviewed by "multiple independent periodicals," including Asimov's (http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0409/onbooks.shtml), Fantasy Magazine (http://www.fantasy-magazine.com/reviews/weird-inhabitants-pugmire/), The New York Review of Science Fiction (October 2011), Publishers Weekly, etc. There is no dearth of professional reviews of Pugmire's writings.

——5.) "The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Wilum fits option (c) here; he has certainly won "significant critical attention," as his books have been reviewed favorably in the venues indicated (as well as dozens of others, probably more, unknown to me), discussed by scholar S.T. Joshi, and has won/been nominated for a number of notable awards. I understand that you have some questions regarding the validity of S.T. Joshi's scholarship, which I can somewhat understand, seeing as he's Wilum's personal friend, although your concerns are not wholly valid. Jeffrey Thomas, for instance, was roundly lambasted by Joshi in one of his critical commentaries, despite the two being on relatively friendly terms. Joshi is a critic and scholar first and foremost -- at least, this is my impression of him. More later. Thanks again for the interesting dialogue.68.196.217.23 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Michael J. Abolafia[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful advocacy. Nonetheless, I continue to believe that Pugmire's work fails the following summarized test of notability: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." As I mentioned in a previous comment, I would be the first to admit the subject's notability, if "notability" in Wikipedia parlance meant "notable to a subset of fan fiction enthusiasts". Unfortunately, it does not. Most of the sources you cite merely reaffirm the impression that Pugmire is simply a local celebrity and a denizen of Lovecraft fandom. One day, Wikipedia's standards may be changed to include such persons. As matters stand, however, the standards do not allow such an interpretation today, in my view. Pernoctus (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Absolutely noteworthy. Do not delete. The continual denigration of fanzines and fandom on Wikipedia flies in the face of the best evidence that a substantial number of notable writers, artists and musicians included in this very encyclopedia all began their careers in fanzines: Donald Wollheim, Frederik Pohl. Damon Knight, Judith Merril, James Blish, and all the Futurians, Ray Bradbury, Forrest J Ackerman, Julius Schwartz, Robert Silverberg, Harlan Ellison, Lee Hoffman, Michael Moorcock, Poul Anderson, Karen Kruse Anderson, George R.R. Martin, Charles de Lint, Robert Price, Jessica Amanda Salmonson, William Gibson, Greg Shaw, Robert Eggplant, G.B. Jones, Kathleen Hanna, Allison Wolfe, Molly Neuman, Tobi Vail, Aaron Cometbus, to name just a few - this is a small selection of notable people who published fanzines, along with W.H. Pugmire. So, to assert that fanzines, and fandom are unimportant or non-notable contradicts the inclusion of a long list of notable people who were involved with fanzine and fandom from thoughout the 1900s, into the 2000s. From his first appearances in Forrest J Ackerman's Famous Monsters of Filmland, to his stint at the Jones' Fantastic Museum, to his punk and horror fanzines, to his present day highly regarded short stories and novels, and appearance in the film The AckerMonster Chronicles! (about Forrest J Ackerman), W.H. Pugmire has ALWAYS been notable in several fields of activity. I do not know Mr. Pugmire, and I do not live in the U.S.A., but I have been following his career for many years now, and I would not have been able to do so unless others found him notable as well, and reported on his activities and many accomplishments. Intheshadows (talk) 03:04, 4 February 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 merge to University of Georgia . MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Georgia College of Education

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

Do we really have articles for all schools in a university? I see no reason to consider this one independently notable. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:22, 16 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, Courcelles 02:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to University of Georgia what can be reliably sourced. In general constituent colleges justify their own page when they award their own degrees, separate from the University, or there is something particularly notable about them. In addition Law and Medical schools are generally considered notable. However, for 'run of the mill' schools like this (and for that matter a number of others at this University, that have pages) I see no justification for their own article. TerriersFan (talk) 00:10, 27 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Georgia as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges as there is no evidence of individual notability for this department. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this College is over 100 years old and reliable sources are available; why do you think that no content should be merged? TerriersFan (talk) 23:40, 5 February 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. Nomination withdrawn. Courcelles 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bole Dembel Shopping Center

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

Unsourced article that fails notability as well. Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move: This article is about one of the first few modern western-style shopping centers in Ethiopia. The article is just badly written and mislabeled. It should be moved to Dembel City Center. It has a good ~~first~~ primary source; Dembel City Center website that can be used along with secondary sources: News articles that mention Dembel, more news articles: Ethiopia: DBE Moves to Foreclose Dembel.... You get the idea. This article is just badly written. I have begun improving it. I will however not move it until it is off review. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:14, 16 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, Courcelles 02:02, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move, given Janweh64's improvements to the article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and rename), please search for variant names and in foreign sources before AfD nominations. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it's not the nominator's responsibility to find sources for an unsourced article. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Please become more famiilar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 12:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jetstreamer, sometimes the best way to bring attention to sub-par articles is to bring them up for review. At nomination, this article had ZERO sources and an incorrect name. What is the next move however. I think even you, the nominator, Jetstreamer will agree this AFD is no longer necessary. Can I now simply move this article and consider this issue resolved. Or is that up to an Administrator. — አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator should close this debate, but yes, I now support moving rather than deleting.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will contact Courcelles (talk · contribs) for closing this debate.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN is part of a content policy, not a part of WP:Deletion policy. What WP:Deletion policy says in regard to WP:V is, "Reasons for deletion include...Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 2 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elektra Initiative

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; unreferenced Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~Speedy keep #2~~ deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nomination of this article for deletion provides a valid reason for considering deletion. Nominating a number articles in a short time is not against Wikipedia policy. Dialectric (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability, tagged for notability since 2008; created by an anon IP / SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:36, 17 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, Courcelles 01:59, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IT department trivia promoting non-notable software. Instead of each program having its own text configuration files, with a variety of formats, Elektra tries to provide a universal, hierarchical, fast and consistent namespace and infrastructure to access configuration parameters through a key-value pair mechanism inspired by the Windows Registry. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:44, 29 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. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tegu

Note to closing admin: to preserve relevant edit histories, a history un-merge was done during this AfD. This AfD is about the article now found at Tegu (toy company). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article coopted a redirect to the lizard genus Tupinambis and was deleted out-of-process by restoring the redirect over it. My reading of the sources is that this may be sufficiently notable, so I'm putting it through the process for confirmation one way or the other. Consider this a procedural nomination for now; I may add a !vote later. Mangoe (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, there are two issues here. One is whether this toy company is notable enough for its own page. Another is where it goes. If the toy company is not considered notable, the page should be returned to its former state - redirecting users from the common name of a taxon to the scientific name of the taxon. If the toy company is considered notable, its page should be moved to "Tegu Toys" or "Tegu_(company)" or somesuch, and the current page could become a disambig page linking to the toy company and the reptile. The key point is that users searching for the reptile should be able to find the page on that reptile easily, not be directed to some minor company with no links to the much more common and valid use of the term. HCA (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that googling for "lizard" produces 2.5 times the hits of googling for the "toy". Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 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) 15:17, 13 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, Courcelles 01:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article, contents not properly cited, alleged sources (a mere list of links) appear to be mostly just informal customer reviews, with little or no serious coverage of the company as such in reliable sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far there seems to be a dearth of support for keeping it as the toy company. How long should we let this continue before returning it to the lizard redirect? There certainly don't seem to be many opinions on the matter. HCA (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. If you're eager to have your lizards back, I could go IAR and history-unmerge the two topics. Let's put the toys aside while we let the lizards move back in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 24 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 02:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lizard is a definite Keep, of course; the toy company less clear. HERE is a piece from Slate.com dealing with what would seem to be their main product, magnetic wooden blocks. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THIS BLOG POST might be helpful if someone wants to write this up into a better form, although it won't probably count towards GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta get ready for work now, but I suspect sourcing towards GNG may well be in Spanish. This is the company name: Manufactura Tegu S.A. de C.V. and THIS is company-published but does add more material towards verifiability if anyone gets fired up to improve this. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Playing a hunch here, but I suspect sources are out there for the toy company. TV time limit for now, I hope to revisit this later. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 29 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 merge to Demonic Toys#Merchandising. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demonic Toys (comic book)

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

Yet another comics article that floats around in its own in-universe bubble with no evidence whatsoever of 3rd party notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:37, 16 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, Courcelles 00:50, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Demonic Toys -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demonic_Toys#Merchandising and merge pertinent data. I wish I had been able to find the sourcing to show notability for this spinoff as I'm a FM fan, but it just isn't out there. There are the various inevitable fan blog entries about this, but ultimately the reliable sourcing doesn't seem to exist. We can merge some of the information to the parent article and redirect to that section.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Demonic Toys, then redirect, per User:Tokyogirl79's rationale above. Makes sense. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Demonic_Toys, appears the most reasonable solution here. Cavarrone (talk) 12:08, 4 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SamyGO

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

Most of the sources are from the official site. I can't find any significant coverage, just a few unreliable blog posts. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:48, 16 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, Courcelles 00:46, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing some very basic coverage but it's all very specialized and minimal. I can't find a lot information about the DMCA issue re: their ___domain name, which would grant some notability. I don't think this passes WP:GNG at this point. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:44, 29 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 Scouting in Scotland. maintaining the history in case anyone wants to merge any of it into Scouting in Scotland J04n(talk page) 11:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Haddock

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

Article is supported by a single news article, it is not about the subject but about a comment the subject made details about the comment do not make the subject notable but, if not already added there, should be added to the Scottish scouting article rather than be used to create a biographical article - my Google search did not reveal additional independent sources reporting the subject having a notable life to a limit to warrant/quality the standards of WP:BIO - related to WP:GNG - Youreallycan 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure he is a fine person, but he is not notable per Wikipedia's definition. A Google News search found only the one article already cited on the page. Being one of the National Commissioners within The Scout Association does not appear to be an automatically notable position. I see no place in that article that names the commissioners, so I don't think a merge or redirect to The Scout Association is advisable. The subject is a physician, but there does not appear to be anything notable (by Wikipedia standards) about his medical career. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The_Scout_Association#Promise_and_Law as the news item is a useful counterpoint/addition to the discussion referenced there. Otherwise does not meet WP:BIO so I agree with no re-direct per MelanieN above.—Baldy Bill (talk) 14:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- we have an article on the Chief Scout for UK and overseas territories (with a list of holders). WE have one on the equivalent Irish position (without a list), but none on the Scottish position. Until we have a list article, I do not think we can accept that the position makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misreading this, but it looks to me as if the Chief Scout is the head of scouting for the UK and overseas territories, and under that person are commissioners for the various parts of the UK - including a commissioner for Scotland, one for England, etc. Thus, Mr. Haddock's position as Commissioner for Scotland is not equivalent to the Chief Scout; he is at the next level below Chief Scout. See The Scout Association#Organisation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 25 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, Courcelles 01:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see anything notable, and agree that a redirect is pointless ---- _nonsense ferret 01:56, 22 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contrary to the nominator, I see a number of interesting sources in my Google search. Subject is notable for being head of the Scottish Scouts, if you will, and has made some startling and controversial statements about dropping part of the UK scout oath to "God" and "Queen" which I find additionally notable. There is plenty of material to build a decent Wikipedia article here. Jus da fax 07:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say borderline, although on balance Keep. He is apparently National Commissioner for Escouts as well. If not keep, then an appropriate merge would be to Scouting in Scotland, which already mentions that there is "a Chief Commissioner of Scotland". Ben Mac Dui 10:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify -- I voted "redirect". I was suggesting that Cheif Scout desrved an article by national commissioners did not. I will now supoort a merge with Scouting in Scotland. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I !voted "delete" but I would accept a merge/redirect to Scouting in Scotland. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 5 February 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athlone Group of Companies

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

Company appears to fail WP:CORP and WP:GNG. As with the previously deleted articles on the same subject--The Athlone Group and Athlone Group--this article contains sources about Jojar S Dhinsa, but notability is not inherited. The remaining sources establish the existence of the company and some of its activities, but do not appear to rise to the level of significant coverage. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Governmental Membership & Recognition Athlone Group of Companies has a long list of Government ministers as members, namely;
- HE Karin Wade, Minister of State for Energy for Senegal
- Finance Minister of Senegal
- Claude S. Bouah-Kamon Ambassador for Ivory Coast
- Sinknesh Ejjigu, Mining Minister of Ethiopia
- Berhanu Kebede, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ethiopia
- Mr Otabek Akbarov, Ambassador of Republic of Uzbekistan
- Roosevelt Jayjay, Mines and Energy Minister of Liberia
- Prime Minister of Sri Lanka
- Trade Minister of Sri Lanka
- Joan K.N.Rwabyomere, High Commissioner for Uganda
- Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud
- Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz, King of Saudi Arabia
- Fahad Bin Migrin Bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, Prince of Saudi Arabia
- Edward Turay, High Commissioner of Sierra Leone
- Tilahun Gemechu Gelashe, Ethiopian Investment Minister
- High Commissioner of Sudan
As documented and evidenced by photographs here http://www.athlonegroup.com/gallery.html The sheer number of high-profile figurehead members make this group a significant entry for recognition to Wikipedia. The member companies of Athlone contribute approximately $2.5 billion to humanitarian projects and causes annually, and is worthy of note.
Regards
MarcelBrandon (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to offer the following example; Athlone Group runs a program called UBUDO - a program set up to take children off the streets in Kenya, by giving them shelter, and then running fitness classes to help them stay healthy and fit.
Please check these videos and I'm sure you will see the good work that is being achieved here.
Kind regards
MarcelBrandon (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of good work achieved, a bunch of YouTube videos doesn't make a group notable. Nor does having notable members necessarily under WP:INHERIT. A quick Google search of mine turned up nothing. Delete. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after some detailed research, I have to conclude not notable, and quite likely doesn't exist. ---- _nonsense ferret 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC) A previous version of the page was deleted some time ago - The_Athlone_Group ---- _nonsense ferret 00:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Were all the information in the article verifiable, then the organisation would almost certainly be notable. But like nonsenseferret, I have to conclude that there is something very wrong here. --AJHingston (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and for very good reasons;
This was not just a "bunch of YouTube videos" ...
However your comments do reflect the very reason for this Group being on Wikipedia;
As you noted that the Group does 'good work' - there is not nearly enough recognition from the general public as to the efforts these ministers go to in order to support the underprivileged nations, and to bettering their conditions of life.
Many charities spend huge amounts of their budget on advertising, tv shows, and news releases - which is a huge waste of money that was intended to help those in need. The youtube videos are more than just an advertisement of a branded charity, they are proof of REAL charity work going on to help those in need, and I find the comment about them rather distasteful. I would respectfully invite you to withdraw the comment. -Regards, MarcelBrandon (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is, my comment is 100% correct. We're not looking for advertising (which is what this page is being used for anyway, one way or another), TV shows, news releases or YouTube videos. We're looking for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: please read WP:GNG. And the fact is, there isn't a reference present that I can fully assert helps pass this guideline: Refs 1, 4, 5, 11 and 15 are primary sources, refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them (ref 16 is a reliable source, but I'm not convinced there'll be significant coverage there), ref 7 doesn't make any sense whatsoever, ref 9 mentions the Athlone Group in passing once, ref 10 makes no mention of this group, ref 12 is not useful (sponsoring some random kid's team is not a grounds for notability, and technically makes that a primary source as well), ref 13 is actually not about this group in the slightest, but it is in fact about people FROM Athlone (for someone not checking properly, they'd accept that ref), and I couldn't find anything anywhere else. If it wasn't for ref 9, I might switch my vote to Speedy Delete as a pure fabrication, but that small mention there makes no difference to my vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it's not correct. This is not advertising, rather, it is documenting a group of investors that have contributed a huge amount to a great number of suffering nations. Personally, I believe you are somewhat prejudiced into voting to delete items, rather than seeing the genuine good nature of others. With reference to your comment, "refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 14 and 16 are not on the internet, so I can't evaluate them" - since when was the internet the only acceptable form of reference? - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where did I say the internet was the only acceptable form of reference? I'm making a judgement based on those I can see, and using the sources that are in the article to guess at the amount of information in those that aren't on the internet. Oh, and prejudiced against deleting items, am I? Care to take a look through my contributions and to see my keep votes and positive contributions? This article has a history of deletion and recreation. The presence of a Wikipedia page on any organization is automatically advertising, regardless of how it's written. Your comments STILL don't address the concerns myself and other editors have raised several times here. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Worth mentioning also the policy regarding conflict of interest WP:COI - people connected to Athlone are strongly discouraged from editing directly or submitting articles about Athlone, and should declare the nature of their relationship with the 'group'. ---- _nonsense ferret 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I looked at the user's talkpage, and see a previous SPI there - I've opened a new one based on the fact there are now more shared edits: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marcelhudson. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        As you said yourself, it was closed down because there was no connection. My additions have been fair, and genuine, and frankly do not understand reluctance to see the positive attributes, and notability of a group of high profile people that support a large number of suffering people, and I find the unwarranted negativity quite distasteful - MarcelBrandon (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't say that, I said it was closed before. Now there is more evidence supporting this. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Perhaps Marcel, you can provide details of the group structure of Athlone - after all it would be pointless having an article about a corporate group without that - it would be good to get the exact names of companies that are part of this group, with their registered address and company numbers. I'm sure this information will remove any confusion about this article. ---- _nonsense ferret 14:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I did, in the article, and above, the list of government members. Feel free to contact them to confirm their involvement, as per their photograph with J Dhinsa on the gallery page, as linked. MarcelBrandon (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It would help us if you could point to exactly where you have provided the information about the Athlone Group that nonsenseferret has asked for. There are a lot of references in the article but they are not very helpful to us and some such as this one appear very strange indeed. They do not help your case. --AJHingston (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The article on the founder Jojar S Dhinsa is rather brief. Normally the members of a company are its shareholders, but being a minor shareholder in a company is not something we would categorise a person by. I would not expect a company to be the forum for an international conference, which is what the artcile seems to imply. Do these sponsors ("members") meet? If so, how often and where? Rather than a list of the alleged sponsors, I would prefer to see details of what the subsidiaries are, where they operate, and what they do; details of its capitalisation and profits. If the founder is really worth £40M, I would expect his company to have greater assets, especially if there are other shareholders. In that case, it would cerrtainly be notable. At present, I am very doubtful as to the article's merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many meetings, as documented on the Gallery page which is listed, along with details of the projects being funded / discussed by those members appearing in the photographs for the meeting. Each of these members are verifiable in their own right. It is the government ministers themselves that are contributing, not merely subsidiary companies. I do hope this will clarify the point, because this sort of work is what the world needs. MarcelBrandon (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Marcel, you seem to be very good at dodging the legitimate questions people have about this. There is a stark lack of legitimate references anywhere, and I don't see how you've addressed any of the points made by Peterkingiron, or several others here. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, more than a day in fact because I believe the work is genuine and valuable.. I don't know chapter and verse about their meetings, where or everything they do - and don't understand why I am being treated like a criminal when merely offering valuable information to an encyclopaedia about a company at has in fact been in the media numerous times, and shows their own evidence of meetings and involvement with many high profile government officers around the world. Why is that so difficult to accept? Check the gallery and tell me at this number of ministers working as a conglomerate isn't notable? I do hope that an admin will see past the short sighted prejudice shown here. MarcelBrandon (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - are you suggesting that you are not personally connected to Athlone? I think it would be good in the interests of openness if you were to make this clear. Independent sources, ie substantial coverage received, not from your Athlone website are required. These black and white photos are no evidence whatsoever. Maybe some registration details from the UK companies house so that we can see some audited accounts might go a long way to dispel this cloud of suspicion? If it is a genuine charity then details of the registered charity number might also work? ---- _nonsense ferret 19:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - You may have gone to a lot of effort writing this article, but there have been some fantastically written hoaxes in the past. We're not asking for information on all of their actions and meetings - we're asking for some proof they are notable, from reliable sources. (Again, you're ducking every question we ask) A bunch of photos is not going to prove anything. You constantly namedrop all these officials - but you never once give a reliable source to back up your claim. Accusing myself and other editors of prejudice, when all we're doing is following guidelines that you're either unaware of, or neglecting to follow, is grossly unjust. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:57, 26 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see a reason why this conglomerate should stand by its own and have an article in wikipedia. I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of it on being on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an advertisement magazine, or sponsorship partner for every company in the world. Even if the company is non-profit, for-profit or commercial company. Or even if the company engage into charitable works, the charity is notable, but it does not sustain the fact to the company itself. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:56, 29 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. Consensus is clean-up. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 11:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otc clearing

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

unsalvageable, unreferenced FAQ created by clear spam account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources I found with a quick Google search:

Reuters article "Fed: central OTC clearing would curb market risk"
Bloomberg article "Asia OTC Clearing Efforts May Stall, Euroclear Says (Update1)"
Reuters article "Don't impose OTC clearing on industry: E.ON"
Risk magazine article "Bundle in the jungle: Cut-price OTC clearing threatens competition"
tradeweb.com article "OTC Clearing Part 10: A Corporate Treasurer's Nightmare"
thetradenews.com article "OTC clearing presents risk shift, not mitigation" might be non-neutral
"Centralized clearing for over-the-counter derivatives" Journal of Financial Economic Policy article
Pirrong, Craig. The economics of central clearing: theory and practice. International Swaps and Derivatives Association, 2011
Morrison, Joanne. "The Operational Challenges of OTC Clearing." Futures Industry (2010): 27-30

Except for possibly sources 6 and 8, these all seem to be secondary sources and are in depth about the subject. Reuters, Bloomberg and Risk magazine are reliable publishers; I expect that the Journal of Financial Economic Policy is, too. thetradenews.com looks legit, but I haven't heard of it. The existence of multiple reliable secondary sources indicates that this topic is notable. I agree that the article needs a lot of work to convert to an encyclopedic tone and structure. But these problems are surmountable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE for details) and AfD is not for cleanup (see WP:NOTFORCLEANUP for details), so this article should be kept. Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the accusation of spamming. Does the creator have deleted edits? Because his User Contributions relate only to this article: which (while it may have other failings) doesn't read as promotional and in which (so far as I can tell) Comunytek is never mentioned. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment We do have an article Over-the-counter (finance), which might be a suitable merge or redirect target for this. 79.123.57.130 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:37, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article needs a proper writing to fit an encyclopedic article, the article looks like a manual. If this article is not re-written then it should be merged/redirected into a suitable article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stub and provisionally keep. Most of the current text is unusable; unreferenced and written in a how to style. I also suspect a copyright violation, mostly because this doesn't read like it was written for Wikipedia. But the subject seems a real one that could support an article. If it proves to be a copyright violation, then delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up. May need to be stubified to remove unsourced, potential original research. Reliable sources are inherently present about the topic; this article simply needs to be rewritten into an encyclopedic tone. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly needs clean-up. At the same time, clearly has coverage to meet GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 2 February 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 List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20th Avenue (Brooklyn)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/20th Avenue (Brooklyn) (2nd nomination)

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

I gave one year to see if the article would expand or any references and sources be added to prove its notability and/or significance to the city and as I suspected, none of that has been done and the article looks exactly the same as it was when it was created in November 2011, a mere duplication of what already exists in its entry in List of Brooklyn avenues, 1-28, albeit in complete sentences. This is why I am renominating it for deletion. 20th Avenue is a secondary road in Brooklyn that fails WP:NTSR and Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets#Guidelines. There is no evidence that it has become synonymous with an industry or organization, was the site of an important historical event, been mentioned by name in a major motion picture, song, television show, or other mainstream media, or subject of a documentary or an article in a major media source. Searching it on Google Books only comes up with directories and magazine entries that only have brief passing mentions. The article's first AfD ended in No Consensus solely due to some editors voting Keep just because two New York City Subway stations are named after the street. This violates our policy of no inherited notability (i.e. the street is inheriting its notability from the stations) and subway stations alone do not determine notability since they are meant to serve their surrounding area, not just one particular street (I doubt everyone who uses the 20th Avenue stations actually live or work on 20th Avenue) and there are scores of other streets in the city that have one, two, even three stations named after them and we do not have articles on them. If every street in the city with a subway station serving it is "notable" for Wikipedia, we would have dozens of short articles by now saying something like Elder Avenue is a one-way residential street in the Bronx served by the IRT Pelham Line or 121st Street is a long, narrow street in Queens served by the BMT Jamaica Line. Also, contrary to what the article states, 20th Avenue is not a major thoroughfare or commercial street. Driving through it on Google Maps shows it is actually mostly residential with small, family owned businesses placed randomly here and there, so it cannot be important beyond to the people who live or work in these buildings and homes. Note that Consensus can change and I have no prejudice against restoring or recreating this article if it gets redirected or deleted should someone find something to prove the street is notable enough to be here. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There were no sources in the article when it was nominated for deletion in 2011, there were no sources when the 2011 AfD closed as "no consensus", and there still are no sources in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subway stations in NYC are named for prominent streets, and the name is evidence that the streets are in fact prominent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28. Dough 48 72 17:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of sources showing notability. The idea that the subway stations alone give this street notability is a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED, as they are merely being named after the ___location they are in. No particular objection to a redirect, although the title doesn't seem particularly useful for naviagation. BryanG (talk) 20:54, 26 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, TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 01:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as stated above. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28 There's a box for information about the street already. I'm not sure about the rational to keep because of subway stations considering they already have their own articles: 20th Avenue (BMT West End Line) and 20th Avenue (BMT Sea Beach Line). Mkdw ^talk 04:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Brooklyn avenues, 1–28. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from the subway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:02, 29 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Young Farmers club

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

Non notable. Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable?? On what grounds? OK, so it's not a great article (argument for improvement, not deletion) but we have articles on other national young farmers' clubs or their equivalents (see: National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs for the UK, New Zealand Young Farmers, Young Farmers' Clubs of Ulster, Macra na Feirme in Ireland). No doubt there are similar organisations with differing names in other countries that are also in Wikipedia. The article needs work - referencing particularly - not deletion. Emeraude (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:Notable. If there are no reliable sources which cover the topic it's likely not notable. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed. No indication of notability. NickCT (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike the nominator, I do not speak Latvian. But a search on Google for Latvijas Jauno Zemnieku klubs (JZK), which is the appropriate term I understand, produces a lot of hits for sites that describe the organisation as well as its activities and make clear, for example, that it works with official bodies in the promotion of agriculture in Latvia. For example, a search on http://www.diena.lv which I understand to be a leading national daily shows that it is frequently referred to in its pages. I agree with Emeraude that on the face of it this is an organisation at least as notable amongst farmers in Latvia as are the other associations he mentions in their respective countries. Obviously Edgars2007 knows more, but it is difficult to comment further on his reasons for nomination without more explanation. --AJHingston (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who still reads Diena? :D Diena.lv search doesn't seem to have limits for searching phrase, so it brings up Latvia and farmers as well and Google search brings up social networks and clones of company catalogs. I found this here saying they have 60 members, not sure it is comparable to organizations mentioned by Emeraude, just being mentioned in press doesn't always warrant notability ~~Xil (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. AJHingston (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 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, Courcelles 00:07, 15 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, Courcelles 02:34, 22 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, Courcelles 01:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A google search fails to bring up proper sourcing, in my view. Article is unencyclopedic and reads like a promotion. Jus da fax 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Article is unencyclopedic and reads like a promotion." So rewrite it. Emeraude (talk) 09:50, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blasius Chocolate Factory

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

There are only a couple media articles in a Google News Archive search, which only mention the company briefly. There are not enough source materials to write a properly verified article. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete - I recovered the Northeast Times article here and a Google News archives search provided a somewhat detailed article here which does not mention Phil Bernick, not Phil Kerwick but it seems he uses both? I also found a reprint of that article here through a different newspaper. This 1990 article mentions a William Blasius on Paul Street and says this store belongs to a confectionery association so it's probably relevant. I'm not from Philly but I'm receiving some evidence that suggests it has since closed and that may explain the lack of recent news coverage. Continuing my news search, I found an article here (not archived at the philly.com website) and other news articles here (very brief mention), here, here and here (first page) and here (third page). One of the recent articles I found is from last year here (CBS Local News) and I also found two candy blog reviews here (from 2006 and also mentions no website so they may never have had one) and here. At the beginning, I started going towards weak keep because I found many news links but I'm realizing there isn't much coverage overall and it is more known in the Philadelphia area. A search at other Philadelphia newspapers provided no additional results. Although it has been around for many years, it seems they mainly received coverage for the Halloween and Easter festivities which makes sense. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while the mentions are passing, they use adjectives like "landmark" to describe the company. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- References 2 and 3 are not reliable sources. Reference 1 is, but is both local and does not refer to it as a "landmark". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 5 February 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, Courcelles 00:06, 15 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, Courcelles 02:36, 22 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, Courcelles 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a nifty place, but notability, alas, cannot be demonstrated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not really give any indication of why this business is notable. I'm sure their products are great, but I agree with The Bushranger. Paris1127 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. It's just another chocolate shop, albeit one that's been around awhile. There are a lot of them in Pennsylvania. The news pieces are what you would expect to see on local news; viz., "check out this local business." Richigi (talk) 00:07, 6 February 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 Exosquad . MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exofleet

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

Deprodded because of "one reliable source". Which one? the apparently user-submitted encyclopdia, or the Yahoo! listing that does nothing but verify the cast? Everything here is in-universe, and fails to establish out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exosquad - while unnotable out of universe, it is a reasonable search term, and redirects are cheaper than deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied the full history to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Exofleet Dream Focus 17:13, 2 February 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 Exosquad . MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neosapien Commonwealth

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

Deprodded as a "suitable split" from the main article, but I see nothing here that's keepable. Everything is in-universe, unsourced, not notable out-of-universe, and overall just fancruft. There is nothing here worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exosquad under the same reasoning as in the AfD above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I transwikied the entire history to http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Neosapien_Commonwealth Dream Focus 17:14, 2 February 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 Havoc Unit. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dynamic Gallery of Thoughts

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

Unreferenced and tagged for notability for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable terminology in WP:SK#2 is "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any "disruption" and the term "unquestionable" is ludicrously overblown, so no, not even close to being a rationale. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do is to take a look at the word "ludicrous". It is defined by m-w.com as, "1 : amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; 2 : meriting derisive laughter or scorn as absurdly inept, false, or foolish". It is readily apparent that such language does not belong in a collegial community discussion. In asserting that there is no disruption to be seen, the statement makes itself an example of a self-referential oxymoron. Removing the layer of hyperbole, there is still the implication that the term unquestionable disruption has no sufficient operational definition. I have previously responded on this point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis. If 350 such AfD nominations in three days is not unquestionable disruption, then how many more such AfD nominations would be? 1000 in three days? 3000 in three days? So it doesn't work to deny that 350 in three days is unquestionable disruption, without having an alternate operational definition. As shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ioannis Diakidis, 350 nominations is such a large number of AfD nominations, that the initial capacity of the AfD tool we have is exceeded. Unscintillating (talk) 21:30, 1 February 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:52, 22 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, Courcelles 00:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Havoc Unit (the article about ...And Oceans who recorded this album). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Havoc Unit or delete, if necessary. --Calton | Talk 17:12, 1 February 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 keep. Per SK1, both arguments for deletion have been withdrawn and no other view has been brought forth. Salvidrim! ✉ 02:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VGMaps

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable sources based on wikipedia video game source project. Did the google custom search from the project page and it turned up nada for coverage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources SeemsNeedAnAccountForAFD (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Form the references in the article, the Attack of the Show and Joystiq references are secondary references from reliable publishers and the Joystiq source is not quite in depth. The Slashdot, BoingBoing, GoDaddy, and Leung sources are primary, unreliable, or completely off topic. In my opinion, the topic is just below the notability threshold. The article itself has a non-neutral point of view that needs fixing. I marginally recommend deleting the article, but if new secondary sources present themselves, article re-creation is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:02, 24 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☆★ 04:02, 24 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, Courcelles 00:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the nomination has been struck; As the only participant giving a recommendation so far, I'm happy for this AfD to end as "Speedy keep", "No consensus", or "Withdrawn" if that would be the best course of action. Mark viking (talk) 01:18, 29 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 merge to Canada–Ukraine relations. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Canada in Kiev

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

fails WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable. could not find any indepth coverage of this embassy [25]. any relevant info can be placed in Canada–Ukraine relations. events occuring at Embassy of Ukraine, Ottawa do not add to notability of this article. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 04:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as noted to prod. The best target seems to be Canada–Ukraine relations. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 4 February 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 merge to List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cheng_Yuanzhi ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 05:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheng Kuang

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

Appears to be fictional, based on the real eunuch Cheng Huang (程璜), who, however, was likely deceased long before the events attributed to Cheng Kuang in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Not particularly significant to the (fictional) events of the novel itself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Include this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheng Yuanzhi? LDS _{contact me} 23:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice. --Nlu (talk) 04:04, 26 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 29 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. A redirect or merge needs some sort of target, so if one is created, let me know and I'll change this to merge. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. having notable participants isn't good enough. no third party coverage in mainstream press. mere attendance of 1,700. LibStar (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an omnibus article. If no such appropriate article exists, the closing admin should close this as "no consensus". The socalled MMA community may be tired of getting all this information deleted. It has been said that putting (cramming) all the stuff (information) into an omnibus is a safe haven. So let's do that for all the events where N fighters just "stand and bang", some looses, some is winning. This concludes my vote. Sorry for not throwing out WP: policies and hope that some sticks... Mazter00 (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Does not fall under WP:SPORTSEVENT because one fight card is not the same as one football game. Capacity at the Pearl at the Palms is small, so that shouldn't have anything to do with determining notability. Covered by USA Today (long before most MMA events got mainstream coverage). Worst case scenerio, merge to an omnibus for 2007 UFC fights. Luchuslu (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into an omnibus article, something like 2007 in UFC. I can't make a good case for a standalone article on this event - there was no title fight, and nothing notable happened. The content shouldn't be lost, though. CaSJer (talk) 15:08, 23 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. Specifically, comments related to the target of the merged article as I could not find an omnibus target. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as bad faith nom per WP:TEND. It takes all of two seconds to Google search this subject and find coverage in mainstream newspapers such as USA Today. Considering that at worst there is a redirect target, there is no fact based reason for deletion. Obviously nominator either does not know about the subject, is lying, or is too lazy to actually look for sources. --143.105.49.234 (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has been blocked as a sock. Mkdw ^talk 07:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:SPORTSEVENT in that it has very little in the way of "well sourced prose" establishing why this event is notable. The article cites only two references (four if you count the inline links) none providing more than the usual coverage of an MMA event. I'm unable to find much more in the way of other sources and nothing outside of MMA oriented sites, thus fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:55, 2 February 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 merge to Glassheart. no convincing argument, including significant coverage, was made to support WP:NSONG J04n(talk page) 11:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come Alive (Leona Lewis song)

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

Song was not released as a single, never charted, and has no sources discussing it in depth as required for a stand alone article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been performed several times and has a lot of information about it. 24 reliable and well used sources as well. Considering the staple it has been in promotion for the album, it is likely to become a single. To be honest, this whole thing about not being a single/never charted is becoming tiresome and redundant now. There are a lot of song articles by other singer's where the situation is exactly the same. If the song hadn't of been performed live at all I might have simply posted this is a comment, but as it has had significant coverage as part of promotion it is a keep from me. There is too much information here to condense down into Glassheart. The article is clearly informational and is more than a stub with next to no sources. — AARON • ^TALK 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can likewise argue that at the DYK nomination, where the issue of notability has been a concern — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability lies in its 5 live performances. Non singles rarely get performed live 5 times on TV. — AARON • ^TALK 11:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see that in the guidelines. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but it should be. It's stupid saying that articles can only exist if it chart or received an award (says nothing about being a single or not). Some articles on here haven't ever been performed live or charted or received an award and still exist. People have too much time on their hands. This article clearly demonstrates clear and good information for people, why delete it? — AARON • ^TALK 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it passes WP:GNG and as such meets WP:NSONG criterion 1. –anemoneprojectors– 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSONG per the indepth analysis of the sources. Till 00:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the live performances sections. Five times performed on TV is notable enough for a song article to exist on Wikipedia. Also agree with AnemoneProjectors. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Agreed with the above. It seems to have established its notability through live performance. It also has a fair amount of reception and information about the song's production. In addition, it could also become a single and chart. Charting =/= creating an article. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album. Looking at the sources presented in the article I don't see how it passes GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Don't see how a live performance of a song makes it notable either, unless it leads to coverage under the GNG.

No mention of the song [26][27][28][29][30][31][32]

Brief mention along with another song [33]

Album review that mentions the song five words short paragraph (every other song gets one too) three sentences, sentence fragment sentence fragment

Just listed in a list [34][35][36]

There are four videos [37][38][39][40] used in the article, which I have not examined (do not wish to watch them all for a mention of this song - but if you give me a time I may look at that part), although most appear to be primary sources anyway.

Looking at the current sources I say that it should be merged into the album Glassheart AIRcorn (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews." It meets this part, and it only needs to meet one of the four. — AARON • ^TALK 18:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet this part? The closest I found was this, but it is a stretch to say it is significant coverage. AIRcorn (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Songs and singles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:

Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." — AARON • ^TALK 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An example please. I have gone through all of them listed in the article and given the source I think best meets this requirement. It is not the subject and even if it was it is only one work (i.e. fails the multiple part). In every other source the mention is trivial. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The notability guideline for songs is currently being discussed, and changes are being suggested on its talk page. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a discussion regarding removing or devaluing the chart criteria, so is probably not relevant to this debate. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quote I posted, however, is. — AARON • ^TALK 21:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you can't give an example. I am not sure you understand what you are quoting. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - kinda a IAR Keep from me, but appearing 5 times on TV seems notable to me (as a non-single), and the article itself seems very well written and uses a handful of other refs that refer to the song, either in passing or in slightly more detail. In conjunction with the changes being made to the NSONGS guideline, I'd say leave this for now, and maybe come back to AfD again if the guideline doesn't change, or doesn't affect the article. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, despite not being release or charted it has received quite a fair bit of coverage both as part of the album and separate from the album. I created the page in an effort to help reduce the information on the parent album's page where people have complained that the article is getting to the stage where its slow to load due to the volume of information which is relatively high quality. It passed WP:GNG and it has been performed live several times at major events. The performance of the song received coverage as did it's composition. Per WP:NSONGS there is notability criteria which this article passes number one. Additionally the guideline states " a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" which also applies here. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did it pass GNG? Just saying it does does not make it true. Just give me one article that gives it significant coverage and I will be happy to say keep. I don't even think a WP:Split keep is reasonable. The background is obviously already covered in the album article and if you paraphrased the quotes you should quite easily fit the last three in (some of it is already present). AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually baffled as to what policy you (and others here) are citing by pointing to live performances as evidence of notability. This is just some made-up theory to have this article kept for all the wrong reasons, such as WP:ITSUSEFUL. Till 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly; there's quite a difference between an article about a song that is covered by a fair amount of sources than a "list of all the phone numbers in New York". — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Where is the significant coverage??? Sources 1-7 are about the album/her past career. Sources 9-10 are liner notes. Source 11 contains one tiny line about this song, "the ticky breakbeats (Come Alive)". Source 12 contains three short sentences and nothing substantial. Source 13 is from Leona herself and therefore doesn't count. Source 14 contains the line ""I don't mind the pain," she confesses on 'Come Alive' over rumbling synths and breakbeats"... not significant in the slightest. Source 15 doesn't even mention "Come Alive". Source 16 has this: "but there's the obligatory drift into dubstep on Come Alive". The rest of the sources are from iTunes, Youtube, or other websites with no significant coverage. Till 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also. WP:NSONG makes no mention of a song being performed live as an indicator of notability. Till 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Source 13 is from musicrooms.net, not leonalewismusic.com. –anemoneprojectors– 13:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - He means it's from her words, so it's irrelevant. Also, ref 13 should be replaced with this, as music rooms doesn't seem reliable. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The sources, Music Rooms and Digital Spy, are both independent of Leona Lewis. –anemone projectors– 15:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to album. Aircorn's analysis of sources is correct and being performed live is not a convincing indicator of notability. Cavarrone (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a lot of references and well-cited for an album track. As long as there is enough material to show, keep it. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles based on their amount of references, we keep articles if its topic meets notability. And this one doesn't have any. Till 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Till, as long as it meets one of the four guidelines, it can stay: "Has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work." It meets this one. — AARON • ^TALK 12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - with respect Aaron days ago you were asked to provide exemples of multiple and non-trivial coverage about this song to rebut Aircorn's (and Till's) analysis of sources. Repeating again and again what the guideline says without providing evidences of how notability is met in this specific case is not a great argument. Cavarrone (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because other people have provided it. — AARON • ^TALK 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh where? Could you be more specific? Cavarrone (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Read this page and you will find out. Or, try reading the article and looking at the sources. — AARON • ^TALK 14:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, your evasive non-response is pretty enlightening. Thank you. Cavarrone (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's called being pro-active and doing it yourself. — AARON • ^TALK 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It's called inability to provide evidences for claims. Cavarrone (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do I have to do as you say? I'm familiar with this article, I know what exists. You don't to know, then you look yourself, then maybe you would have a valid point here. You don't want to look because you don't want to find anything. End of. — AARON • ^TALK 15:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously I read both this discussion and the article and there is no sign of significant coverage, as I wrote in my vote's rationale. Others editors analyzed one by one every single reference listed in the article. As you insist in saying that this song received significant coverage, you were asked by three editors to show us some exemples and you refuse it. Your childish non-answers just make it patent that this coverage does not exist. Cavarrone (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        So if you've done it already what are you asking me for? It's obvious from the size of the article that there is a lot of information about it. I've been through the article myself as well. If this song had charted you wouldn't have a problem with it (even though charting is not a requirement, which many people mistake it for). — AARON • ^TALK 16:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The article appears to have many sources, but most are either non-RS or only mention the song trivially in passing. Also, regardless of what others have claimed, being played live on TV does not make a song notable. LK (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically saying that any mention of a song can't be used in articles, single or not. Hope you know that Critical reception and composition sections would be virtually non-existent if we all followed your opinion. — AARON • ^TALK 12:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he's saying that a song that have just trivial mentions here and there is not notable per WP standards. Cavarrone (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added two more sources to the "critical reception" section just now to the many that were already there. There's not a single source that address the subject in depth, but there are many sources that offer brief, non-trivial coverage, and taken together there is enough to meet WP:N guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it comes down to the definition of trivial. Both of the new sources are album reviews with half a sentence mentions of this song. If this is the minimum requirement for a song to have an article then I feel there will not be many songs that will not meet it. AIRcorn (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... the implication being that what I added to the article was "trivia". I don't think it was. I expanded the "critical reception" section, which is fairly standard for song articles. As for the question of "there will not be many songs that will not meet it", I don't think that's even true for most of the songs on this very album (and Leona Lewis is rather popular and widely written about): I did multiple searches for "Leona Lewis" + "When It Hurts" (a track on the album) and there was just one very brief mention in a Billboard review, not enough for a standalone article in that case. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those additions are certainly not significant coverage. Till 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if those were the only sources then that would not be enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage means that a topic is significantly discussed in multiple, reliable sources. It does not refer to a topic that is briefly mentioned in multiple sources which is then added up together. Till 11:41, 28 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment there's been quite a few independent editors who've commented here that this album passes WP:GNG. User:Till has rebuked almost every keep comment and that's why this has dragged on. Seriously can we put this to rest. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it was probably relisted because the keep arguments are not that strong. Apart from Paul Erik they have just said that it passes the criteria without explaining how it does. AIRcorn (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not being bias but i've seen plenty of recent AfDs close based purely on the number of keeps/merges/deleted. But I guess that's more a discussion about the process rather than this particular article. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So have I. I would not have been surprised if this had been closed as no consensus. AIRcorn (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting a closure, not a relisting - the AFDs I see relisted are the ones with few or no comments. This one has loads. –anemone projectors– 22:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afd is a weighing of consensus based on policy, regardless of how many people !voted keep. There are a plethora of reasons: a) "It was performed live"—a performance is a primary source, and quite frankly I am baffled as to how a performance would constitute significant coverage unless there was some sort of independent commentary. Therefore any !vote based on this reason would probably be discounted. b) It meets WP:GNG—The topic does not meet the GNG, as shown by the indepth analysis of the sources provided above. We have trivial mentions at best but nothing of "significant coverage", which is what GNG requires. The fact that editors can't find even one reliable source that significantly discusses this topic pretty much proves to me that this fails WP:N. c) It has lots of references—this isn't a convincing argument as none of these sources have the required amount of coverage to meet WP:N. Also @lilunique: you stated that the song meets GNG in your !vote, but when you were asked how it does, you couldn't even provide 1 decent reason. So don't complain about how this was relisted when you can't even address simple nomination concerns. Till 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a complaint I was just surprised to see it being re-listed. My keep vote contained a detailed ration. "Come Alive" has received coverage from multiple reliable sources both as a song on the album and as part of the album during reviews etc. It was performed several times which also received coverage and both the artist and critics spoke about the song a number of times. Per WP:NSONGS there is enough information from reliable third-party sources (which means not the artist's website, label etc) to produce a reasonable detailed article about the song and I also pointed out that given the relative size of the album's article there is sufficient scope to remove some of the information about the song. This latter bit has already been done. People are making their own interpretations of WP:GNG in this discussion. GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks. The way I look at it is, the song was performed several times thus giving people to a reason to search for it, there is significant information about its recording and production meaning an article can be constructed to cover lots of aspects about the song, and the album's page is already quite large so that would suggest that some independent articles might be required. Applying that to WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS the article at the moment is reasonably well detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 13:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a bigger problem here in that many editors claiming GNG do not understand what it means. For example you are saying that "GNG does not state one source which discusses a subject for at length is more notable than multiple sources that discuss the subject in minute chunks", which is wrong. Right at the top of WP:GNG it says that the coverage must be "significant" and then goes on to explain that this "is more than a trivial mention". In this case the debate comes down to whether album reviews that briefly mention the song are considered non-trivial. The guidelines at WP:NSONGS are even stricter as it says it must be the "subject" of these sources. So far only Paul Erik has really addressed the trivial issue in his keep comment. AIRcorn (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Spy 1 mentions the song was performed live and talks about its composition and origins, the album booklet details the recording information and personnel, Album Preview mentions the song in two sentences and talks about its production, here we find out that Faithless inspired the song and some more about the production, in this review the lyrics and production are commented on, and in this one once again the production is commented on. These sources especially qualify as non-trivial IMO. Finally the song was performed at Radio 1's Hackney Weekend, at a charity concert, on a national radio station and an acoustic performance was uploaded to her Vevo account. Whilst I agree that no single source covers the topic in heaps of detail, collectively there is coverage amongst all the sources (synergy) that produce a reasonably detailed article that covers both the conception and promotion of the song as a track from the album. If you compare page views for January, it was viewed 1,936 times, compared to Glassheart (song) (the other non-single from this album; though that one charted] which was viewed 2,419 times. Only around 500 views behind, I know page views aren't really an official factor for consideration but I do believe they put the article in context. We have NMUSIC for the exact reason that GNG can sometimes cause issues, its mention of "non-trivial coverage" throws things into disrepute in examples like this one where there is actually a reasonably detailed article constructed from coverage in multiple sources. Also if you read NSONGS, under the note for "subject of" it explains that subject of excludes mere mention of the song/single, in the examples above coverage goes beyond simply mentioning the song. It provides some information which is of detail/background. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a much better argument. Much, much better than simply asserting that it meets GNG. I felt I was one of the only editors that actually looked closely at the sources. I still disagree, but at least you have provided a line of thought that shows how you think it is notable and used examples of sources to back it up. AIRcorn (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really @lilnique.... that seems to contradict with your statements here and here. He/she explicitly said "the critical reception comments are part of wider album reviews and could be merged to the album's page", but no, that's definitely not the case here. I wonder why..... Till 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Till you really should stop being bitter because two of your GA articles got sent to AfD and the outcome was merge into the album. It was nothing personal and I stand by the fact that I didnt show bias. There is much less coverage for the two songs whcih you worked on. "Come Alive" has quite a bit of coverage as the main subject of a reference (i.e. articles specifically about "Come Alive" or mentioning "Come Alive" as a seperate body of work. It was performed multiple times, even at least once before the album came out. There is a more wider-ranging detailed article about "Come Alive" covering a greater scope of background about the song. Also you seem to consistantly skirt over the fact it was recommended that you create a section about the songs on Sweet 7 and that Glassheart is already a large page, thus concerted effort has been made to remove information about "Come Alive" as it was felt there was enough information instead to make an independent detailed article. You should also pipe down with the uncivilness, wikipedia advocates you be critical of the edits not the editor. Calling me a "hypocritcal fool" in the edit summary makes you come across as bitter. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 11:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about Heartbreak or Mess (I even changed my vote to merge). My problem is the double standards being applied here. If you don't want to be called that, don't act like it. Btw, it's incivility not 'uncivility'—not that it was, because I am stating a fact Till 14:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glassheart, per WP:GNG. The coverage is not more than a trivial mention.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16] Consideration of stand-alone existence (as a split from the album) is not solely limited to the WP:SIZERULE - however, that's close in this case (37 kB, 6329 words "readable prose size" for Glassheart)... but independent notability isn't established. -- Trevj (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm including the refs as an aid to qualifying my !vote: the article includes a number of refs, many of which are not relevant to establishing notability. Additionally, 4 5 new refs are included (which still don't contribute adequately either IMO, even though the 4Music one does address the subject directly, it doesn't do so in detail). Please don't remove refs from here unless a policy can be cited which explains why they shouldn't be included. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Glassheart. The article spends a lot of time discussing the album, as opposed to the song itself; so the amount of information needed to be merged into Glassheart is substantially lower. As per Till's argument of WP:GNG, the references used in the article refer to the song in its context as part of the album and not in its own right.

iComputerSaysNo 23:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Firstly, five of the sentences in background talk solely about the album, while the rest are about the song. Secondly, how realistic is a merge? The Glassheart article is already 116kb and this article was created to, as Lil-unique already stated, split the information into a stand-alone article, as the album article was getting way to large. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  What about the "readable prose size", easily confirmed using User:Dr pda/prosesize? I make that 37 kB, per my comment above. -- Trevj (talk) 07:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  
  It's not about how big the article currently is, it's about whether this song is notable enough to have a standalone article away from the parent album, which it isn't Till 07:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Agree -- Trevj (talk) 09:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disagree, whilst no single reference makes explicit length mention of the song, collectively coverage is relatively detailed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 12:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't see coverage which wasn't more than a trivial mention. Even the single source I found which directly addresses the subject only says that Lewis premiered a new track called Come Alive at the Hackney Weekender, surprising crowds with its dubstep direction. I admit to not really analysing the video sources; do they take a similar approach to the written sources, i.e. do they include some coverage of the song, as just one part of a longer piece? Or do they amount to less trivial mentions? I would expect that most of the other merge !voters probably accept that this song has the potential to meet our notability requirements... IMHO it just doesn't do so right now, per WP:TOOSOON. -- Trevj (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. Sources are sources no matter what language. Consensus sways to keep due to reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Mkdw ^talk 11:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Eje

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

WP:NN actor. Best known for a NN comedy trio called Linie 3, A few webhits but nothing significant enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is actually very famous in Denmark as an entertainer, and there must certainly be tons of sources establishing that, but unfortunately they are probably mostly in Danish and many of them possibly not online. I agree that the article currently is in a very sad sate and does not in any way give the impression of notability. --Danmuz (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few preliminary improvements, removing some blatant puffery and adding a few sources, but there is of course much more to do. --Danmuz (talk) 13:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added some Danish sources, including an encyclopedia entry on him, and a little info. There is so much coverage of his second wedding ceremony last year that he demonstrably meets GNG; if I had a better facility with the Norwegian Kvasir search engine taht I used or knew of a Danish equivalent, I'd be better able to find news coverage from earlier in his career and add more specifics as in the Danish article, but I have substantiated that he is nationally well known as an entertainer. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 22 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The whole premise of the nom is wrong. Linie 3 is definitely not NN. This is pretty much like saying that John Cleese is NN because he is mostly known for Monty Python. --Harthacnut (talk) 17:19, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Darjeelings

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

They've accomplished nothing - their entire catalog consists of one self-released EP. Although the article looks nice and appears to be well referenced, most of the refs appear to be of the self-published/fanzine variety. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON, this is far short of the standard of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BAND Criterion#1 is fulfilled by Preston Leader, Syn, Freeza, and Beat Magazine refs. Criterion#11 is fulfilled by "All in Good Time", being played on both Triple J Unearthed and its radio stations. Only one criterion is sufficient to establish notability.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage independent reliable sources to establish notability. Of the sourcing in the article, the only one I'd count towards notability would be "The Beat". -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 25 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close. The Preston Leader is a minor local interest puff piece. The Beat piece is pretty good but is street press promoting the music scene. Not quite ennough for me. The Syn is just another band on the promotional circuit talking about themselves. Freeza is not an independent reliable source. Being played on Triple J is not rotation so does not satisfy #11. Probably too soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hate the subjectivity of discussions like this, but I'm not inclined to disagree that they don't meet WP:GNG. I like stumbling on these indie band AfDs because you can find some little unknown musical gems, like their tune "All in Good Time"[41]. Hope they have a bright future.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:53, 30 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.

[1] ttp://hplfilmfestival.com/2010/portland/guests/wilum-hopfrog-pugmire

[2] Leona Lewis discusses new tracks at Hackney Weekend - Music News - Digital Spy

[3] BBC - Music - Review of Leona Lewis - Glassheart

[4] Leona Lewis new album 'Glassheart': First listen - Music News - Digital Spy

[5] Leona Lewis inspired by Faithless | Musicrooms.net

[6] Leona Lewis: 'Faithless inspired new album Glassheart' - Music News - Digital Spy

[7] Leona Lewis: 'Glassheart' - Album review - Music Album Review - Digital Spy

[8] Leona Lewis: Glassheart Album Review - Reviews - Music - Virgin Media

[9] Leona Lewis: Glassheart – review | Music | The Guardian

[10] Leona Lewis's Glassheart - The National

[11] Leona Lewis At Hackney

[12] Good, but playing safe | Daily Post (Liverpool)

[13] Crítica - "Glassheart" - de Leona Lewis

[14] Scherben-Risiko: Beats gefährden Leonas Herz aus Glas

[15] RECENZE: Leona Lewis se na Glassheart posouvá vpřed jen po-ma-lu

[16] Leona Lewis premieres album track Come Alive | 4Music

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]