Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 December	21 December >

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John P. McEneny[edit]

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)

I don't think this person meets the notability guidelines. The coverage below (which substantiates that the person exists, but does not establish notability) doesn't do it, and there's nothing else out there. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and I couldn't find anything that would show that he passes WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. While he has written a few plays and seems to be a popular teacher to his students, that in itself isn't enough to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I have a feeling that this might end up attracting some of his students, so I want to add the "not a vote" label to this in case they do show up.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree with Tokyogirl; there's no indication that the subject passes either of those notability guidelines. Usual Caveats apply, however; it's possible that one of the subject's plays (or their academic work) might gain some notice in the future. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - No significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aarresaaren sankarit[edit]

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

No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note All actor articles listed except Miia Nuutila are redirects back to this article. --hydrox (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per nom. Surely there are more notable productions by Mervi Pohjanheimo than this from her 60 year career? Lack of sources apart from an IMDb link and the lack of fi-wiki article make any further analysis than "it is apparently not very notable" hard. --hydrox (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Sadly, due to lack of abundance of reliable sources. Also delete the redirects as they're non notable actors who were redirected for that very reason.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I cannot find any sources which are not mirrors of Wikipedia. However, there may be Finnish sources which I cannot find; I would support keeping the article if any can be provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:56, 27 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aatamin poika[edit]

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

No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Director Heikki Veijola is a redirect back to this article. --hydrox (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are actually pretty well-known Finnish actors in this movie, even if it is not probably that well-publicized production as a short. Seems to enjoy some popularity: Google search gives up some BitTorrent sites, hinting that it has been enough popular to become a subject to online piracy, and YLE did a re-run in spring 2009. --hydrox (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I believe YLE TV programmes are notable and there are notable actors in it, I'll look for more sources later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:12, 21 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Guitar[edit]

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

No assertion of notability or reliable sources that demonstrate that notability LogicalFinance33 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very low notability Finnish short film by an author without own article. Two sentences and a link to IMDb won't be missed. --hydrox (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, due to lack of abundance of reliable sources. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dr. Blofeld--Sabri76'^talk 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dr Blofeld. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources to establish notability. There may be Finnish sources which we have not come across; I would vote keep if any can be found. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:58, 27 December 2011 (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 Melissa Schuman#Lady Phoenix. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Phoenix[edit]

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

Group has never got off the ground. Article is horribly outdated. Sources are not reliable and/or do not establish notability of group. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references used in the article are in no way reliable: twitter, facebook, and a blog. No other reliable sources seem available. LogicalFinance33 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, there's not enough here for an article, and I don't think there's a reason to keep the history. Last time this went to AfD, the consensus was to redirect to Melissa Schuman. Redirects are cheap, and maybe we recreate with that redirect, but we certainly don't need the history. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Melissa Schuman per rationale above.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to Melissa Schuman#Lady Phoenix where there is some info. I can find no signficant coverage about this group, and their myspace page shows no evidence of ever having put an album out. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (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. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISPmanager[edit]

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

Unremarkable software product. Article has no credible references and notability is not asserted e.g. number of installations / user base. Biker Biker (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete: No notability shown since the article was deleted in the first AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is a translation from Russian Wikipedia. And there this article was approved. With regard to the number of usings - then the software mentioned in webhostingtalk.com http://www.webhostingtalk.com/wiki/ISPmanager also a major hosting provider VPS.net use this soft http://www.vps.net/blog/2009/04/28/ispmanager-pro-free-cp-for-vpsnet-users/ http://www.google.com/search?q=ispmanager+site%3Avps.net 92.124.61.99 (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this IP address has made no other contributions. --Biker Biker (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those sources appear to be questionable per wp:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources and therefore would not be considered sufficient to establish notability per wp:gng. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is large software company from Russia, see http://ispsystem.com/en/events/list Ls-irk (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this newly-registered account has made no other contributions --Biker Biker (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In accordance with wp:gng, sources that are not independent of the subject do not establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They have a rather large number of partners around the world, see http://ispsystem.com/en/partners/list and http://ispsystem.com/en/partners/feedback Tkizhnerova (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this user has admitted to being an employee of the company in this edit on my talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - it's not a secret! I do not hide my real name. --Tkizhnerova (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In accordance with wp:gng, sources that are not independent of the subject do not establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:CORP, bordering on advertising. — Brianhe (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been an ISPsystem's customer for a couple of years already. It is a well known Russian company. And i was suprised not to find any articles in Wikipedia about its software products. Finally, I found this one, but it is nominated for deletion! I think the imformation in this article may help other people to learn more about the ISPmanager control panel and ISPsystem in general. 92.124.60.56 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this IP address has made no other contributions. --Neo139 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Statements in discussions like these will carry much more weight if you point out a Wikipedia policy or guideline to justify your argument. Furthermore, wp:VALINFO is an argument that is supposed to be avoided. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to find some notable website that talks about this software but couldn't. Anon-user are welcome to point out reliable sources on this software. And I'll change this to keep.--Neo139 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My server runs ISPmanager. My provider has offered this software for years. Find out more http://ispserver.com/en/technology/ispmanager/index.html. Keep this article, I met guys from ISPsystem at HostingCon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HostingCon this year in San Diego http://www.hostingcon.com/account/exhibitors/view/313. 31.47.168.200 (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this IP address has made no other contributions.--Neo139 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wp:gng requires that topics of articles on Wikipedia be the subject of multiple independent, reliable sources. The fact that your provider has offered this software does little to establish notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (was previously Keep, but after second thought I'm not so sure): this seems to be an actually popular ISP software in Russia; unlike nearly everything else it does even have an offline coverage: Петин, Виктор (2012). API Яндекс, Google и других популярных веб-сервисов. Готовые решения для вашего сайта. БХВ-Петербург. ISBN 978-5-9775-0743-1.. There's also a related news item on a reliable Russian IT news site: [1] (though in the previous AfD someone called it press release, it isn't). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The mail address of the developer is CJSC "ISPsystem" RUSSIA, Irkutsk-17, P.O.B 30, 664017. In addition to the company employee that has responded, all three of the IP addresses that have responded to this AfD are registered in Irkutsk. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could it happen that people from Irkutsk with internet connection are more likely to watch the page as their level of awareness is higher? BTW, are You sure that addresses 92.124.61.99, 92.124.60.56 and 31.47.168.200 do all belong to Irkutsk? Your enthusiasm makes me feel that You have some special reasons to take this software out. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure, a whois check confirmed. As for my enthusiasm, it is only to prevent self-interest prevailing on Wikipedia. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: they have different providers but all are from Irkutsk. As well as Ls-irk, as I guess from the nickname. Still I can't see any importance in this fact. The point that people in Irkutsk might happen to be more aware of the software in question still stands. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The odds of multiple people from Irkutsk (1) being aware of the software, (2) being on Wikipedia, and (3) caring about the software on Wikipedia may not be approximately three thousand, seven hundred twenty to one, but they're way up there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but unless they are accused of bad faith, this is irrelevant. And if they are indeed accused, there should be some proof beyond the similarities of their positions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Notability cannot be established from what is currently at the article, Remind people from Irkutsk that this ain't a vote. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:19, 28 December 2011 (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. No arguments for keeping in two weeks of dicussion. Michig (talk) 08:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Teel[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP. Man of varied interests, but doesn't appear to be notable for any of them. Looks a lot like ~~WP:PEACOCK~~ WP:VANITY. Uncategorised. No WP:RS. Possible WP:COI noting similarity between original author and subject. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a bad sign when seven of the ext. links are about his horses and only one about him; and that one, according to the first reference, indicates this article is a WP:COPYVIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this horse owner. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Studies related to Microsoft[edit]

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

This page has a collection of 5 generally unrelated studies:

The IDC study is already in the Windows 2000 article.
I don't think the Cybersource study is notable enough to be anywhere, but could be merged depending on consensus.
Get the Facts should be merged into Windows Server 2003.
The get the facts new campaing study should be deleted. It isn't really even a study, just a webpage put up by Microsoft to advertise IE8. Despite claims of critisism in the article, only one source is listed, and it is a personal blog.
The Windows XP vs Windows ME study again does not seem notable to me (a study of just 36 people?), but if consensus determines it could be merged into Windows XP.

So, to sum up all this longwinded explanation, this article should be merged/deleted as appropriate, then the original article should be deleted. Millermk90 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... what an interesting article. I would have never thought a list of studies would be encyclopedic in its own right. I think instead, the various studies should be analyzed individually, for example if they end up criticizing Microsoft, then they should go to Criticism of Microsoft etc. i.e. I propose a merge to various other articles.--Coin945 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a loosely related conglomeration of stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random assortment of content. Neutrality^talk 21:09, 22 December 2011 (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, I'll remove some more unreferenced or promotionally minded stuff from the article. Max Semenik (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurobindo Pharma[edit]

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

The Artile is was created by sock puppet User:Projectmilap and has been blocked indefinitely. Also the artile is non referenced and raises major concern for wikipedia noteability criteria, the users are free to contribute and comment Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 13. Snotbot t • c » 06:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company appears to be notable based on its coverage in the financial press [2], particularly the Economic Times and the Hindu Business Line [3], and occasionally in the general press [4]. The article needs to have some references added, but AfD is not for cleanup if the subject is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The artile was created by spammer, please read the content, its truly not wikipedia standards, written like an advertisement, please see the artilce history and current draft! that is the reason for nomination.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck out the word "delete" from your comment. Since you are the one who nominated the article for deletion, your "delete" !vote is already on record, and you only get to "vote" once. Of course, you can comment as much and as often as you like. Just don't begin your comment with the word "delete". Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the article as written has some problems. But that is not the criterion for "keep" or "delete". The question is whether the subject is notable or not. If the subject is notable, the article can be fixed. Please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. --MelanieN (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There, I just cleaned up the article, deleted puffery/advertising, and added references. Now let's discuss whether the subject is notable - rather than the quality of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I understand the above should be Comment as I already nominiated it Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 13:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Company is notable and listed on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. Jethwarp (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Important issue I want to raise is not about notability but sock puppet work User:Projectmilap and Nothing in the current article is with proper citation. The User who are willing to keep may consider contributing and adding references from where the information is coming. It raises a big concern of notability if the information references are not there in addition to stock puppets working for the company.Mukharjeeauthor (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already added several references to the article, as noted above. Since then you have put "citation needed" tags on pretty much every sentence except the one I added. Please understand that just because the references could be improved, that is not a reason to delete the article. And even though the article was originally written by a banned sockpuppet, it has since been heavily edited by other users. That is not a reason to delete the article if the subject is notable. And this company is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is still in less than stellar shape but a quick search reveals what appears to me to be sufficient independent significat coverage in reliable sources to keep the article. One source currently cited provides that the company had a profit of 14 million US Dollars, so it appears to be a major company. Hekerui (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2011 (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 Conveyor system. Term seems to be used, valid redirect. Jujutacular ^talk 14:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Airveyor[edit]

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

Is basically an advertisement. - ComradeSlice^(talk) 22:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 13. Snotbot t • c » 06:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. ComradeSlice suggests this is an advert, but if that's the case it's not a very good one since it *does not* mention any brand names or specific products. More likely it's just a badly written article. Keep, but rewrite / add more content. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PRODUCT. coverage is hardly indepth. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. Stedrick (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Conveyor system. Biscuittin (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2011 (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} 09:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Plaza[edit]

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

Local shopping centre in regional town of New South Wales, no assertion of notability or significance. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nothing whatsoever in major Australian news sites including Sydney Morning Herald [5], news.com.au [6], Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) [7], The Australian [8] and Ninemsn [9]. All of this suggests that the centre is incapable of demonstrating notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:ORG and WP:N per the above info on lack of reliable sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Spouse of the Philippines[edit]

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

Possible original research. Google search of local newspapers and government agencies did not produce reliable source for this material. Article also admits that this is an informal title for the wife of the vice president of the Philippines Lenticel ^(talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Google Books and Google Scholar searches proved empty as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 03:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Second Lady of the United States says it's informal; how is this different? Dru of Id (talk) 05:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no comparison in the first place. Let's discuss articles on their own merits (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). I have no opinion on the general notability of the US version. What we should discuss is the lack of sources supporting the article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have a problem with a summary of the VP's spouses of a large SE Asian country (and I don't have a problem with the article on the Second Lady in the US either). --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Legis. The VP in this nation of 100,000,000 people is more high-profile than that of a nation with 300,000,000 people. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the VP may be more high-profile (per Bearian's comment), but their wife/husband/partner/etc.? And this is wholly unreferenced, and after two weeks remains wholly unreferenced. Since a number of the people on the list are (I presume) living, we're wandering close to WP:UBLP territory. And even if that doesn't apply, the fact remains a that we have no evidence of most of these people being notable except by association with the veep - note the lack of articles for 8 of 15, and of those, seven are article-ified because they became first lady/gentleman at some point; the outlier is notable as being a mayor of a major city. Lists can include entries of things that aren't notable enough to be mentioined otherwise, but this strikes me as simply "hey, all these people are/were X". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A fairly detailed list, which makes for one stop shopping if an editor is searching for such information, rather than going from one VP article to another. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:10, 30 December 2011 (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. Some of the arguments for keeping are weak but even discounting these there is still consensus is that the sources identified do constitute sufficient independent coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Slobodian[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not a notable journalist. The sources offered are Sun Media press releases or not independant, non-trivial, reliable sources. ~~Contributor claims to be affiliated with Sun Media, so COI as well.~~ Wtshymanski (talk) 15:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person regularly appears on national TV as a reporter and as a commentator. That alone makes her notable. The sources are not only from Sun. It is ok to use primary sources for certain non-contentious items, as I have done. Also, I am not affiliated with Sun Media, and have never said so, please do not lie. It's annoying. --Rob (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please be sure to check the history of the article, before voting, as the nominator will repeatedly remove key points in the article. I ask content be kept to the conclusion of this AFD. Then, if it doesn't belong it will be deleted anyhow, and no harm is done. Obviously the nom feels none of the content belongs, so why pick out parts to remove, instead of just waiting to the end, where everything will be removed, if that's the consensus. --Rob (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator The original contributor claimed to be affiliated with the subject of this article or with Sun Media in a statement on my talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a typing mistake, and missed the word "not". I am NOT affiliated with Sun News, or the subject. My only meeting is the day I took her picture, when we were both at the same news event. --Rob (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked, this isn't the one who posed as a Sunshine Girl. That would be at least noterity, if not notability --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Arguably too soon, but I have a soft spot for photogenic Canadians. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator Being a pretty girl is not notable. Sells papers, but isn't a basis for including in an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make comments like this, as they can be seen as a kind of soft insult and belittling of a person, in this context. Read the article, review the sources, look for more sources, check guidelines and precedent, and make your judgement. If it's delete, that's fine with me. But, this kind of comment really puts Wikipedia in a bad light. I expect the closing admin will disregard this "vote". --Rob (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE. Subject does not have independent coverage -- independent of Sun Media/Quebecor, in particular -- indicating notability per WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See below for some independent coverage I found. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per coverage in reliable sources: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator Did you notice the publishers of most of those sources? Did you notice the "independent" part of "multiple, independent, reliable, significant" sources in the notability guideline? Of course Sun Media press releases get printed in all the Sun Media papers. GNG says ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent."--Wtshymanski (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The only source that appears to possibly, but not necessarily be sourced from a press release is [14]. Can you further verify that the following are sourced from press releases [15], [16], [17]? The Hamilton Magazine.com link doesn't appear to be as such whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two blog posts, and one "by the way" sentence in an article about someone else entirely. These are not significant references. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By way of contrast, Lloyd Robertson is a notable television journalist. Note that he's got an Order of Canada,and has anchored the nightly newscast for both national networks, and has been an overseas correspondent covering major news events. I don't know how important a talking head is, but he was at least notable. He has significant biographical coverage...the subject of the article at hand hasn't had time to build up any biography. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From the Chrisd.ca website: "ChrisD.ca is a daily Winnipeg-based news publication dedicated to covering the city and southern Manitoba. Our team of photographers and editors scour the city to bring you the latest breaking news and current events. Having launched in the spring of 2008, ChrisD.ca has become a destination for Winnipeggers to get their news fix quickly and easily. We’re also one of the only media websites to report on the media themselves." While it appears to be a small organization, it does appear to have editorial integrity. As such, it does not appear to be a questionable source. Also, it does not appear that the content in the Chrisd.ca articles I cited above are derived from press releases whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – None of the sources I cited above are from public relations/marketing-style press releases. This link mentioned above as the only one being possibly sourced from a press release, [18] is not a "press release" vis-a-vis marketing or public relations, or sourced from such style of a press release. It is an article from the news agency Postmedia News that Global Winnipeg published, which provides objective articles to various news media outlets. They also appear to run the Canada.com news website. News agency articles are valid as reliable sources; the Associated Press is another example of a news agency. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep London Free Press is a reliable source. [19] Notable news sources repeating a press release, means they must think the information notable, or they wouldn't bother with it. Do they do that for every single show in existence? http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/14332/andrea-slobodian-global-winnipeg-shaw-tv-calgary/ is notable despite the word "blog" being in the address. Editorial oversight, paid staff, obviously a reliable source. Dream Focus 07:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases are meant to be printed by papers. Papers like them because they are free and so they don't have to pay a writer to come up with actual research. Would someone please explain to me why this particular talking head is considered notable enoguh to be including in our Pokemon directory? She hasn't DONE anything yet. If we list every talking head on every cable network TV show, we're going to have a lot of very ephemeral personalities listed. Is this our encyclopediac purpose here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all that publicity is just because of becoming "co-anchor", isn't this a case of a single event? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The link provided above by User:Dream Focus, [20], is derived from QMI Agency, which is a news agency. Press releases from news agencies differ greatly from press releases that companies publish and disperse to market products and services. Another example of a well-known news agency is the Associated Press, whose articles are used very frequently in newspapers and other mass media worldwide. Press releases from news agencies that are used in mass media are valid as reliable sources, whereas those from companies' public relations and marketing departments used to market products and services generally aren't considered reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I get a letter to the editor published in the Times (pick your favorite Times), does that make me notable enough for a Wikipedia article? If my PR flack sends releases to *every single outlet in the world* and, due to boredom, a hole in the advertising layout, and a silly-season lack of real news, some of them are rash enough to print it, does that make me notable enough to appear in Wikipedia? Reliable sources, bless their hearts, sometimes fill the paper with trivia and filler on non-notable topics. This person is not notable enoguh for a Wikipedia article, especially when the references are so insubstantial in content. We don't even have a reference saying what month she was born in or when she graduated, let alone what substantial accomplishments she's made in the field. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – You're positing hypothetical ideas about public relations sources in general— none of the citations I posted are such, nor is the one posted above by User:Dream Focus. They also aren't letters to the editor. This may be misleading to other editors who read this AfD, discussing PR matters when the sources I cited just aren't. Hopefully others who may just skim AfD don't assume the sources are PR from this type of mischaracterization. Peace. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not extremely notable, but far more notable than a local-market new reporter. BTW, misogyny like this--"this isn't the one who posed as a Sunshine Girl"--irritates me greatly, and causes me to question the nominator's ability to make proper nominations.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:50, 26 December 2011 (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 Davis Cup. Editors are free to merge relevant material from the edit history. Jujutacular ^talk 13:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Cup structure[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork. The format of Davis Cup is already sufficiently explained in the main article Davis_Cup#Format, which is not overly long. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: this content already exists in Fed_Cup#Format:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - 100% agree that these have no place as separate articles in wikipedia. I'm not convinced though that these tables should simply disappear, as opposed to finding a place in the main articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the tables into the main articles. Makes the articles better imo. The table for Davis Cup dates back to 2010 and can probably be updated. That is often the problem with too many content forks, not everything is kept up to date. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. No we just need this to go away into the delete bin or simply redirect it to the main articles since in essence they have now been merged. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we need a redirect. Who is going to search for "Davis Cup structure"? I guess they will just search "Davis Cup". As for the Davis Cup table, maybe we can change it to a more generic formulation that we don't need to edit every year? That's what we have in the Fed Cup article. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need the page but otherwise the edit history gets lost forever when deleted and that's generally frowned upon unless there are like 3 total edits. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much in the edit history given that this page has existed for 7 years. Most of the editing was just updating the current structure to current year. The Fed Cup structure page has even an shorter history. But if a redirect is deemed necessary, then I am OK with that. Redirects are cheap. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge back to Davis Cup Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:36, 28 December 2011 (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 Christian Action Network. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Mawyer[edit]

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

Not-notable chairperson. Fails WP:GNG. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. He is a major activist leader whose campaigns have received nationwide attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.6.52 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is so important, why does he score only 25.000 internet hits and 0 (zero) on Google News? And sorry, I can not see Fox News and their own website as reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get 274 hits by clicking on the Google News link provided above. You seem to be looking only at the recent hits, rather than the archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; lack of significant secondary coverage. AV3000 (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources found by the Google News archive and Google Books searches automatically linked by the nomination process demonstrate a very clear pass of the general notability guideline. There is an editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be merged with Christian Action Network, but that is a matter for normal editing and talk page discussion rather than anything requiring an admin to press the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian Action Network. That organisation is (subject to its own AfD) apparently notable enough, but not massively notable. Being CEO of it doesn't make him sufficiently notable without more - we are not talking about an organisation like the American Red Cross or Medicins San Frontieres here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ankit Maity ^{Talk • contribs} 16:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Christian Action Network, per WP:BLP1E. Cavarrone (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Christian Action Network, as it's apparently survived AfD - he doesn't have notability independent of his organization. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:35, 26 December 2011 (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 passionate defense, but the consensus is clear.--Kubigula (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meyhem Lauren[edit]

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

Does not appear too meet the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The VV source in the article [21] is good. pretty good rundown of coverage at his webpage [22]. Includes scans & pdfs of numerous print sources like Juice, the graffiti mag Bombin', and illustration mag (i think? article seems focused on clothing) For What It's Worth, the bloggy but good (cited by NYT, The Atlantic, hiphopdx) unkut.com [23] , review by The Needle Drop [24], Clout mag interview [25] (About page) and a really nice piece @ t.r.o.y. that probably can't be used. [26] 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)— 86.44.31.213 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - If he has so many good sources, why haven't they been added to the article? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't they been added to the article... by you? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not obliged to add sources to an article if I do not wish to, especially in areas I don't have any particular experience in. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Your disinclination isn't a deletion rationale tho. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one with the sources. Onus is on you to add them yourself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you can't compel a volunteer to do work you're not interested in doing by threatening deletion. (i've already voluntarily done work you're not interested in doing. hence we all have some sources now. would you rather i didn't do this work?) also, either the subject is notable or it's not. do you have an opinion? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I can't compel someone to work on an article. But, nor can you. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because they don't meet WP:RS? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your opinion? If so, can you be more specific, or do you think they are uniformly bad? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the issues are as follows: 1) [27] This one isn't bad, but it just lists Meyhem as one person in a list of others. It's something that could be used as a trivial source to back up claims, but lists like those don't generally show notability because it doesn't focus on any one person. 2) [28] This one links to his website, making it a primary source. Unless someone is considered to be an authority on a subject, you can't use anything that they or any of their agents put out. Being an authority would mean that there would be so many sources proving notability that citing Meyhem wouldn't be an issue, which isn't the case here. You could probably use it to find the actual sources, but I'd look at the articles to verify that they're the same before quoting them. (Hey, it's showbusiness. Everyone changes things to make themselves look good.) 3) [29] This one suffers from the same issues as the first link: it merely lists the album along with another one. It'd be good for a trivial source, but not as a reliable source. 4) [30] This one is sort of tricky and mostly has to do with the notability of the person doing the review. They do have an article here on Wikipedia, but it's tagged for notability. A review or article has to be done by a reliable person or group (Maxim, Vice, etc.) to be considered a reliable source. Having an article on Wikipedia doesn't always mean that something is notable. It might just mean that someone hasn't gotten around to deleting the article yet. 5) [31] This one falls under the same problems as #4: it is dubious as to how notable Clout is. It's otherwise a good article, but the source has to be considered notable/reliable. The magazine is legit, but it's indie so those types of magazines are always debated as far as reliability goes. 6) [32] Blogs can't be used as reliable sources unless it's by someone incredibly notable. If I wrote a blog it wouldn't be able to be used, but if someone like Sean Combs, the editor of XXL, or even someone not in that genre of music like Justin Bieber were to write a blog about him, that could be used.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
It's a pretty strict guideline, unfortunately. Since Mayhem isn't released on what Wikipedia would consider a major label at this point in time, he can't get by on the major label part of WP:MUSICBIO. One thing I do want to comment on is that you should never expect people to add sources or facts for you. Always assume that no matter how many people you talk to, that we won't edit an article and that you'll be the only person who will edit the article at all. My reasoning behind this is that I've seen articles get created and then go YEARS without someone touching it, only for people to get upset when it comes up to deletion, wondering why nobody added sources. While you didn't create the article, always assume that no other editors will do the work after you leave the page. Sometimes people will go without adding or editing anything for various reasons, ranging from not having anything to add to simply being too exhausted and/or uninterested to do anything. Now don't go crazy, expecting that they won't edit anything that's obviously wrong, but always assume that your electronic hands will be the last one to handle the article. That said, you might want to look into seeing if the original owner wants to incubate this article until reliable sources can be found showing that Mayhem passes music notability guidelines. If she or he won't, then I recommend signing up for an account and userfying it yourself. (WP:USERFY) Hopefully some of all this can help explain the policies and such.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]

Thanks, but i didn't mean to give the impression i'm not clear on the policies. I am. You misunderstand my linking to meyhem's press page. That lists independent coverage, as i (partially) detailed above. Your rundown has therefore skipped four articles in three print sources. Your rundown also misunderstands what constitutes non-trivial coverage. To see this is so, compare the significant treatment you call trivial to the examples of triviality in the guideline. These are not lists, but rather the act is not the sole subject of the articles. You come to no conclusion, as far as i can tell, on Clout and The Needle Drop. I have no plans to edit the article. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no plans on editing the article then don't be surprised when it gets deleted. An AfD is more than just throwing sources out there. You also have to add them to the article or it will be brought up to AfD again even if it manages to get kept. My point is that if you really want to have the article kept, WORK ON IT rather than trying to get others to do it for you.Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79

Nowhere have i tried to get others to do it for me, although now you mention it it's an idea not without merit in the spirit of collaboration. Anyone bringing an article back to AfD should check previous discussion. i'm content to demonstrate notability. AfD is not for problems that can be fixed through normal editing. The insistence that i work on the article while an AfD is ongoing merely because i find it notable is a low sort of blackmail, and the implication that my doing such work would cause !votes to switch to Keep rather exposes the problem with this line of thinking. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was just to say that if you're going to put this much work into trying to save it, the best way to save it is to add the sources to the article and flesh it out. Unfortunately there's going to be a lot of people who decide based on the way the article looks and there's a lot of people who do their own searches and base their decisions off of that as well as on what is in the article. They might not lend as much weight to things mentioned in the AfD and not put in the article, thinking that they aren't usable for whatever reason. It'd be nice if people were to be more meticulous, but sometimes they aren't. My intention wasn't to blackmail, but to say that pretty much you can't expect or rely on anyone else to do anything on an article unless it's on an article that's so big and so mainstream that it has a huge amount of editors monitoring it. Trust me, I've learned that point the hard way. I've also learned that listing things in an AfD doesn't always mean that people will listen to them or even put them on the article. I've listed references in the past and left it up to others to add them, only for people to ignore them and then the article gets deleted. Maybe the sources weren't reliable, maybe they were. The point is that I didn't do the work myself and nobody did it for me and there's a chance that my lack of work might have kept the article from being kept. I know that on the times where I have found the sources and added them to the article rather than to the AfD, I've had a higher rate of those articles being kept. I'm just telling you what I've discovered through my own past experiences, is all. If you want an article to be kept, work on it. Sometimes a well laid out article with good resources can work miracles. If you don't want to do it then nobody's really forcing you to. Just from my experience, a lack of action can lead to articles being deleted and I've seen some articles and images that I've created and uploaded deleted because I didn't work on them and I assumed that others would.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 08:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. I looked at the sources provided in the article and in this AfD, and what I could find on my own. In balance, I just don't think that the notability is there yet, but it could be in the near future (say, a year), hence "incubate" rather than "delete". Happy to look at additional sourcing, now or in the future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your position is that, to pick two, [33] & [34] does not constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interview in Juice and his inclusion in the list from the blog on the Village Voice are useful and help the case but are not enough by themselves. When you say "to pick two", you imply that there is plenty more of this quality (in both substance and WP:RS), but is there yet? The Clout and Needle Drop refs you mention above are also of use, but I don't think there's enough there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't think you've explained why you think by themselves they are not enough, since you seem to agree they constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, though as you say they are not by themselves. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I see is unreliable sources; because of that, the content is not verifiable and notability cannot be established. Pol430 talk to me 15:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? You seem unique in finding the Village Voice and Juice sources unreliable, and it's hard to believe you've done a shred of research into any source presented. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're so deadset on arguing those sources are good enough, put your money where your mouth is and add them to the article as sources yourself. Stop trying to force us to do it or arguing that it should be kept because of the potential sources. That's not how things work. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i've never tried to force anyone to do it. the sources are actual. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then put them in the article. AfD can only assess what is presently in the article, not what could potentially go in the article. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 20:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. If you have no view to express on the notability of the subject, please use Talk for any further correspondence. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, 86.44. Put them in the article if you think they can prove his notability. What I said above holds true - we don't judge an article on it's potential notability; we judge it on what's been proven. And there is precedent for AfDs to reverse course if they've been edited to address concerns raised in the nomination during the course of it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 23:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted my delete close on this, which was preformed 1 Jan. I invite further discussion and !votes. -- DQ (t) (e) 19:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like others, I find the heap of blog posts and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources, and I'm quite comfortable with WP:MUSICBIO setting a relatively high notability bar which procludes every unknown indie auteur with a mixtape. WP:V is also quite explicit and quite clear that sources cannot merely be alleged, but must be produced in the article in order to sustain it, while deletion policy is likewise quite clear that the onus is on editors who wish to save an article to produce the evidence necessary to do so. The curious disinclination of the single Keep proponent to improve the article doesn't fill me with confidence that the article is likely to be improved in the future. Ravenswing 10:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
re WP:V, if you wish to challenge statements in the article, do so! preferably on the talk page, i.e. thru the normal editing process. re wp:del, not sure what you're citing, but evidence has been produced. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly, you find the heap of blog posts, print sources and websites unpersuasive as reliable, independent sources. Why you do not say. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources not included as citations in article are irrelevant to this discussion, particularly since supporters haven't added any during the several weeks that the AfD notice has been up. Single source cited in article (VV blog entry) isn't enough: it falls short of "significant coverage", listing article's subject as one of five artists to watch but not covering him in any real depth; and it seems more to speculate on his future notability than to confirm his notability at the time of writing. Since it's been 11 months and that future notability apparently hasn't eventuated, we must assume that the prophecy of notability has fizzled out. Ammodramus (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are what confirm wiki-notability, whether or not they speculate as to subject's future. If they do, that is itself notable and significant. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a load of bung. New York Times could speculate all they want as to Ralph Nader's chances to become President of the United States; it would be flatly dishonest to present the article as if he is already notable for being such. And why are you so hesitant to add the sources yourself? I'm genuinely perplexed that you would defend the article yet not do a damn thing to improve it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 17:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this has been listed for three weeks without any improvement. I see no evidence of notability by any measure. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep nomination withdrawn by nominater. Sadads (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wettest County in the World (novel)[edit]

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

~~Not finding cites, they are making a movie but at this time, for this BOOK, I don't see enough references to demonstrate it is notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

keep If a book is being made into a movie, it needs a wikipedia entry.21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm suspecting that there's more potential sourcing for the book on which a movie is based, so I've tagged it for rescue. Failing enough sources, I wonder if merging the film and book would be a better idea than an outright deletion? Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added reliable sources, and there is also a Kirkus review and a Publisher's weekly, which suggests that the book was picked up pretty broadly, Sadads (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep request by nom I found the NY Times review for the book, which is plenty enough. Not sure how I missed it the first time, but no harm, no foul. Withdrawing nomination, please close as speedy keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2011 (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. I withdraw my AfD nomination, with my apologies. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

Tasmin Little[edit]

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

This subject passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Notability within this BLP seems to be supported in part by allmusic.com, a source that is not reliable enough to base notability (see here). Otherwise, rather substantial coverage in the local Chad seems based heavily in publicity for an upcoming concert, and the Telegraph interview actually seems to cover a festival promoted by this subject, with most discussion about someone else entirely. A nomination for a biennial music award called "Musician of the Year" certainly does not on its own establish any notability. Though this might approach WP:BASIC requirements, I believe they fall short of demonstrating notability; the fact that this musician doesn't pass at all under WP:MUSICBIO, the most relevant BLP guideline, is particularly indicative of a musician's lack of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has had to be stubbed down because of a copyright violation which is why the current version doesn't explain the notability very well, but she has won a Classical Brit award [35] which I would have thought would qualify as a major music award per WP:MUSICBIO. For coverage, she was the subject of an episode of The South Bank Show [36], and has coverage from several mainstream news sources [37][38][39] [40][41][42], including widespread coverage of her decision to release her album free [43][44][45][46][47] [48][49][50], and there are reviews in GNews. January (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Per the extensive availability of reliable sources posted by User:January above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sufficient independent coverage provided by January. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the claim that allmusic.com is "a source that is not reliable enough to base notability" is not shown by the link given. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Khattar[edit]

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

Article about a student that does not demonstrate his notability. He started a small company while at college, but there is no evidence this is a notable company. He claims to have won several national and international competitions, but the only evidence for this shows his team came third in a local competition. He did rank 4th. in another student competition, but this appear to be a non-notable prize which he didn't win and the only reference is a passing mention in a local newspaper. Winning "best student of the year" at high school isn't notable. So the only claims that comes close to demonstrating notability are thin, and I don't think they pass WP:BIO. Prod contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - No notability in references, the awards won are not notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable student's autobiography. Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (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) HurricaneFan 25 — 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One Girl's Confession[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails to meet the notability guidelines for films. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Delete per the above.Nofatlandshark (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:NF. Released wayyyyy pre-internet in 1953, the film was directed by Hugo Haas and starred Cleo Moore. We do not expect continued modern coverage for a film that had wide theatrical release 58 years ago. But even today, sources are available that speak of the film in a less-than-trivial fashion, and in context to that director and actresses' careers.[51][52] And beyond sources which may be used to imprve the article, its later televsion airings and DVD release[53] push at the attribute consideration of it being given a given a commercial re-release more than 5 years after original release. The project is better served by improving demonstrably notable topics, and not through deletion because they might need work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I would normally consider the above sources trivial coverage, I think that is enough for a film released in 1953. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable film, no effort to obtain Variety and Motion Picture Herald reviews that I can see.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAS It passes WP:NOTFILM and WP:V. Cavarrone (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2011 (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 Prestige (disambiguation). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige[edit]

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

This is basically a term that is better suited for Wiktionary. While sources may be found on it, its likely not to have much more that wouldn't be found in a dictionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content. We have Wiktionary for dictionary content. ∞陣内 Jinnai 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agree wiktionary is proably a better place.Nofatlandshark (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prestige (disambiguation) per DICTDEF. The page gives only a definition, and seem unlikely to become more than that. Cnilep (talk) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough for its own article per wp:notdic. Redirect to Prestige (disambiguation) or wikt:prestige. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:36, 22 December 2011 (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) HurricaneFan 25 — 00:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginative Illusions Sdn. Bhd.[edit]

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

While this company exists, I cannot find sufficient independent substantive RS coverage to indicate notability per wp standards. Tagged for notability for over 3 years. Zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per coverage in reliable sources:

Lim Eng Hooi, John (August 14, 1997). "Rewarding Net Findings for Local Game Developer". New Straits Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Chia Hiang, Huong (June 29, 1997). "Home Computing: Local Touch in Vanguard Ace". New Straits Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as references have been found. Good work as always Northamerica1000. Dream Focus 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is about notable company that has being referenced above. - WPSamson (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned Band Review[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient independent RS coverage of this service. Created by an SPA. The article has zero refs. Tagged for notability for over 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's rationale. There has been plenty of time since creation, no refs, no indication of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete unless find more references.Nofatlandshark (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2011 (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. Complete lack of reliable sources is a strong argument for deletion. If the creator or someone else would like the article to be userfied so they can work on it, leave a message at my talk page. Hut 8.5 16:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clock tower association[edit]

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

Non-notable university organization. I was unable to find Googlenews hits for this organization, tho if 'Clock tower association' is an English translation of the organizations name I could see the issue. Page creator shares a name with the 'Patron in Chief' of the organization. Syrthiss (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am cautious about deleting foriegn not-for-profits, especially when it may just be weak article writing at fault, but I struggle to see necessary notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who speaks that language will have to search for information. No way to tell one way or the other until that happens. Dream Focus 17:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sources or gone. It's the creator's problem to address this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The description is so generic that it's not even possible to tell what the organization does. "The main objective of organization was coordination with the students and provision of support"? With no sources, others can't help improve this article. Anything here worth keeping can be added to HITEC University#Student societies. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend The article is under creation and it is not completed, You can suspend it temporarily so that it go online after the resolution of your issues. It is correct that I am founder of this organization but that doesn't mean I created it for advertisement only. If so then you can ask me to remove those portion containing information about me. It was started just as a student organization within a University but now it is spreading in other universities of Pakistan i.e. UET and IIUI. The other objection that it hasen't authentic references is correct but it was not having online resources. I will upload the resources and then add their reference for review. Nisar Ahmed Rana 00:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisar Ahmed Rana (talk • contribs)
Suspend Suspend the AfD while the article is completed. Some of the objections have already been corrected, and other problems might well be corrected in the near term. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the page is new and continuously building (Last edit was made on December 23) therefore, I think creator should give time to improve the page. As far as organization is concerned, being a student of HITEC University Taxila Cantt, I've seen this organization's contribution towards co-curricular activities which is I think superb because university is new, Organization is new and they are doing tremendous job and building the future of nation. Za zealot (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They've had a month and there are no external references. The idea of "time to finish copywriting" is reasonable, if this were a question of quality, but the issue here is that there's no external sourcing. It doesn't take long to fix that, if it's fixable. As it hasn't been done, my suspicion is that it can't and won't be done, no matter how long we leave it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend The article is still under creation. It is not fair to the author to delete this. It is also a remarkable organisation that deserves recognition on Wikipedia. --Rubinkumar (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Ebeid Films[edit]

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this film/video company, which is an orphan article. Epeefleche (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article about a company that subtitles films and is not the subject of reliable coverage. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Stedrick (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (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. Page currently linked from main page: Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure Jujutacular ^talk 19:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death and funeral of Kim Jong-il[edit]

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

This article smacks of recentism, and quite obviously should be deleted (and perhaps a bit merged in to Kim Jong-il, though what is there likely will suffice). I expect an outcry of outrage on this AfD that this is the most important article in the universe and that I must be crazy, with links to lots and lots of news sources. But the fact of it is that the article is almost entirely "Reactions" which aren't notable in any sense of the manner. Ask yourself if you think this article should exist in a year (it shouldn't) and I'm confident even if you all insist on keeping it now, it will be gone by then. Prodego ^talk 18:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Yup... You've got to be fucking kidding me. The death of Kim Jong-il has been a major topic in International Relations for years, and it has important implications in Northeast Asia. This article is recent, but will clearly have much more cited information than can reasonably fit in the main Kim Jong-il article. This article will be even more relevant in a year as the power struggle within the DPRK government plays out. Embarrassing AfD. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 18:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – to keep the main article from becoming too big, per WP:SIZESPLIT. The main article is currently 70K, so this article is within the guideline. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC):*[reply]

Only because of the reactions section though. Prodego ^talk 18:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 20. Snotbot t • c » 18:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article is linked from the main page and should not be at AFD per WP:SK. 62.16.136.89 (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heroes. His death has been analyzed for years due to the political and military implications of his unique country. The article will eventual expand on the impact of his death. The process has just started. If this should be completely overblown, I'd say go for an AfD then. As of now, the failure of certain countries to know prior to the announcement could be added.--NortyNort (Holla) 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as consonant with other figures of Kim's stature. See, for example, Funeral of JFK, Funeral of Edward VII, and Death and funeral of Leonid Brezhnev, to cite only a tiny portion of the massive number of perfectly reasonable Wiki articles whose subject is the death or laying to rest of major personages. The nearly month-long activities occupying a sovereign nation to commemorate Kim's death are surely notable enough. If you think the article as it stands is not sufficiently researched, improve it, don't delete it. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To allay the nominator's fears: I am not outraged, nor do I think this is the most important article in the universe, nor do I think the nominator must be crazy. We just have a difference of opinion about this WP entry. Just because this article details a recent, ongoing event doesn't mean it qualifies for deletion as recentism. This death and funeral are notable world events, and as Citizen Sunshine noted, there is a clear precedent for this type of article. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Nicely done piece. Not mergeable to Kim Jong-il due to length, not a fork but a subpage of that. The list of country-by-country responses should be more than adequate to demonstrate lasting significance of the event. Nominator's speculation ''Ask yourself if you think this article should exist in a year (it shouldn't) and I'm confident even if you all insist on keeping it now, it will be gone by then." is highly unlikely, although there is certainly room to believe that the nature of the piece will evolve over time, as things do at WP. Carrite (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per G11 by Fastily (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OC Music Magazine[edit]

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

No notability established in article and does not pass GNG; only references are to the magazine; COI:article created by DnSachs - founder of magazine is David N. Sachs GrainyMagazine (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visayas Typhoon Center[edit]

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

i am nominating this for deletion as it is an unremarkable typhoon tracking centre who has had no independent coverage and is trying to get some publicity from us. It would probbably meet G7 as it is an unremarkable typhoon season but i felt it best to bring it to an AFD. Jason Rees (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find sources for this site. Oh by the way, can someone look-up List of weather websites in the Philippines? Looks like a link farm to me--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agreed, though the first 5 are ones id point people towards to get info from.Jason Rees (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it seems like a hoax. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2011 (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. It's clear from the discussion below that a pretty extensive search for references has not produced evidence of notability. The only argument for retention is an assertion that all members of the Iranian royal family are notable which conflict with WP:NRVE. Hut 8.5 13:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Pahlavi[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. He is just the grandson of Shah's sister. It is not clear where or when he was born or if his grandmother's brother was still in power in Iran or not (Please Note that after 1979 Iranian revolution, the monarchy system was replaced by a republic one). AMERICOPHILE 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Iranian royal family is minimally of historical interest to some persons, even though it was displaced three decades ago, or so. Nofatlandshark (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per availability of reliable sources. Perhaps more can be added to the article. Here's three I added:

~~"Keeping Up... With Youth". The Spokesman-Review. December 16, 1978. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)~~
Associated Press (September 13, 1980). "Iran Exiled Government Planned for Shah's Son". The Press-Courier. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
~~Bush, G.M. (February 14, 1983). "2,000 Marchers Seek Overthrow of Khomeini". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)~~

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but none of them is about Cyrus Pahlavi. What you have added is about Crown Prince Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, the Shah's son. We are not talking about the Shah's son but about his sister's grandson. AMERICOPHILE 03:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I removed the above references from the Cyrus Pahlavi article. I rescind my "keep" !vote above per this error. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched for reliable sources covering Cyrus Pahlavi in detail and found only one relevant result—a passing mention. As Americophile (talk · contribs) states above, the sources found by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) are not even about this Pahlavi. The subject fails WP:BIO. Goodvac (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prince in any nation is notable. They are notable because of their position, not because of who they are related to. Dream Focus 14:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Remember to look for Persian sources as well as English! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a native speaker of Persian myself. I searched the web but unfortunately nothing important was found. The only Persian source about him is the fawp article that is itself a translated text from enwp article. AMERICOPHILE 00:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm, did you search any of the following, in English, Persian, French, or other languages?

Google Books
Google News
Google Scholar
Research databases of US/Western universities, like EBSCOHost Academic Search Complete, JSTor, LexisNexis, etc.

If you don't have access, I do have access to some, so I can search these if you like

Any academic research databases used in Iran
"Archives" sections of websites of Iranian newspapers
If you know an Iranian newspaper did an article on him, but don't have access to the newspaper database, see if you can get a microfilm at the area library

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I did the following searches:

EBSCOHost Acdemic Search Complete: "Cyrus Pahlavi" = 0 results

Jstor: "Cyrus Pahlavi" = 0 results

Google Books - Does have some matches - but they seem to be about "Reza Cyrus Pahlavi"

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it is the duty of users seeking to keep article to provide reliable sources; those seeking to delete it are not required to show that sources cannot be found but since improving an article is definitely better than trying to delete it and to show my good faith, I will search Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar in both Persian and English but my search would be restricted to online search (the problem is that there are lots of more important topics to spend time on them rather than wasting my/your time because of a person who has done nothing important and is just a member of former Iranian royal family). AMERICOPHILE 07:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately nothing was found. AMERICOPHILE 07:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I didn't find anything either WhisperToMe (talk) 08:44, 27 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gogameri Cricket Club[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Would nominate for speedy were it not for the vague claims of "a great history" and such. But please, feel free to vote speedy if you think I'm in error. This is non-notable sports club for which even the article creator readily admits no newspaper coverage exists. Also note a history of deletion at Gogameri Cricket Club, Ajeetpura. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no sources either. A look on the page creators user talk has this reason for the page creation: "I had created a page about this club in the past also but you people deleted that because I couldn't prove how the club was notable." The user does nothing to satisfy the criteria of WP:N. "But this time I have a good reason to tell you. Look, this is a great club of this region, that's why it deserves a name for it self on the Wikipedia." The user seems to be under the impression because he thinks it is "great" it merits inclusion. Lastly he himself admits there is no coverage! "You might not find it in newspapers or somewhere else because the clubs from small towns don't make it to the big stage". "I think that's enough to prove the importance of the club"... no, no it isn't unfortunately as you don't satisfy any of the inclusion criteria. Not sure if the past article creation dating back to 2008 merits speedy? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too am finding no sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables (2012 film)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NFF which says. "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". This film has not even completed assembling a cast, let alone started production. In the event that this film does get off the ground, the release date is at least a year away. AussieLegend (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a lot of big names attached to this film and it has a release date. In addition this page contains a lot of useful information. JDDJS (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty much the same reasons as above, including it has numerous references and citations to support the information. Evilgidgit (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough sourcing to warrant an article. Now, should the film be shelved, i suggest automatic redirection. It saves time for everyone, rather than deleting it and re-making it prior to filming. RAP (talk) 2:46 21 December 2011 (UTC)
In response to the above, WP:NFF further says "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available." That the article may contain "a lot of useful information" is not justification, under any policy or guideline, for retention. A lot of deleted articles contained useful information but they were still deleted. A scheduled release date a year away is not a guarantee that the date will not be pushed back as has happened so many times. "It saves time for everyone, rather than deleting it and re-making it prior to filming" completely ignores WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but deleting an article because it's not notable yet is a no-no. RAP (talk) 14:54 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when? Articles about non-notable subjects are deleted all the time. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blantant waste of time. For the creator of the article whose research is flushed down the toilet, and waste of time to other editors when they need to recreate the article when they can just take the redirect and undo it and work from there. RAP (talk) 17:53 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Being a "waste of time" is never a reason to retain an article. If it was, there'd be no reason for AfD because we'd never delete an article. In any case, redirection as suggested by Nymf doesn't delete the content so the "waste of time" argument doesn't apply. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any "research" needn't be "flushed down the toilet". It could be incubated, moved to userspace, or, if redirected, held elsewhere (and preserved in version history). --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we're doing here is trying to ascertain whether this subject is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Deleting an article because it's not notable is not a "no-no", in fact completely the opposite. ALL articles that are not notable should not be here on Wikipedia! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:NFF. Nymf _hideliho! 07:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One Keep More. NFF is a guideline, not a policy, and we should remember that it is not a hard and fast rule as a result. There is always the occassional exception, and I think this qualifies as one of them. There is more than enough coverage from independant third-party sources in this article for it to meet the requirements of WP:N, the overarching policy that supercedes the numerous project-specific guidelines. At the end of the day, NFF is there to stop the creation of articles on films that nobody has ever heard of and have never been discussed in reliable sources, or on films that have simply been announced as in creation with few (if any) other details announced for months - if not years - to come. This film is none of that. Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N is not an "overarching policy", or a policy at all; it too is a guideline and it is a general guideline. The specific guideline that affects this movie is WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NFF is to stop the creation of premature articles for films which may or may not get made. It is very specific when it states that any film can face obstacles, no matter how big or small, and is here to prevent creation of articles like this one, not just "films that nobody has ever heard of". --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but even WP:NFF grants that even the topic of a failed film project could be found notable through application of guideline. Being "not-yet-a-film" is not the determining factor here. Being "of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred" and having persistant and in-depth comentary and analysis over a many-years period is of greater import. NFF seeks to address non-notable film topics and would have greater bearing had this been some unknown or little-covered topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But, if this film is not made, then the failure would not be sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually that assertion is untrue, as the determining factor for notability, even for a failed project, would be if the topic had/has enough coverge in reliable sources and over an extended period of time to be seen as worthy of note. If this topic somehow did not have such coverage, it would be understandably non-notable even after a speculated failure to be completed. But as the topic already has the multiple high-level coverage over an extended period of time, we have a teasonable arguement toward notability now... and even were it to be announced as permanently shelved tomorow... but we do not even have a hint of such happening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N > WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does a general guideline have greater weight than a project specific guideline? Project specific guidelines are created to cater for situations that aren't addressed by the general guideline. This is just such a case and NFF is clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Why does a general guideline have greater weight than a project specific guideline?" - You've answered your own question. NFF states "...unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", with the last two words linking back to WP:N. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The section of NFF that you've quoted refers to "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video)", which doesn't apply to this article because the movie hasn't even finished casting, let alone commenced filming. NFF summarised says that films should not have their own articles until they are released unless they've started filming and the production is notable. We have to apply both NFF and WP:N here. When we do, it's clear this movie shouldn't have an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - As an aside, WP:FUTFILM makes for interesting reading. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:Planned films is interesting as well, and perhaps more cogent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, but what we should be looking at here is whether this film demonstrates an exception to the notability guideline. In my view, it does not. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I respect your opinion, and I am quite willing to opine a delete for anticiapted films if coverage, commentary, analysis, and sourcing is limited or lacking... and it is my own determination per policy and guideline is that this one has the extended and persistant coverage over a many-years period to merit being one of those exceptions, much as The Hobbit (film project) did. It is through such discussions as this that reasonable exceptions are determined. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the policy and guideline. The SNG WP:NF (and its sub-section NFF) is, like all guidelines, headed by "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (see WP:FFEXCEPTIONS). While application of NFF is always being debated when we see an obvious meeting of WP:GNG for a film that is close to principle filming, we may also consider that discussion of the topic of a film's production tis allowed through policy to be discussed if properly sourced... and that WP:N itself states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline" and "A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice". It is through discussions such as these that reasonable and common sense exceptions are considered, and we do not blindly adhere to NFF if doing so prevents improving the encyclopedia. Just as User:AussieLegend observes above, NFF is not a policy. So we may treat an anticipated event per policy and guideline and ask ourselves if the topic under discussion has the in-depth and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period of time so as to be determinable as "worthy of note"? See WP:Planned films. And while per policy we might consider a merge and reirection to either Tom Hooper (director)#Studio films and development projects or Les Misérables (musical)#Film adaptation, we have so much sourced information that doing so would overbuden the possible targets. Hence, an exception to NFF is also a reasonable consideration. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it really overburden anything else? At the moment, it reads like a list of press releases, which could be tightened to a single paragraph. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until production actually starts per WP:NFF. As it's just a list of press releases, it fails WP:N which states that "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage". As this has been in development for 20-30 years, with various other directors attached over the years, there's nothing to stop it being in development for another 20 years. If Wikipedia had been around in 1990, people then would have been saying "look - it has a director and a cast and everything - this film will be made." --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this film gets shelved then you can immediately redirect it. But that is very unlikely. In the mean time there is a lot of important information that is properly sourced that is in the article that should be kept. JDDJS (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And even in guessing it gets shelved, NFF specifically grants that a production can be found notable per the guidelines even if the film is never made or made and never distributed. Above your comment, User:Robsinden observes "this has been in development for 20-30 years, with various other directors attached over the years, there's nothing to stop it being in development for another 20 years". This conjectural statement seems to walk hand-in-hand with guideline acknowledging that persistent and indepth analysis and comentary about a topic over a many years period shows that topic as being worthy of notice per our guidelines... notability being determined through the sourcable and verifiable coverage OF the topic over a many-years period.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But there is no "persistent and indepth analysis", just a list of casting announcements! --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A list? What I am reading is sourced prose offering sourced discussion about the prospects for success or failure of this future project and whether some development will occur. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This argument is arse-about-face. It should be redirected until it becomes a film, or becomes notable enough in its own right. To say that it should only be redirected if it is not made admits that it wouldn't be notable if it isn't made - therefore it isn't notable now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is your opinion then of policy specifically allowing we may have an article on an anticipated event if "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred"? Is it that you are asserting that the topic does somehow not have sufficiently wide interest and coverage in many sources and over an extended period of time? Or is it that you're asserting that the topic demonstrated as meeting the standards set by WP:N does somehow not meet those standards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note There was a similar discussion about The Avengers (2012 film). That ended in no consensus. Interestingly, less than a month after the AFD closed, there was a DYK about it. I know about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and everything, but I think that it is worth a mention that another film became a DYK before filming started. JDDJS (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A more cogent comparison might be the articles The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again... spun out of the years-older The Hobbit (film project) itself created because persisitant on ongoing commentary and analysis of the topic over many years allowed the welcome existance of an article on a "future" event of "sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument works for The Hobbit because there was significant coverage. There is no significant coverage here. "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage". There is no critical analysis here, just a list of casting reports. If we're referring to this article, a good comparison is with what happened with Paradise Lost - it survived an AfD, then was put on hold a couple of days later, so was redirected. This demonstrates that the article wasn't sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. Neither is this one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough sources are warranted for the article to be kept. I also agree with the concerns by Michael Q. Schmidt; it meets both WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Plenty of references that demonstrate notability to pass WP:GNG. Till I Go Home (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No - there is no significant coverage - see above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes there is. The article is meeting WP:SIGCOV; I see plenty of references from such sources as BBC, The Sun, and EW, and these are not trivial mentions. That means there is significant coverage. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless of whether or not there may be significant coverage, the existence of this article ignores WP:FUTFILM and WP:NFF. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:NF and the sub-guidelines you have mentioned assist in determining notability when significant coverage is lacking. In this case, significant coverage has been proven earlier (see my above comment). This sentence is taken directly from the general notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to actually read WP:NFF, especially WP:NFF#General principles, which references WP:GNG. It goes to the trouble of saying "Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article". WP:GNG is the basis of determining notability, but NFF and WP:FUTFILM specifically address whether or not film-related articles should exist, even if the topic meets the basic requirements of GNG. WP:FUTFILM specifically states "All film articles pertaining to future films must meet the future film requirements of the film notability guidelines." Following that requirement, this article should not exist. You can't just cherry-pick which guideline you want to follow, you need to look at the applicability of all of them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I did read the guidelines! Never assume. Also, the sentence extracted from WP:NFF you provided is inaccurate, it in fact says Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article BASED ON CONSENSUS. Consensus is that keeping, not deleting, is required here. Till I Go Home (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The important part is the part I quoted, "Other topics may be presumed to satisfy all the criteria but still may not qualify as a stand-alone article", but you are correct, it does also say "based on consensus." Even though there is significant coverage, which is what you based your keep vote on, significant coverage alone doesn't guarantee that an article should exist. There needs to be more than simply compliance with GNG, at lest for film related articles, which is my point. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If the consensus created here through other's aplication of policy and interpretation of guideline shows this topic as worthy of notice, it will become one of those accepted exceptions to the NF's sub-section NFF. What must be remembered is that each guideline is headed "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." No guideline is absolutely immutable. We do not adhere to them blindly if doing so prevents improving Wikipedia. What is cogent is policy specifically allows that we may have an article on an anticipated event: The "subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Is it your assertion that the topic does not have sufficiently wide interest to merit an article had the event already ocurred? And with coverage in many sources and over an extended period of time, is it your assertion that the topic demonstrated by others as meeting the standards set by WP:N does somehow not meet those standards? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 24 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 07:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bruk Asres[edit]

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

It is not possible to verify that this person has played in a FIFA "A" international match (the match referenced in the article was not an official match) or at a fully-professional level. All coverage of this person appears to be general coverage of the 12 people who sought assylum and only the most trivial mention (his name) is made. Earlier attempts at speedy deletion and proposed deletion were declined primarily because it was asserted that he's played for Eritrea (although no one has verified that he's played an official match). Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a source confirms he played at the 2009 CECAFA Cup, unless I'm reading it wrong...? GiantSnowman 17:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the match against Zimbabwe was not an official match (its not listed at FIFA's website) because Zimbabwe was an invited guest team and did not bring their official side. Jogurney (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) As a follow up, FIFA reports that Eritrea played in three "A" internationals during 2009 - against Rwanda, Somalia and Tanzania - and I can only find a match report for the Tanzania match (Asres did not play in that one). There is a possibility that he played against Rwanada or Somalia, but I have no way of verifying it. Jogurney (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not listed at NFT, which only lists official A-matches. Giant Snowman 17:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability from either WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Having never played in a fully pro league, or a recognised international match, this article fails WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for it pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Kissing Girls (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - T P 16:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gifted But Twisted[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. No independent, reliable press coverage. An IP removed the prod, claiming "Gifted But Twisted in a well established underground punk band, they have over 2.5 million views on youtube and have sold close to 300,000 songs on itunes, therefore deserving a wikipedia page" but obviously neither of those claims signifies notability. TM 16:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2011 (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. v/r - T P 16:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two-node cluster[edit]

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

The article content is so low quality and confused that it can not be salvaged. The topic itself is not notable or encyclopedic, and is better suited for a "how to" programmer's guide. I am beginning to clean up the cluster and distributed computing articles, and this type of alphabet soup is just embarrassing for Wikipedia. There are several like this, someone put text there 5 years ago, mostly confused and a liability, not an asset. This junk has to go before the whole series on Computer clustering can be cleaned up.

And unfortunately Wikipedia content is now being used to the detriment of science by irresponsible publications like this which just repackage the alphabet soup in these articles, then add an ISBN and a nice cover. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 20. Snotbot t • c » 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. If articles about this general topic area are being worked then that's fine but deletion is not required for this. Merger is more appropriate. Warden (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? It is 99.99% garbage. There is nothing to merge. You merge them. But stop garbage from accumulating in Wikipedia. This is embarrassing. And the term is not notable. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A3 ([only] a rephrasing of the title)- it just says: "A two-node cluster is a computer cluster with two nodes...Two hosts, each with its own local storage device(s)...Some method of interconnection" --Northernhenge (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

';'Merge to Computer cluster - two node cluster is apparently more than a cluster with two computers, it is notable jargon related to cluster computing. --Kvng (talk) 23:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this too. But in any case there is nothing to merge. History2007 (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and there is nothing to merge -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work trying to clean this up. --Kvng (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is already merged in Computer_cluster#Basic_concepts as a fraction of a sentence, as I started to clean that up. So let me withdraw the Afd and move on. History2007 (talk) 00:08, 23 December 2011 (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 Computer cluster. Article history left intact for credit / merging purposes. Jujutacular ^talk 13:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer cluster in virtual machines[edit]

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

The topic is on the wrong side of the notability line and is not encyclopedic. The text is confused and useless. I am beginning to clean up the cluster and distributed computing articles, and this type of alphabet soup is just embarrassing for Wikipedia. There are several like this, someone put text there 5 years ago, mostly confused and a liability, not an asset. This junk has to go before the whole series on Computer clustering can be cleaned up.

And unfortunately Wikipedia content is now being used to the detriment of science by irresponsible publications like this which just repackage the alphabet soup in these articles, then add an ISBN and a nice cover. History2007 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 20. Snotbot t • c » 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. If articles about this general topic area are being worked then that's fine but deletion is not required for this. Merger is more appropriate. Warden (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to merge? It is 99.99% garbage. There is nothing to merge. You merge them. But stop garbage from accumulating in Wikipedia. This is embarrassing. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I removed the illogical parts, and ended up with one paragraph - so I guess it can be merged now. Easier that way. But the title should be "Virtualized computer cluster" to make some sense at least when people search. History2007 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTTEXTBOOK or, at best, it could be merged into Computer cluster. --Northernhenge (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No need to use AfD for cleanup. Sure, the result will likely be a merge and the article will turn in to a redirect. Take the path of least resistance please. --Kvng (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it is already merged in Computer_cluster#Virtualized_clusters as a single paragraph, as I started to clean that up. So let me withdraw the Afd and move on. History2007 (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2011 (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 to keep this although it needs work to turn it into a decent article.Michig (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision[edit]

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

non notable essay. No refs. google shows lots of copies of the essay, but no discussion/criticism. I suspect, but have no proof, that the creator is the author of the essay, based on the creator's username, (FemiAmeriPoet), and the description of the author in the article (American feminist, poet, teacher, and writer) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From looking at the locations of some of the copies of the essay, it looks like this might be something taught in various colleges. Unfortunately I'm so far not finding anything as far as lesson plans go and I know that being hosted on a college website does not always guarantee that the essay will be specifically taught in a class. Everything that is coming up is just copies of the essay on various websites. The author looks to be notable but I'm not sure that this essay is notable outside of her or that Rich counts as someone so notable that all of her works would be automatically notable as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional. I'm finding a few sources, but I'm not sure if they are enough to keep the article. It seems to have been briefly discussed in the Encyclopedia of Feminist Literature as well as The Routledge Companion to Feminism and Postfeminism and I'm finding some lesson plans that have her as something they're studying [54] [55] [56] [57]. They were a bear to find and I can't post all of them since some of them are google documents of class syllabi, but I did find that this is being taught in some college courses. Whether or not they're enough to keep it, I'm not certain.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

honest question - does use in college courses constitute notability? Would that not depend a lot on who is teaching the course, and if they are associated with the author etc? (Certainly they would have to be independent). I guess my point is my gut says - "works that are used in college courses are likely to be notable, but such use does not prove so). Gaijin42 (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly? I'm actually not so sure on that and I agree that being taught in a class doesn't always equate with notability. However I actually feel about this qualification under WP:NBOOK, if a book or written subject is taught in multiple schools of any grade level it's considered to be notable. I'm not sure what constitutes "multiple" since the guideline never actually states quantities. I wish that's something that was clarified.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

More than one constitutes multiple. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that if this is kept, it'll pretty much have to be completely rewritten to get rid of all of the OR in the article and make it more neutral and encyclopedic. The biggest flaw of this is that it appears that the original contributor uploaded a research paper they'd written. I'll try to do some work with it sometime during this week before the AfD ends.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

On reflection, Keep. While I haven't found much in the way of sustained discussion (with this article being the exception), I have found a number of academic sources that describe the work as important or notable ([58], [59], [60], etc. etc.) and it's also cited often as a vehicle for understanding other texts, both by Rich and by others. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. Tokyogirl is right, this will need serious editing for NPOV, very likely because it's self-authored. However there does seem to be an article in there somewhere, and well done her and Roscolese for finding some sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books and Scholar searches disclose large numbers of sources discussing this publication and treating it as important. Would appear to meet the notability guideline for a literary work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 20 December 2011 (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mlpy[edit]

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

Non notable software, article created by software author. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The library is widely used in the scientific community. See similar projects as scikit-learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidealbanese (talk • contribs) 15:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being widely used does not indicate WP:Notability Gaijin42 (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that mlpy is a machine learning software as weka, Shogun toolbox, Orange and scikit-learn... Davidealbanese —Preceding undated comment added 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the international repository of machine learning open source software http://mloss.org , the mlpy library is 3th by number of views (25490) and 4th by number of downloads (4892) on 360 software projects. See https://mloss.org/software/views/ and https://mloss.org/software/downloads/ . --Davidealbanese (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:GNG and WP:RS for help in determining what constitutes notability, and sources that would validate notability. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References added --Davidealbanese (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a new editor Davidealbanese may want to read WP:COI. It will help the article if he declares his interests (if any). I think more quality sources will be needed to support this article. It is a new sourceforge project with 213 total downloads so far. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The project is active since 2008, see http://mloss.org/workshop/nips08/ (NIPS Workshop) and http://web.mit.edu/shivani/www/Ranking-NIPS-09/Proceedings/proceedings-nips09workshop-ranking.pdf#page=22. The project was moved recently to sourceforge.net due to hosting problems. See mlpy in https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/mlpy. --Davidealbanese (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified mentions of the library in reliable sources [61], plus the references cited, support notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:44, 20 December 2011 (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. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Yao Ming[edit]

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

Non-notable author lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article indicates the author won awards for the novels; however, there is no support for the awards. The books appear to be self-published. Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR. reddogsix (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Chinese language article for this author offers only weak sources, a youtube video and a blog (probably his own). The books do come up in Google book search if you search on his Chinese name. Not sure if they are self-published. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gan is an award winning author in Taiwan. the Youtube in the Chinese version is a trailer for "10 best book in 2009" award he obtain from China Times; the blog is the official blog[62]. If you can read Chinese, pls check this article 甘耀明──六年級第一人--Nivekin (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can we get more info on the awards he has won? That is pretty key to satisfying WP:AUTHOR. Absent that, this would appear to be one for Delete? --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Waht do you mean by "the official blog"? If you mean the author's official blog, then that does nothing to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- it is "the official blog" of China Times--Nivekin (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information of the awards is listed in the link provided (in Chinese). Also the Lin Rong-San Literature Prize(2nd, 2006), the Wu Zhuo-liu Literature Prize(36th, 2005) (in Chinese Wiki). All the above information has been listed in Gan Yao Ming already. The only problem is that you cannot read Chinese. -Nivekin (talk) 11:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The links given here by Nivekin are to Chinese Wikipedia articles on the awards referred to, and they lack references. I don't know how significant those awards are, but an award would have to be pretty major for coming 36th to establish substantial notability on a person. Neither the English nor the Chinese Wikipedia article has any suitable sources to establish notability. There may be suitable coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, but as long as they are not cited we cannot assume there are. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is talking about the 36th Wu Zhuo-liu Literature Prize in 2005, not Gan getting the 36th runner up... Again, the problem is you cannot read Chinese--Nivekin (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to urlencode the page name or it's difficult to recognize them in page source. Liangent (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For zh:林榮三文學獎 I added some references but for zh:吳濁流文學獎 I really cannot find some good reference for the list of past award winners. Liangent (talk) 07:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For 36th zh:吳濁流文學獎, here comes a press coverage with the list of award winners and Gao is the winner of Novel section. [63]--Nivekin (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources that show notability. The Chinese Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This (Google Translate), which is posted above, is the blog of China Times. I do consider it a good source because the blog is a part of a notable newspaper's website, but that is not good enough. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls translate these link 甘耀明──六年級第一人, 殺鬼，也殺神：面對甘耀明. 臺灣文學學報--Nivekin (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An English coverage for your reference Outstanding writers to attend Taipei book fair. Also |another article in Chinese by National Culture and Arts Foundation of Taiwan, which can be a proof of his awards:吳濁流文學獎 (the Wu Zhuo-liu Literature Prize)、林榮三文學獎 (Lin Rong-San Literature Prize)--Nivekin (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable within the context of well known Taiwanese writers. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The media publishes its deed, accord with the notable .--Wasami007 (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reson for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (awesome) comment seems like an assessment of the above discussion to me. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 14:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage by the China News and The China Post (Nivekin's ESL source is a reprint of [64]) seems to indicate notability. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2011 (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Atlanta[edit]

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

The Demographics of Atlanta article contains almost no additional information versus the Demographics section of the main Atlanta page (Atlanta#Demographics). The sole exception is a list of population by year over time, but this is just turning the historic population table into prose - which has no added value - and there are a few random facts about points in time when the city limits were increased. I would be glad to have a separate article on Demographics of Atlanta if there were any value added in it. However, its current existence as merely a "mirror" of what is in Atlanta#Demographics just makes those two pages out of sync and creates false expectations for users who might navigate to the Demographics article that there might be more information here. Keizers (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added more information so that it is not duplicate, and I plan to add more in the future. In any case, the demographics of Atlanta are a very interesting area of study to many people, and have implications that stretch far beyond. Thus, it deserves its own page, as it will likely to continue to grow, and that new information would be forced into the main article if there is no separate demographics page. I also question the editor's original actions of deleting it without following the proper procedures; if I hadn't corrected him, there would have never been an entry on the articles for deletion page. This makes me suspicious of her motives.--Mmann1988 (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" I also question the editor's original actions of deleting it without following the proper procedures; if I hadn't corrected him, there would have never been an entry on the articles for deletion page. This makes me suspicious of her motives" - I don't see how that is relevant to this AfD discussion. That is, again, making things personal.

I think the question is, is the promise of adding unique material to this article sufficient to keep the article. Also we are supposed to vote Keep or Delete, suggest you label your post as such Keizers (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's been a while since I've participated in AfD, so forgive me if I'm hazy on AfD criteria.

I notice that some cities have daughter articles entitled "Demographics of (cityname)". Perhaps it's appropriate for Atlanta to have one as well. The bulky tables and demographic details can be shunted off to the Demo article (see, for example, Demographics of New York City. As Mmann suggests, the article can grow over time. The main article on Atlanta would include just a brief encapsulation of ATL demographics. I'd suggest leaving "black mecca" in the summary within the Atlanta article as I suspect that it's an important topic and will merit its own article (Atlanta and African-American Culture or something like that?)

I'm hoping that the two involved editors can come to an amicable meeting of the minds. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is what we already had. We had a Demographics of Atlanta article which contained exactly what was in the main Atlanta article. And with a promise that it would develop into more over time, which it hasn't. So the question is - how long do we keep a Demographics article which contains no additional information vs. the main article? I mean, I just don't see the point, the just get out of sync. Keizers (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Atlanta article. I don't see that the size of the demographics section in the Atlanta article is so large that it needs its own section, although I can see with further expansion that may be necessary. I suggest that any expansion occur within the Atlanta article, and when it grows to an extent that makes it difficult to sustain as a section, that it be split off to the Demographics article per Wikipedia:Summary style, after some talk page discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is actually a split/merge decision. There is enough material in Demographics of Atlanta to justify an article, and there is room for growth. The section in the Atlanta article contains two tables that are better in a dedicated article than in a general article on the town, so can be cut down. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article at this time appears to have been further expanded and improved, and has much more information compared to the demographics section of the Atlanta article. This is definitely not a duplicate of the demographics section of the Atlanta article at this time. A reasonable content fork that adds value to the Wikipedia project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:01, 31 December 2011 (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. v/r - T P 16:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MAD DOG Energy Lemonade[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable product, declined prod, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable product, created by a SPA, likely for the purpose of promoting the product. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kent North[edit]

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

No evidence of passing GNG or PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (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) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like an interesting guy (as gay porn actors go), but clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. WP is not a memorial site. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He won a Grabby Awards in 2007 and a Grabby Awards (Wall of Fame) in 2008. --Dispe (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ongoing discussion indicates that many editors believe PORNBIO sets the notability bar too low. This isn't notable on GNG grounds, obviously. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tendentially keep. I must honestly admit that I don't know much the mechanism of adult industry (either straight or gay) and its awards, though I suppose that the latter are to reward a notable performance as well as Academy Awards do for mainstream movies. But here is stated that the person mentioned in the article has been recipient of a major award for his category. If winning a movie award is a sign of distinction for an actor's activity I think that the article shouldn't be deleted. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline keep - the award source doesn't provide sufficient material to establish notability, however a (not work friendly) search on Google does throw up some coverage in gay magazines on his death. Some of this coverage appears to be a reprint of a press release by his film company, and coverage doesn't appear to break out of the gay community, however sources such as Bay Area Reporter are regarded as notable so there is just enough to keep this. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:24, 30 December 2011 (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. causa sui (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moses ka Moyo[edit]

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

Not finding much to indicate this person is notable; charitable intentions don't obviate the need to demonstrate notability The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Did you attempt a search for sources, or just type this in agreement? The essay cited above in the nomination isn't a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Perhaps you just agree with the essay? Please expound upon your rationale to delete this article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like the subject has been involved in several projects - and, thus, if there were coverage of these projects that focused on the subject's involvement, then an article might be appropriate. But as it stands, I can't find the sources we'd need for such an article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found some reliable sources, see below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source, for one, goes some way towards demonstrating notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and here's an archive copy of one of the sources that was removed from the article just before it was nominated for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note the addition of more reliable sources to this article, and the existence of them. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:BASIC, several sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Added to the article:

Thakali, Thabiso (July 17, 2010). "'We Zulus are going to beat you up'". Independent Online News. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"'Inner city hasn't seen political freedom'". Independent Online News. November 19, 2008. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Building hijackers in court". Independent Online News. October 16, 2009. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Hillbrow residents march against evictions". Independent Online News. June 12, 2008. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Hillbrow residents fight evictions". Independent Online News. June 12, 2008. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Cox, Anna (March 5, 2009). "Marchers voice support for building hijackers". Independent Online News. Retrieved December 20, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Tau, Poloko (November 20, 2008). "Inner-city tenants take plight to ANC". Retrieved December 20, 2011.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage has been found. Clicking the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD finds a lot in one source, including this one [65] which clearly establishes the person, he getting coverage for his activities. Dream Focus 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rescue work by User:Northamerica1000. I'd like to see more diversity of sourcing, but the links added certainly establish verifiability and GNG. Based on the large number of online links, I believe we can presume more offline sources are available. BusterD (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added to the article:

Nkosi, Bongani (September 14, 2009). "Building Hope in the Inner City (Archived)". Official Website of the City of Johannesburg. Retrieved December 30, 2011.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. Typical case of marginal notability. I can't make up my mind here because I'm having difficulty assessing the reliability of Independent Online News. I don't see an editorial board, or clear indications of fact-checking, yet it claims to be a brand that owns several regional newspapers, and claims to belong to certain journalist best-practices groups. If I exclude ION then I think this has to be a delete; with it I would make it a keep. I didn't find ION in a somewhat cursory look in the WP:RS/N archives. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Online isn't "a brand that owns several regional newspapers", but the web site of several of South Africa's most respected national and regional newspapers owned by Independent News & Media. There is no more reason to doubt its reliability than that of The New York Times or the BBC. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was looking to close this, but my opinion is that the sources (which appear acceptable, as the website is part of Independent News & Media and the archived source is from the local authority) do not deal with Moses ka Moyo, but with an incident of which he is a part. The news sources are dealing with a news event. And the local authority source is dealing with Friends of the Inner City. If the event is notable, we should be covering the event, not a person who is a part of that event. And if the event is not notable, then the person is clearly not notable. If Friends of the Inner City is notable, we should have an article on that. However, these views are not given in the discussion, and people are !voting to keep because Moses ka Moyo's name keeps appearing in the sources. I cannot close as delete as that would be a supervote, and I can't in good conscience close this as either a keep or a no consensus because the article doesn't appear to meet our inclusion criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned as a community leader, and they mention his activities for various things over the years. Look at the date of the news sources found. He gets continual coverage, not just for one invent. Dream Focus 19:08, 30 December 2011 (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. While there are reviews which establish that the book exists, it has been pointed out that the reviews have borderline notability under our inclusion criteria. It is possible that the book will generate enough reviews in more mainstream publications to meet our inclusion criteria, and at that point the article can be accepted on Wikipedia. The consensus among established Wikipedia members is that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria - the keep comments from the majority of the IP accounts have not been considered as, despite the accounts tracing to different locations in the world, there is a credible suspicion that they are sockpuppet accounts. I am willing to WP:Userfy the article on request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat[edit]

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)

Sources cited for article universally fail WP:RS rules. Having a long list of bad sources (mere personal blogs, the author's/publisher's website, etc.) only fools people who glance at the list into thinking it is notable instead of displaying any true notability.

The write up is essentially a vanity piece quoting the author's own thoughts on his work for long paragraphs, citing reviews he gave to nonnotable blogs. Reviews of just some people off the street who happen to have their own blogs are also referenced. A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources). There is a mention that some more mainstream sources reviewed it favorably, but the only source is the puiblisher's website and not the publications in question, and even if these actually happened they would have to be more than mere mentions to meet the nontrivial coverage requirements.

Most importantly, however, this book dramatically fails the threshold standards as described at Wikipedia:NBOOK#Threshold_standards, in which at a bare minimum any book that wants a Wikipedia article must be present in a dozen or more libraries. Worldcat shows only two libraries in the world have a copy of this publication. It is already several months past its release and therefore extremely unlikely that a number of other libraries will ever stock it. This book therefore fails our most basic criteria for inclusion and must be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- PLEASE DO NOT DELETE. I have put a lot of work into this entry, along with input into other Australian authors, and I believe it is not appropriate to do so for the reasons cited by DreamGuy.

When this entry was previously suggestion for deletion, I was asked to provide sources to support the article, so these I have threaded into it - from reviews and interviews with the author. If these were incorrectly done, I apologize and would appreciate clear advice on how the "clean up" the article to make it perfect for Wikipedia standards. I can't seem to get a clear understanding from Wikipedia instructions as to how I've missed the point.

- I want to learn in order to be able to work with other entries on Wikipedia, especially (as I mentioned) an approach to all Australian authors as these are worthy of some appreciation/love in the "clean up" stakes - but if people like DreamGuy barge in and declare everything is wrong and bears "a long list of bad sources" without precisely explaining why... well, it depresses me and doesn't inspire me to wish to do anything else on Wikipedia.
- Regarding the "long list of bad sources" which DreamGuy says are "mere personal blogs, the author's/publisher's website, etc." this is NOT correct. Some of the review sources are taken from hard-copy media publications (eg. Farrago, Lip Magazine, Beat magazine), while others come from established and/or respected book review blogs in the genre like SF Book Reviews, The Future Fire, and Verbicide.
- Only one reference leads to the author's/publisher's website - that "The novel has also received praise from The Age newspaper and ABC Radio National in Australia". This information is also printed on the back of the novel's cover, so I suggest it is appropriate to be cited.
- With these points in mind I think it's a bit much for DreamGuy to suggest that "only fools people who glance at the list into thinking it is notable instead of displaying any true notability."
- Where DreamGuy says "The write up is essentially a vanity piece quoting the author's own thoughts on his work for long paragraphs, citing reviews he gave to nonnotable blogs", I would also challenge this.
- Some of the quotes were from Lip Magazine - an Australian print magazine that also has a blog - while the quotes from Upstart magazine are worthy enough as Upstart is a respected online repository for upcoming journalists in Australia. I believed these kind of interview quotes were informative and enlightening to people interested in the novel itself, as they give background information - most journalistic interviews do a similar thing. But I suppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a magazine, so we could remove the author interview quotes if these are deemed unnecessary.
- DreamGuy's further complaint that "A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources)" is not particularly fair, since the "Proposing article for deletion per WP:PROD" tag was thrown onto three of these sources (The Future Fire, Verbicide and Lip Magazine) by DreamGuy him/herself the same day - 11 December 2011 - that Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat ‎was nominated for deletion.
- I was unaware of the "Wikipedia:NBOOK#Threshold_standards, in which at a bare minimum any book that wants a Wikipedia article must be present in a dozen or more libraries", and appreciate that DreamGuy referred me to it. But I would suggest that strict adhesion to such formalities rules out smaller, independent publishers that may not have the long reach of major publishers - but does that render their work any less satisfactory or "worthy", especially with the way in which the technology world is currently changing, and libraries are not quite as pertinent as they once were?
- Philosophical diatribes aside (I'm sorry about that!), I do contend that this book has proved more than worthy enough on several levels. Perhaps a rewrite may be in order, as well as (if vital) the removal of author interview quotes, but worthiness? I believe so. But I'm biased - as is, I believe, DreamGuy against it.Alsation23 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, you two (above). I'm reading too much emotion from both ends with regard to the debate about whether this article is worthy - or not. I believe Alsation23 and DreamGuy make pertinent points. I therefore believe the article should have the author's own thoughts on his work removed to satisfy the concerns of DreamGuy, and have done so in the article. Of course Alsation23 can contest this if not in agreement. I have also removed some review quotes from personal blogs but left in the ones that I believe related to reputable sources. After some research I found that the review attributed to Guy Salvidge, mentioned on the article but linked to the reviewer's personal blog, was also published on the credible website Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus (http://aussiespecficinfocus.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat/); I have therefore corrected this attribution in the article. Re: The threshold standards as described at Wikipedia:NBOOK#Threshold_standards, I note that there is a disclaimer point: 'There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards'. These are a guideline, but not a rule. The review comments have also been amended by myself. Again Alsation23 can challenge this with suitable evidence/information. I do believe we can keep the review comments from print magazines Farrago, Beat and Lip Magazine, and the additional comments from websites Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews and Upstart would appear suitable as they are not simple blogs but news sites. To my mind Verbicide is also attributable. I notice from the publisher's site for the book that the praise from The Age and Radio National is attributable to one person, Patricia Maunder, and have amended this accordingly. This can be removed if inappropriate. Otherwise I believe the article meets notability standards with the references that remain. My vote: KEEP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.236.76.85 (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I appreciate we don't bite the newbies, but if this book doesn't even get over Threshhold, does it justify an incubate? Even if it goes through incubation I don't see how it gets all the way up to satisfying the criteria set out in WP:BOOK. I appreciate that the original authors have a deep emotional investment in the article (and, presumably, the underlying book), but I have to say in my view it goes down as a delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Mainstream popularity and availability in libraries does not a good book make. Out of interest, have you taken the time to read any of the book DreamGuy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.247 (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

KEEP - "This was one of the more memorable books of the year." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.73.28 (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability)(Forgive me, this is my first time contributing to Wikipedia, and I am doing so out of a perceived timely necessity.) It is my opinion that this entry fulfills this guideline.

Part of the 'problem' given in regards to this book being given its own topic was, "A couple of sources are blue links to Wikipedia articles, but these are inevitably to publications that themselves fail Wikipedia notability requirements, such as The Future Fire (no reliable sources)." Being the person who reviewed Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat for The Future Fire, it pains me to say that yes, the Wikipedia page on The Future Fire is, indeed, lacking and does not live up to the guidelines ... however, I have seen nowhere here that says that quotes from places who do not have their own Wikipedia page cannot be used; therefor, even if TFF's own topic page does fall to deletion, I see no reason why this should spell the demise of the entry for Tobacco-Stained Mountain Goat, nor even to a link to the review itself rather than to a Wikipedia entry about the site. Unfortunately, you will just have to take my word for it that I am not simply fishing for links to my article ... reject that if you must, but realize that if I were fishing for publicity for TFF, I would likely be doing so by defending TFF's page, not this one. It is still no reason for this book to not have its own page. "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation." (Again, Wikipedia's Notability page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.87.92 (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I guess I'm OK with the edits. It reads kind of boring now but I guess DreamGut should be satisfied.Alsation23 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Removed "KEEP" at front because the editor has clearly already voted above. Please do not vote more than once. DreamGuy (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sourcing in the article is insufficient to establish notability, and I am unable to find any myself. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what you think defines "notability". As mentioned above we have reviews by print magazines Farrago, Beat and Lip Magazine, and websites Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus and Upstart. Now there's an additional - glowing - review by Elizabeth White: http://www.elizabethawhite.com/2011/12/14/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-by-andrez-bergen-2/ Alsation23 (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Reply ' - In terms of Wikipedia, WP:NOTABILITY is what I go by. Perhaps a better term might be "inclusion criteria", but notability is what it is generally known by. -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that, but I've already explored this WP:NOTABILITY link. You will note: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."Alsation23 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I don't feel that the sourcing in the article meets what I would consider significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with you, but how would you define "significant coverage" in this day and age of disparate media? Inclusion in established newspapers like the New York Times? You may not be aware of this, but a majority of mainstream newspapers these days only review books from mainstream publishers - meaning that independent publishers (and authors) are left out in the cold. And I think very positive reviews from 8 different independent media outlets (as defined above) is significant enough, don't you think? There were more in the article before but these have been removed.Alsation23 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are looking for a bright line definition from me, then it isn't happening. There is obviously subjectivity in the evaluation of sources, and of course independent press will have some difficulty getting notice, but I'll reiterate that the sources present now, and previously in the article are insufficient in my opinion. -- Whpq (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Reviewed Wikipedia WP:NOTABILITY and as discussed there is more than enough significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.236.76.85 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage? If so, please provide references for them. Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications do not count. The kind of criteria you seem to be arguing for to establish notability would mean nothing would ever be non-notable. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. More notable than many other books invested enties on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.215.199.135 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why your argument doesn't work. If there are honestly less notable books that have articles on Wikipedia, please point them out and we'll delete them too. DreamGuy (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is beside the point, which remains notability. Once again DreamGuy paints down the arguments (above) with the blanket comment "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications do not count", ignoring the fact that some of the sources are PRINT MEDIA (not websites), and some of the websites that are cited - Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus and Upstart - are NOT "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications". If you have an axe to grind, please do it with more class - and better arguments. This is frustrating stuff.Alsation23 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What better argument do you need then the book doesn't meet the bare minimum threshold requirement for having a Wikipedia article, and is very far away from meeting it? I have no axe to grind other than following Wikipedia's policies and preventing articles that are nothing more than spam. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about the sources being adequate as reported above and apologize for the side step re: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.215.199.135 (talk)

Yeh, I'm sorry I got on my soapbox, too. Frustration speaking! But I still hold that the quotes we have kept are fine given the sources (PRINT media & DECENT websites as outlined in my previous annotation). Thankyou.Alsation23 (talk) 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Review by Elizabeth A White is now up on 4 newspapers websites: The Savannah Morning News (Savannah, Georgia, USA)

http://savannahnow.com/share/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book-review#.Tu5XwkpV4vp, St. Augustine Record (St. Augustine, Florida, USA) http://staugustine.com/interact/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book#.Tu5YC0pV4vp, The Florida Times-Union (Jacksonville, Florida, USA) http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/458407/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book, and Bluffton Today (Bluffton, South Carolina) http://www.blufftontoday.com/blog-post/elizabeth-white/2011-12-18/tobacco-stained-mountain-goat-andrez-bergen-book-review#.Tu5Xu0pV4vp. I think you might agree that these are not "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications".Alsation23 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud, YES, those ARE mere personal blogs. The URLs even say they are blogs. The review did not appear in ANY of those newspapers. Some sites pride feeds to other blogs within their sites, and that's all those are. If this is the best you have then you are helping prove why this book is completely non-notable. And, in fact, based upon how obvious it is that those are mere personal blogs and yet you are pretending otherwise, I have to wonder if you are purposefully being deceptive to try to keep this article here by hook or by crook. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I'm going to apologize here and now for any bad foot we got off on in terms of discussing this subject - I think we could both do with an opportunity to stand back and look at the big picture. I note your comments above; thank you for taking the time to point them out. Contrasting this, I believe Sionk best hit the nail on the head when he suggested that "WP:NBOOK does not require reviews in 'major newspapers', it simply requires that "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."

On that basis, the following print media (non-blog) reviews [66] [67] [68] are all published in reliable, independent sources with editorial control. This source [69] lists a number of other reviews in published magazines. As Sionk also noted, "Personally I've never read this book or heard about it before now, but I don't think we should be creating extra hurdles to meet 'notability', just because the subject isn't on our personal radar".

Any further help and advice you can contribute here will be appreciated. Rather than being "deceptive to try to keep this article here by hook or by crook", I'm honestly trying to gauge exactly how processes work here on Wikipedia, and I also honestly believe this article is worthy. Alsation23 (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - There are several independent, reliable book reviews cited for the article, so it seems to just about meet one of the criteria for WP:BK. Of course it needs substantial improvement, especially because it also uses a number of questionable sources. This is a classic case of 'biting the newbies' because here the newbie specifically asks for advice on how to improve the article. Instead of offering advice or giving the new editor a chance to improve the article, it has been sent straight for deletion! Sionk (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, Sionk!Alsation23 (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BOOK - also is there socking or meat-puppeting going on here? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm getting completely confused. Some people are saying delete, some keep; some say the article fulfills WP:BK and others don't. Now there's jargon like "socking or meat-puppeting" - what on earth is that? It would be nice if you gave more information to people not as experienced in Wikipedia, Cameron Scott. In fact this whole experience has been very disillusioning thanks to some people - as Sionk mentioned, I've been asking for help and advice all along, and instead I get the cold shoulder and calls to delete all the work. What's the point? Sorry, but couldn't people be more collaborative and helpful, patient and nurturing with this stuff? What is the desperate need to delete things without investing any effort? I think I might as well give up on Wikipedia here and now. Alsation23 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't understand how the article fails WP:BOOK - it meets the criteria The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.

I've also never heard of meat-puppeting :) Socking is when someone uses multiple WP accounts to pretend they are somebody different (like a sock hand-puppet). Sionk (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
1. Whether the subject meets or fails WP:NBOOK is the entire reason for the deletion nomination. It requires interpretation of the guidelines, and evaluation of the sources for each editor in order for that editor to arrive at a recommendation (often denoted as a "!vote" because it isn't a vote). Editors can legitimately come to different conclusions. If it were objective, and black and white, there would be no need for a discussion to arrive at a consensus.
2. With respect to sock and meat puppeting, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry provides information about this issue.
3. Those unfamiliar with the deletion process may also want to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.
-- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after a good night's sleep I haven't given up on Wikipedia quite yet! Sorry about the rant yesterday. Now I also understand about sock and meat puppeting (although I'm not sure how it relates to the point here, but fair enough). I hope we can settle this properly, to everyone's satisfaction - though it's quite probable that some people (DreamGuy?) will beg to disagree. Anyway, out of all the above haggling, let me round-up:

I would agree with Sionk's point that the novel "has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself", as per WP:BK.
I disagree with DreamGuy's assertion that these sources are "Mere personal blogs and other non-notable e-publications [that] do not count". Some of the sources (Farrago, Beat, Lip Magazine) are PRINT MEDIA publications (ie. not websites), and some of the websites that are cited (Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus, St. Augustine Record, The Florida Times-Union and Upstart) are independent, reputable online sources.
If anyone here is prepared to give a few minutes to help out with the article and/or make it more appropriate to Wikipedia, that would be fantastic and a great learning curve for me as well. Thankyou in advance. Alsation23 (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Although there has been quite a lot of discussion here, I think that a relisting is appropriate. There was disruption from puppets and one of the main contributors to the discussion was trying to contribute but learning policy from scratch. It seems that the main focus for discussion is, and should be, whether the sources are reliable, and that further focused discussion on that may enable this to reach a clearer consensus. I am also semi-protecting to prevent further puppets.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regret, I'm going to have to go for Delete. I'll try and explain why as simply as I can. Firstly - the "News" and "Books" searches above - which are a standard litmus test for notability, return nothing. Secondly - the problem with the sources linked in the article are that anyone can (at least in theory) contribute to content and reviews on all of the sites. If you had reviews on news or review websites where only a small number of journalists were allowed to contribute, and their content was peer reviewed (eg: by an editor), that would probably tip it just about in the direction of notable. As it stands today, I'm afraid that doesn't appear to be the case. My recommendation would be to userfy the page and look at getting some reviews in major newspapers. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NBOOK does not require reviews in 'major newspapers', it simply requires that "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."

On that basis, the following reviews [70] [71] [72] are all published in reliable, independent sources with editorial control. This source [73] lists a number of other reviews in published magazines. Personally I've never read this book or heard about it before now, but I don't think we should be creating extra hurdles to meet 'notability', just because the subject isn't on our personal radar. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although this AFD is clearly being meat/sock attacked, the book did receive good coverage in book reviews. Some of them are bloggish, but the upstart and beat reviews at least qualifies as an WP:RS with editorial staff. The forces of geek one is obviously problematic, as the book author is an author for that site as well. Faraggo is borderline, as it is a college paper, but I would give it benefit of the doubt. Star journal is an RS URL, but the review itself is a blog. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the meat puppeting in the world doesn't change the fact that the only sources and reviews fail WP:RS. A few may be borderline (blogs of somewhat mainstream pubs) but I think this still falls short of what would be expected to pass wp:books, no matter how many puppets try to bludgeon the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reboot for further discussion, but I do think all the asides about "meat puppeting" detract from this intention. Now that I actually get the gist of what meat puppets means, it's unproven here and a little beside the point. I don't agree that "the only sources and reviews fail WP:RS", especially now I've had a read of that section and it stipulates: "The reliability of a source depends on context." WP:NBOOK also does not require reviews in "major newspapers". I think the problem here is that different people read differing things between the lines of these Wikipedia guidelines, and we can keep going in circles. There may well be major newspaper reviews of this novel - I've only submitted the ones I've found online. Unless we contact the author/publisher directly, we'll never know - but the sources that we do have a re more than appropriate - to reiterate: Some of the sources (Farrago, Beat, Lip Magazine) are PRINT MEDIA publications (ie. not websites), and some of the websites that are cited (Forces Of Geek, SF Book Reviews, Australian Speculative Fiction in Focus, St. Augustine Record, The Florida Times-Union and Upstart) are independent, reputable online sources. Can we try to be proactive here instead of focusing on puppetry and deletion? I'd really, really appreciate more help. If this fails, I'm giving up on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway, to people like Sionk and Gaijin42. Alsation23 (talk) 04:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mention (brief) at the authors article is sufficient, given the lack of notable reviews. We would need a review from a source which itself is notable, such as a major author or magazine (either that has an article, or is sourced heavily on WP, or appears to deserve an article). the refs provided all fall below that threshhold. it can be expanded within his article if/when notable reviews/mentions appear. If a strong fan base or cabal (in this case, the real world WP:Walled garden of small press publishing) comes to an article or an AFD, does their best to show notability, and cannot provide more than what we have here, then its definitely not notable. like asking a chef to give you his best dish: if it fails, they have no excuse. please note: the publisher, Another Sky Press, had an article which was deleted for lack of notability (a sincerely motivated Vanity press), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Another Sky Press.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mercurywoodrose, you are incorrect about Another Sky Press being a Vanity press which, according to the link you give here, is "a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense." In the interviews/articles I have read about the publisher while researching this article, and having just looked over their website again just now, it is quite clear that they are an independent publisher but certainly NOT a Vanity press. There's absolutely no mention of taking money from authors to publish their books - unless you're privy to information I haven't comes across? If so, please share. Otherwise it would seem to detract from the issue here, which is, I thought what Tigershark noted when s/he relisted this debate: "discussion is, and should be, whether the sources are reliable, and that further focused discussion on that may enable this to reach a clearer consensus." Again we boil down to the perception of notability of the sources we have. While I agree there is no major newspaper publication review (at least that I have found while researching the article), in this day and age this would not surprise me as major newspapers review books from major publishing houses as these pay for advertizing at said newspapers. Independents are rarely covered. That said, we have an array of media coverage as previously discussed (above) and it's this that we should look at rather than meat puppets or vanity press. We already have a few differences of opinion, but it would be great to stay on topic. Alsation23 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but from my point of view, I have nothing personal against you whatsoever, and it would be sad if you abandoned Wikipedia because of this. More specifically, I would only ever claim that an article is not notable now or not notable yet. Hence the more constructive suggestion of moving the page into your userspace, where it will be preserved and still accessible, and work on sources that will prove beyond any doubt to most people here that the book is notable. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they are not a vanity press, poor wording on my part. What i meant to say is their business model, an honor system where they are willing to give away their books online for free (payment optional), is highly admirable, but means that they have no commitment to making money from their books. That, unfortunately, in our capitalist world, is one of the criteria for notability: sales. How does that relate to this title? If the book is only notable for online reviews, and we cannot measure its success by paid downloads, its that much harder to establish notability. What would make this book notable is if it got press for selling copies despite being available for free, or if the book/author became big enough to switch to a larger publisher (not that i want that)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, Mercurywoodrose. Apologies for coming down a little hard on you! ;-) Alsation23 (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ritchie. I appreciate the comment/advice. Alsation23 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To wrap up - on subject - I think Sionk best hit the nail on the head (above):

"WP:NBOOK does not require reviews in 'major newspapers', it simply requires that "The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews."

On that basis, the following reviews [74] [75] [76] are all published in reliable, independent sources with editorial control. This source [77] lists a number of other reviews in published magazines. Personally I've never read this book or heard about it before now, but I don't think we should be creating extra hurdles to meet 'notability', just because the subject isn't on our personal radar." Alsation23 (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you feel strongly about the article, but it is neither necessary nor desirable to have someone debate every comment made. I have faith that the closing admin will be able to figure out which "arguments" are weak or strong without someone else picking every single one of them apart. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it bludgeoning but trying to put a light on things that may otherwise be unclear to new people wading through this - like yourself, Dennis. It's also undesirable to have someone throw the focus on "meat puppets" rather than the issue of sources, but to each their own. To be honest I think I've had enough of the cantankerous approach of some people (including my own) in this season to be jolly. Merry Christmas, mates. If you choose to delete this article, so be it. Then I'm personally finished with Wikipedia as well, but c'est la vie. Alsation23 (talk) 11:41, 23 December 2011 (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. Despite SPAs, Etroia has made a solid keep argument that has been supported by two other established editors. Whether or not to merge the article into the University can be discussed on the article's talk page. v/r - T P 16:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland State University Poetry Center[edit]

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)

Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 02:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article could use some work on sources / references, but that alone is not a reason to delete it. =//= Johnny Squeaky 06:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you've failed to demonstrate how this meets WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. coverage is minor, and mainly confirms its published a few minor publications. [78]. LibStar (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've verified that the article's source showing a list of published books[79] is indeed being published by Cleveland State University Poetry Center. This [80] is but one of many examples that verifies that Cleveland State University Poetry Center is publishing the works of notable poets, and is therefore a notable publisher. Mice never shop (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merely having published works does not indicate notability. Just has an author having a published book(s) doesn't demonstrate their notability one way or the other. Significant coverage of the publisher, the center or some coverage by and independent 3rd party would. But that hasn't been uncovered yet.--RadioFan (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are two 3rd party sources demonstrating significant coverage of the press and its notability in the world of contemporary American literature: The Huffington Post recognized the center as one of the top 15 Small Presses in America ^[1]. "The Best American Poetry" interviewed the center's director about publishing and editing in the contemporary literary world ^[2]. Beyond the notability of its authors and collections, both sources prove the press's influence in publishing and how it has effected the American literary community.Ilovelemurs2 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This is an essential and valid entry. comment added by Marybid (talk • contribs) 20:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC) — Marybid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :— Marybid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

this !vote makes zero attempt to address how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The page meets WP:ORG standards because it is a notable organization. The significant coverage of this page is minor, but the coverage proves notability. The "Recent and forthcoming publications" section on the page sites two (2) reliable 3rd party sources [81][82]. The authors who have won major literary awards, were all awarded to the books published by "Cleveland State University Poetry Center" respectively, which clearly demonstrates that the press is effecting the current literary culture and is in accordance with notability requirements at [WP:ORG]]. Ilovelemurs2 (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)— Ilovelemurs2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

While the awards may help establish the notability of those authors but that notability isn't inherited by this organization. I'm still not finding any significant coverage of this organization. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if we can come to consensus that it should be merged into the main university article.--RadioFan (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -The page has been edited in effort to satisfy the requirements regarding notability and significant 3rd party sources. In rebuttal to the notion of inherited notability, I argue that books designed, edited, and produced by a press is its only measure of notability. The Huffington Post picked the center as one (1) of the top 15 best small presses in America because it was publishing books that were "ahead of the cultural curve and pushing literary trends"[83]. This not only proves that a press' notability is judged from the books and authors they publish, but also proves the Poetry Center is an influence on the Americanref literary community-- therefore the center is a notable organization as per the guidelines at [WP:ORG]]. Also, well-known national newspapers and media outlets such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, NPR, and PBS have featured the center in articles and broadcasts, which I also consider as proof that the center is a notable organization. Here's a list to such broadcasts and stories: An article from The Philadelphia Inquirer on Elyse Fenton and her book Clamor which the center published in 2010 and won the 2010 University of Wales Dylan Thomas Prize[84]. An announcement naming poet Shane McCrae a 2011 Whiting Writers' Award for his collection Mule which the center published in 2010 [85]. A link to NPR's "All Things Considered" interview with poet Elyse Fenton, Winner of the University of Wales Dylan Thomas Prize [86]. A poem from the press' 2010 collection Rust or Go Missing by poet Lily Brown is featured at PBS NEWSHOUR [87]. The talk show "Around Noon" with Dee Perry, which airs on Cleveland's NPR affiliate, spent portions of two shows discussing the significance of the center in 2007 and in 2008 [88], [89]. Given these 3rd party sources it's clear that people and organizations outside the American literary community see the Poetry Center as a notable and story-worthy press. Cleveland State University Poetry Center should have its own page, independent from Cleveland State University's main article, because similarly housed presses of equal or lesser stature have their own Wikipedia pages separate from their own universities; Take New Issues Press [90] for example, who is housed at Western Michigan University, they not only have the same distributor as the center [91], but it was also named to the same Huffington Post top-15 best small presses list [92]. Even now-defunct small presses that were once housed at universities, like Eastern Washington University Press [93], have independent pages. With the new citation changes to the page, as well as the reasons above, this page should be kept and should not be merged with the Cleveland State University's main article. It seems unreasonable to delete this page when it is obvious that the center is an influential press in the American literary community, and therefore is notable.Etroia (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A number of references have been added but the only ones that even mention the subject of the article are primary sources or directories. I'm still not seeing the kind of significant coverage where the center is the subject of the article. Only mentioned in passing in articles about authors. Isn't there any coverage on the center itself?--RadioFan (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple references that are third-party articles in reputable sources that are neither primary sources nor directories, which a simple search will unearth, so this question seems willfully disingenuous. One such source is the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History ([94]). Another such source is the Huffington Post article on the best fifteen small presses in America -- [95]. --ideasoforder (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)— ideasoforder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - As an active member of the American poetry community, I can verify that this press is indeed quite notable and highly visible, in part because its writers so frequently get media coverage. A wikipedia page for it is invaluable, as researchers seeking information about a particular poet are quite likely to also want information about the publishing house that poet is associated with, and this particular publishing house is remarkable and notable for its longevity alone--few small presses can trace their history for thirty-to-forty years. This press is certainly as notable and visible as other presses with their own wikipedia pages. Moreover, the allegation that it is only mentioned in passing in articles about authors is simply false. Here is a third-party article about the press itself, dated from 1997, which clearly establishes notability: http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=CSUPC -- the source is another encyclopedia, The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History.--ideasoforder (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, referenced in the footnotes as containing an article on the CSUPC, indicates that this institution, established in 1964, was first known as the "Cleveland Poetry Center" — so don't be overly restrictive with the search parameters. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone wants to get to work improving the piece, THIS WEB MEMOIR on the origins of the CPC looks useful. Carrite (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Looking online for further online sources from third-parties about the Poetry Center's notability, I quickly came across this "scrapbook" of archives and articles from the 1960's which include major newspaper articles from the period about the Poetry Center, and speak to its notability even forty-plus years ago: [96].--ideasoforder (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.172.97 (talk) [reply]

comment despite all the praise in this AFD for the center, especially by new editors, it's still clear that the topic can be comfortably covered as a section in the main article on the university. Looking at the article there really isn't much in there about the center, a paragraph or two. The remainder is about the authors, detail which is already well covered in their biographical articles. I'm willing to withdraw this AFD as a merge if we can gain consensus there. RadioFan (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- without commenting as to the notability of this article, I'm struck by the number of new users opining. Nearly all on the same side. A sock check might well be in order, if nothing else to quell the natural suspicions that quacking raises.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A publisher of multiple notable authors is very likely to be notable , and there are 3rd party references to support the notability. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 22 December 2011 (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. Toddst1 is right that lack of coverage of a specific industry is not a free pass. Although Ebikeguy's rationale is a bit stronger, it still fails to address the requirement for multiple sources and that doesn't even touch whether or not the particular source given counts as significant coverage about the subject. v/r - T P 16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Allan Jones[edit]

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

WP:NN aesthetician. While the Globe & Mail article does mention him, it clearly minimizes his impact on the industry, characterizing him as "work doggedly behind the scenes." and that he's an expat is the focus of the article, not his accomplishments in his field. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news coverage is sufficient, given the limited attention RS pay to his profession. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a lower bar for professions that are not in the limelight and this keep is not in accordance with policy. I think this comment should be discounted. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having been insufficient in-depth coverage by independent third-party sources. If links are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The limited attention to the field of makeup is not a reason to give a free pass to any individual who happens to get some passing coverage. The coverage in the Globe and Mail piece is using him as an example of the ex-pat community and is not really about his makeup work. There is no other significant coverage about the individual. As such, there is no depth of coverage, and no indication that there are more sources that one might be able to get to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Globe and Mail article focuses on him. So what if he works out of the limelight much of the time. Coverage is coverage, and important "behind the scenes" people are notable as such. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Focuses on him"???? The Globe and Mail piece is an article about ex-pats and only covers Jones in a few paragraphs in a three page article. An in any case, this one bit represents only one source. Where's the multiple sources? -- Whpq (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment- Yes, it quite clearly focuses on him. He is the lead subject in the article, the first person discussed. He is the first interviewee quoted, and the article seems to present him as an excellent example of what the article is about, "a thriving subculture of Canadian expatriates who, while not dominating the Italian fashion industry, work doggedly behind the scenes to ensure that Milan remains the fashion capital of the world." The article in itself asserts the noteworthiness of those who work behind the scenes, in the shadows of those who get all the glory, and it holds up Mr. Jones as a fine example of that genre. See the other reference as an answer to your question about multiple sources. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article actually minimizes his impact on the industry - it's far from the in-depth coverage required to pass WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I disagree, per my comment, above. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - He's hardly a "lead subject" when he isn't mentioned until the third paragraph. The lead subject is the international flavour of the fashion scene in Milan. As for multiple sources, being credited with doing the makeup is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mention in the G&M article doesn't come close to meeting the requirement of significant coverage in multiple independent sources, and notability isn't inherited by working for notable magazines and fashion houses (not to mention that at the moment only one magazine job is sourced, and none of the design house jobs are.) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:41, 20 December 2011 (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 DJ Food. v/r - T P 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Search Engine[edit]

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

non notable album. contested prod. no references Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the AfD discussion of this album's "parent" article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Food. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Food was closed as "keep" (by the nominator?) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I nominated that for AfD as a formality after I erroneously deleted it due to a CSD:A7 tag. That article turned out to pass the notability threshold, so I closed the AfD discussion. It is possible for a notable band to release a non-notable album, however. That may be the case here. WP:NOTINHERITED and all. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- True, but in most cases, album articles of otherwise notable bands are merge/redirect targets to the band's page (or a discography page). Now that you did a "heel-face turn" on DJ food, that may be the case here. As for closing your own nom, I did that once by mistake. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or redirect. Notability isn't inherited, so it doesn't matter whether DJ Food article exists or not. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2011 (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. v/r - T P 16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American Council for Accredited Certification[edit]

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

I noticed that there was some back-and -forth editing on this article over the question of whether this is a legitimate accrediting agency or not. However, my search indicated a more significant problem: Is this a notable organization? I was not able to find much in the way of reliable sources that aren't press releases, and without reliable sources, there's no way to verify which of the various parties editing this article is correct. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: It looks like the creator also created several redirects that will need to be deleted if this article is not kept. See her contributions. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'FisherQueen: I would call ACAC a notable organization because it is a nationally recognized professional certification body whose certifications and/or examinations are named in Federal and State laws and specifications. At the Federal level, ACAC certifications are specified in documents published by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency, the Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/DOD/UFGS/UFGS%2002%2085%2000.00%2020.pdf At the state level, ACAC certifications and/or examinations are named or required for licensing in the following states: Arkansas (http://plantboard.arkansas.gov/PlantIndustry/Documents/MoldLawFinal.pdf); Florida(https://www.myfloridalicense.com/CheckListDetail.asp?SID=&xactCode=1030&clientCode=0701&XACT_DEFN_ID=13095); Maryland (http://www.dllr.md.gov/license/mhic/mhicmoldwork.shtml); and New York (http://www.health.ny.gov/environmental/indoors/air/mold/task_force/docs/final_toxic_mold_task_force_report.pdf). Additionally, hundreds of websites reference ACAC certifications, and multiple colleges and universities list ACAC as the certifying body for their distance learning courses. As to the back-and-forth editing going on, it seems that the revisions repeatedly posted by Enviro3 and Earthpro (apparently the same person) have a neutral point of view problem, as they are extremely biased against the organization (Envision3 also attempted to start up a Wikipedia page for IESO, which works in the same field as ACAC, but was prevented from doing so due to NPOV problems. See User_talk:Envision3). Contributions by Cjflame, by contrast, appear generic, straightforward, factual and verifiable. Litiaq (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Litiaq (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete references need to mention the topic, the ones here don't appear to. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each of the references either a) requires that individuals hold an ACAC certification, b)requires that individuals take an ACAC examination, or c) discusses ACAC certifications as one method for implementing a state licensing program. 174.125.106.66 (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the State and Federal Laws that Cjflame is referring to are applicable to the American Indoor Air Quality Council. Recent research conducted (which may be verified online thru The State of Arizona Corporate Registry) indicates that the American Council for Accredited Certification (ACAC)and The American Indoor Air Quality Council (AIAQC) are two completely seperate corporate entities. Apparently, everyone assumed that the ACAC had succeeded the AIAQC by a simple change of name. The public records indicate that this was not the case. The Arizona Corporate Registry indicates that there is no association between these corporations and they are not one and the same. In fact, the corporate records indicate that ACAC is merely a trade name that is owned by The Certification Council, Inc., and not the American Indoor Air Qulaity Council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthpro (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC) — Earthpro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 11:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for now With the article under full protection, this does not provide a fair chance for people to edit it and bring it up to standards. I would say close it as keep for now, resolve the conflicts, remove protection, and give it at least a few days to see if it can be improved. Then if not, renominate it. Stedrick (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I haven't seen any signs that either of the involved editors is working on finding sources, or is likely to do so in the future- if any reliable sources are going to be found, or if any rewriting is going to be done, it'll be we uninvolved editors who will have to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (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. v/r - T P 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaume Cañellas Galindo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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}}.

First nomination was closed with no consensus because of too much off-topic content.
After having asked for sources several times, no sources have been provided for most of the "important content", such as publications
Most of the sources are primary sources (original scan of academic degrees, ...) (WP:NOR)
No independent secondary reliable source which talks about Jaume Cañellas Galindo directly in detail (and not just as a trivial mention) provided.
Even with appropriate references, the current content of the article does not reflect enough notability to be admitted in an encyclopaedia.
Last time sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry and many SPA were used to push to keep this article. I won't talk about these topics any more. I'll just flag them with the appropriate template.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 11:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper reference to verify the person. Also the article lacks many information . --C h i n n Z ^{(talk | Contrib)} 11:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the long paragraphs of first this, pioneering that, there's no satisfaction of ACADEMIC or related guidelines that I can see -- though I stand ready to be corrected (with specificity please, and no sockpuppets need apply). EEng (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Spmdcp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Recognized public figure with enough links verified.--Spmdcp (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is significant coverage even though the main focus is not him, but other than that there's just this incidental mention regarding a case he's involved with, and this where he provides an opinion regarding another case — Frankie (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Samein50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Character of notoriety evident. Article with many references. The character is a known human rights defensor and denounced the bill irregularities and fraud that led to a change in abortion law in Spain. --Samein50 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.medicinatv.com/noticias/cataluna-un-psiquiatra-denuncia-irregularidades-en-una-clinica-de-interrupciones-voluntarias-de-embarazo-de-girona-139122~~

~~http://es-la.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=112360901491&comments~~

~~http://www.unidosporlavida.org/Proyecto_adopcion/adhesiones.htm~~

~~http://www.pilarrahola.com/3_0/ARTICULOS/default.cfm?SUBFAM=35&ID=287~~

~~https://www.xing.com/net/valores-humanos/noticias-162540/la-sociedad-espanola-de-ginecologia-y-obstetricia-pide-que-el-concepto-juridico-y-legislativo-de-aborto-se-adecue-al-medico-10770758/~~

~~http://www.protomedicos.com/2008/07/08/los-medicos-reclaman-la-legalizacion-en-espana-de-los-vientres-de-alquiler/~~

Urgent: Those who seek to delete this article show a language that attacks the character and should not be allowed in Wikipedia. defamation is a serious and dangerous attitude. --Samein50 (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Dianaruttman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BLP violations: I very much object to the NOM comment that : " is significant coverage even though the main focus is not him, but other than that there's just this incidental mention regarding a case he's involved with " = Comment :This is clearly a libel, because Jaume Cañellas is the accuser and not the accused. Is the victim and not the offender. --Dianaruttman1 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment was made by me, not the nom, and I don't mean to imply anything other than he is related to the case — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Dianaruttman1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Many references do make it very clear they consider him an expert and spokesman for the profession and his evident notability. --Dianaruttman1 (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/814/wespecialidad.jpg/~~

~~http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/546/wespecialidad2.jpg/~~

~~http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/267/wclinicaalianza.jpg/~~

~~http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/694/wclinicaalianza6.jpg/~~

~~http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/3/centromartorell.jpg/~~

— Misterfister1337 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep This well-known professional has to be recognized for their work in wikipedia, the references are accurate, is a recognized professional in his field. MFTR (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The signature to the above comment, MFTR, obscures the fact that its true author [97] is none other than the alarmingly-named Misterfister1337, one of the many SPAs which come out of the woodwork only when deletion of this absurd article comes up for discussion. Really, can't you go waste someone else's time? EEng (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation is not the way to make wikipedia better. Im not the author, but as follower of this exceptional professional im doing my best to keep it in wikipedia. MFTR (talk) 09:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, can't you go waste somebody else's time? EEng (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misterfister aka MFTR has been blocked as a sockpuppet of our old pal Gumerperu (well known to veterans of Round 1 of this AfD). (Provisional diagnosis: delusions of grandeur, messiah complex (imagines he Saves the Children), craves adulation and recognition; etiology unknown, but probable origin in childhood or adolescence e.g. not enough maternal love). EEng (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Honesty32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Character certainly very relevant. Incredible, someone want to eliminate the biographie of a referent in the child and adolescent psychiatry of the world ? Honesty32 (talk) 05:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, can't you go waste somebody else's time? EEng (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Isaperoms (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep: Biography of a professional relevant (and living person) and with very obvious references to his notoriety.--Isaperoms (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really, can't you go waste somebody else's time? Happy Holidays! EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to (and about) sockpuppets and meatpuppets: Attention is called to this passage from WP:GAFD:

One exception to the principle of assume good faith concerns the use of sockpuppets. This tactic is commonly employed by vandals and bad-faith contributors who create multiple user accounts in an attempt to bias the decision process. A close variation is to enlist "meatpuppets", people from outside Wikipedia to "run in" (for example, if my article about a web forum is up for deletion and I post a call for other forum members to "help keep our website in Wikipedia"). Signs of these tactics are that a contributor's account was created after discussion began, that a contributor has few edits or that a contributor's other edits have been vandalism. Other Wikipedians will draw attention to such facts and may even recommend deletion simply because apparent sock- or meat-puppets piled in with "do not delete" or other similar comments.

Since at least two of the apparent puppets (whether of the textile or flesh-and-blood variety) who have disrupted this discussion gone so far as to identify themselves on their userpages by their (purported) real-life identities, it's fair to further draw attention to the followign from WP:COI ("conflict of interest"):

COI editing is routinely exposed and can be reported adversely in the media. All edits are on the public record and remain so indefinitely...While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to extreme media embarrassment for the company or organization, dismissal (firing) of those at fault, and at times even court actions or charges, if done in a work or professional context.

EEng (talk) 06:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not established. Puppetry is a dead giveaway of lack of notability, as is the 5.0/5.0 rating on every measure for the article with over 250 quality-rating votes. For my money, salt too. Josh Parris 13:51, 26 December 2011 (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 RESULT = Speedy Keep. Vrenator ^talk 14:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tokheim[edit]

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

No references, nothing to indicate notability other than the statement "one of the leaders in this market" Vrenator ^talk 10:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a briliant article or particularly informative, but these are not grounds for deletion. For what it's worth, just about every fuel pump I use in France (I spend 5 months there in a year) is made by Tokheim, so the article would appear to be describing a notable organisation or product. Of course, I am not a reliable source, but it should not be beyond the wit of editors to track some down. Emeraude (talk) 13:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: In French Wikipedia, the article fr:Histoire de l'automobile attributes John J. Tokheim, a Norwegian, with inventing the petrol pump. This is supported by references to Thierry Coulibaly, Il y a un siècle, L'automobile, Éditions Ouest-France, 2007. Emeraude (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Tokheim Group's website says that "Tokheim Group S.A.S., based in Paris (France) is one of the world's leading manufacturers and servicers of fuel dispensing equipment." Seems good enough for me. Now look for independent source. Keep. Emeraude (talk) 13:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone can at least include at least one independent source I'll happily cancel this AfD.Vrenator ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Financial Times, 11 Dec 2011, Petrol Plaza, 13 Dec 2011, Reuters, 12 Dec 2011 (which values Tokheim at $535 million) and Forecourt Trader, 17 June 2011 announcing that "Tokheim has been selected as a global supplier of fuel dispensers for Shell service stations." Loads more sources from a simple Google search. I'm happy to begin to rewrite, expand, reference the article if AfD is cancelled. Emeraude (talk) 13:41, 20 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qubit Wave[edit]

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

No sources, extraordinary claim: a wave faster than light? User has also inserted dubious things into Quantum Teleportation TheMaster17 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent OR. --Lambiam 15:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lambian says all that needs to be said. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lambian. -- 202.124.75.212 (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nonsense. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2011 (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. Due to consensus to delete in the other AfD. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs Used on Strictly Come Dancing[edit]

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

Looks like funcruft, does not add value to Stritctly Come Dancing or to the individual songs. Looks remarkably much like List of songs used on Strictly Come Dancing Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, I moved List of Songs Used on Strictly Come Dancing to List of songs used on Strictly Come Dancing to fix the capitalization. However, I accidentally undid that with my next edit - guess I forgot to refresh AWB before saving. My vote is either that the former gets merged into the latter and then becomes a redirect again, or they both get deleted. Sorry for causing the problem. GoingBatty (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both of them. Typical list trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2011 (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. Blatant WP:NOT violation, has a snowball's chance in hell, so I'm going to live dangerously, ignore all rules and delete this now rather than wait a week and come to exactly the same result. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"isms" in the UK civil service[edit]

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

Article is 100% original research and POV--it explicitly states that its goal is to "raise awareness" of what the author believes are systemic problems in the UK government. Article was previously prodded, but prod was removed by original author without explanation. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-encyclopaedic synthesis. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete WP:SOAPBOX. Lugnuts (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a fine example of WP:OR by Synthesis, and pure WP:SOAPBOX to boot (WP:NPOV). Ideal blog material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2011 (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. Michig (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve Thirty Eight[edit]

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

This PR company's paucity of RS coverage suggests a lack of notability. Created by SPA. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another transmedia PR and corporate reputation consultancy ("Transmedia"??? Fie.) advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find reliable sources, leading me to believe it's advertising as per Smerdis. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first line especially needs a citation. The fact that there are so many statements lacking sources shows this article isn't even trying to meet Wikipedia guidelines. AlphaSur (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2011 (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. Userfying for future use by Nima Farid. v/r - T P 15:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shiraz Bus Route 14[edit]

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

While there is precedent for lists of bus routes, individual bus routes need to be very exceptional to earn an article... and this just seems to be another route in the (possibly notable) system. - Delete - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the article and I added more information to it. If you feel it needs more information, tell me and I'll find it. Nima Farid (talk) 06:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe you should make the article on the bus system for the city before any of the specific routes. Anything besides a description of the route would better fit in an article describing all the routes in one place. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hardly any bus routes, if any at all, are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, I will make a general article about the bus system of Shiraz. But I also prefer to keep this article to provide more details such as maps and stations. Nima Farid (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. --Rs chen 7754 04:27, 26 December 2011 (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. v/r - T P 15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola Ivanovych Tseluiko[edit]

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

I am having trouble finding RS coverage of this artist, whose article has zero refs and has been tagged as an orphan for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources, copy-edited, and restructured the article lightly. This is a notable artist - the Ukraine's premier textile artist of the Communist era - and there are reliable sources, now cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added establish notability. freshacconci talktalk 16:25, 20 December 2011 (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/redirect, which I just completed (closing without objection). Neutrality^talk 05:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belk College of Business[edit]

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

This college of business at UNC at Charlotte is currently 1) is unreferenced, 2) reads like a big old promotion for prospective students and 3) Fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I could find was that the Charlotte Business Journal had a networking event there (but this is not really independent) and that they offered a graduate program in real estate. These articles provide minimal coverage. Furthermore, the college does not inherit notability from the university. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a position as to what exactly should be done about this article yet, but at worst it should be redirected to University of North Carolina at Charlotte. I may look into this further and recommend keeping, but I'm not ready to decide that yet. Also, the "only coverage" that the nom found apparently refers only to Google News' coverage of the school from the last month. There are more articles in the Google News Archive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be fair, many of these articles in the archives appear to be primarily about individuals being hired or stepping down from positions within the college. I wouldn't call this in-depth coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge , selectively to University of North Carolina at Charlotte, primarily the sections on degree offerings (with some additional references). Original research such as employeers who hire graduates should (and has been removed). RadioFan (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2011 (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. JIP | Talk 06:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate dodgeball[edit]

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

I've declined a speedy G3-hoax tag on this article because it's actually a WP:MADEUP violation. However, it was already a contested prod by the time I got there, so here we are. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - as something made up in one day. "...Here are the forms i have created so far:..." Carrite (talk) 04:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Carrite. I could imagine this as being something a fellow student would make during lunch/recess as a joke.--Coin945 (talk) 06:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per sourcing by Carrite v/r - T P 15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Basinet[edit]

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

Unremarkable actress and singer. The claim that she was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the group 1000 PeaceWomen is supported by a press release. Note that nominations for Nobel Prizes are sealed for 50 years from the year of nomination, so this claim cannot be substantiated. Basinet's music career is not notable. Basinet's film career is not notable. Basinet is apparently only notable for recording a version of a very often recorded Christmas song which people mistakenly believe is sung by Marilyn Monroe (although I suspect that this is likely something put forward by her publicist rather than a general misconception). It may be informative to check the sources used.

The article has been deleted several times and is salted to prevent re-creation (this version was created in an apparent response to a request made on IRC). Basinet has been regularly and repeatedly added to Santa Baby by single purpose accounts for literally years now. See Talk:Santa Baby for previous discussion about Basinet. Note that one of the images on the current article is a copyright violation. Note that the creator of the article, User:Lambano Blosko is a single purpose account whose edits all relate to Basinet. Note that although this version of the article was moved from User:Lambano Blosko/Cynthia Basinet, there also exists a version created 19 December in User:Naruki09/sandbox. Note that although User:Naruki09 registered and made two edits in 2006, they took a 5 year hiatus before returning to become another single purpose Basinet-promoting account. Note also the contributions of User:68.175.21.168, a single purpose IP account. There's a reason that this BLP reads like poorly written PR copy... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though this article may currently read as a "poorly written PR copy", there seems to be enough notability to allow this to transform into a decent article. Beyond her apparently disputed fame for Santa Baby, she also seems to have a 20-year career in TV and film (including work with news satire group The Onion), as well as a 10-year career in music. Also, she's a bloody good-looking redhead. Cracked Oil Pepper (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Walrus she rescued but a good one

In a mixed way I am not of the opinion that this is a notable article despite the pleas of Mr Pepper and his exertions to the extremes of the good looking redhead as this is NO WAY TO BUILD A ENCYCLOPEDIA by RUBBING YOURSELF LUSTFULLY AGAINST THE ARTICLES YOU WANT TO KEEP, this is an Interactive Project not a Delight for the Perverts! Also as Dr Carbuncle indicates above Statements such as the Nobel Prize are unverified! On the other hand I understand that she rescued a poor Walrus from being chopped up by a propellor and gave it a home, which means that (I declare I have great sympathy for sea mammal) she would get my vote in some kind of Animal Rescue Election. But this is not an animal rescue election! Therefore I must reluctantly conclude that Delete is the only way forward. And forward we go, with great delight. Forward! Forward! Cloddy Hans (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there has been a misunderstanding. Yes, I registered in back in 2006, and you're right, I didn't make any edits until now as back then I didn't understand the wikipedia syntax or the community. But, I'm not a "single purpose Basinet-promoting account" or person as you say. I'm just a regular university student who finds himself stuck at home recovering from an operation and thus quite bored, so I decided to start on wikipedia again. I created the Basinet page in my sandbox because she is a favourite musical artist of mine and I was surprised that she didn't have a wikipedia page. I did note that Basinet had a page on wikipedia that was deleted, I believe the reasons given were that firstly, the article was poorly written. I have tried to fix and improve that in my own article (User:Naruki09/sandbox) to make sure it as free as bias as possible. At the present moment, I'm waiting on help for someone to review my writing to ensure its up to wikipedia standards and whilst I'm waiting I've begun editing other pages. Secondly, the article was deleted because she wasn't deemed 'notable.' I don't know what my opinion is worth here, but personally I think she is a great humanitarian who, as Cracked Oil Pepper said, has a long career in many industries that has brought her some fame. Although Nobel nominees are sealed for 50 years, it is well recognised that in 2005 there was the movement 1000 peace women for the nobel prize. Cynthia was a part of that movement, as documented here. If that doesn't qualify her for an article then I feel that ultimately we/wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia which must therefore in principle present facts, are somewhat responsible for ensuring that Basinet does get credit for her wrongly attributed cover of Santa Baby. Also, Cloddy Hans, Cracked Oil Pepper made the comment about her being a "good looking redhead" last and in passing, perhaps you took it wrongly, but I think he meant it jokingly, so I don't feel that is a good reason to base part of your argument on. So, for those reasons I believe we should keep the article. Regards, Naruki09 (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention her looks in passing for that very reason. I did not intend to imply that Wikipedia should be a collection of hot photos of people, obviously. That being said, I stand by my observation that she is stunningly good-looking. Cracked Oil Pepper (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:Cracked Oil Pepper has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, along with three other accounts created at the same time, User:Duracell Flattery, User:Watershed Bay, and User:Jbenson11. I've also blocked User:Cloddy Hans and User:Jeremy Wordsworth for disruptive behavior and abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. I see no fame, no notability, just weird promotion from a plague of socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm coming into this one with an open mind. Let's see what we see. From the article, I see former GF of Jack Nicolson, actress, and a musician who covered "Santa Baby." That seems like we're at least on the inclusion-worthiness borderline here, let's see how she stacks up under the General Notability Guideline... ABILITY MAGAZINE has an interview with Cynthia Basinet. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's ANOTHER INTERVIEW on a lesser web music resource. I can definitely see the point of the detractors that there is a lot of self-promotion in association with this subject. Did I say NOBEL NOMINATED subject?!?! NOBEL NOMINATED!!! However, for a "Nobel Nominated" personage, there is precious little showing at the top of a Google search on exactly what she has done to make her Nobel Nominated, y'know. Then again, Barack Obama won a peace prize for having a different name and more articulate speaking style than George W. Bush, so maybe that Nobel thing is altogether overrated. That said: yeah, tons of self-promotion about an unverifiable and dubious Nobel Prize nomination... Carrite (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's yet another WEB INTERVIEW, this by Black Entertainment Blog on Basinet's work raising awareness of the problems of the Saharawi people of Western Sahara. Carrite (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go. JAZZ REVIEW.COM notes that Basinet is featured in the book Entertainment: Divas, Cabaret, Jazz Then and Now, by Maximillien de Lafayette. I'm not finding much on that particular title, but I do note that the same author has put out at least 4 editions of a Who's Who in Jazz thang, so benefit of the doubt should be given... Carrite (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat what you may have skipped over in the deletion nomination - Nobel Prize nominations are sealed for 50 years from the date of nomination. If Basinet were nominated, we would have no way of knowing (for a few more decades). In any case, Basinet was not even the putative nomineee - that was a group call 1000 PeaceWomen, to which Basinet apparently belongs. As for the claim that she was Jack Nicholson's girlfriend, it has no bearing on her notability, but I invite you to view this review on Amazon.com for the book that is used as a source. It appears that Basinet's PR person has been at work there, too. One of the interviews you cite is literally just a few paragraphs, another is a personal blog, and you failed to note that the Jazz Review piece is actually a press release (credited to "Hartman PR"). Are you sure you came into this with an open mind? You seem to have gone out of your way to find and accept sub-par sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sealed? Sure. But an absolutely secret? Apparently not. Reliable sources seem to have gotten the information, as that's what many do quite well. Inter Press Service writes of her as nominated.[98] And that same information is contained in the United Nations Sixty-second General Assembly ONU Committee meeting documents of October 9, 2007.[99] Sealed or no... she being a 2005 nominee does not appear to be a secret.[100][101] Stockholm must have a leak or two. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. The "Santa Baby" cover seems culturally significant and this does seem to be a public figure that is the subject of independent, third-party coverage both as an entertainer and as a political activist. Not a notability slam dunk, to be sure, and I think she does pass GNG and the encyclopedia would be worse off from deletion. Problems with the article need to be addressed through the normal editing process, not deletion. Carrite (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reservations, see commentary I did edit the article substantially, so perhaps my opinion is compromised by being too close to the subject. To address the first poster's object, I found her biography on the PeaceWomen site and added a reference to it in the article. I do think that Lambano Blosko either *is* Cynthia Basinet, her agent, or basically stole the pictures in the article (violated copyright) -- the Western Sahara performance picture is the same picture of her on the PeaceWomen site. On that basis, I'd probably move to delete the pictures until new pictures are picked up somewhere that don't appear anywhere else on the internet. At first, when I was looking for her, I wasn't sure whether or not she was a real person, whether this was a hoax person, but the Allmusic 2001 listing of "c basinet" and other sites (prominent mention in that one Jack Nicholson biography that I referenced in the article) make it appear that she likely is a real person, just one that doesn't really do any promotion or is otherwise very notable (probably as a result of her decision to eschew releasing through big companies and instead to release solely through the internet). I think there are enough references that if someone down the road tries to push this article as a result of how easy it is to submit fraudulent information to Wikipedia, we have far and away enough outside secondary sources referenced (the UN pages, Jack's biography, various websites who interviewed her, various websites that review the music she's released) that we can point to them and say that Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I do think she hits the notability criteria and I would have liked to have seen more work put into the filmography section, etc. before the article was moved from userspace into mainspace, as I posted on Lambano Blosko's talk page, but I think the page is sufficient at this point to avoid deletion. That's just my opinion, though, and I have worked on the article a fair bit as I pointed out, so perhaps I'm too emotionally invested in the article -- take my opinion for what you think it's worth. :) Banaticus (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is that Lambano Blosko is a new user, a non-native speaker of English, and probably a fan rather than a functionary. Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way, Lambano... There is a separate deletion process for photos, I add. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After comment: I think it's important to judge this based upon the notability of the artist, rather than deleting the article as a way of punishing the artist for their continued badgering on this article. Naruki09 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Post-After Comment: Molon labe! meaning "Come [and] take [them]!", is a classical Greek expression of defiance which roughly corresponds to the modern equivalent English phrase "over my dead body". Since user Lambano Blosko's involvement, and indeed identity, have come into question in regard to this article, it would be advisable to note that "Molon" is the aorist active participle of the Greek verb "blosko" meaning "having come". Whereas, "labe" is the aorist active imperative of the verb "lambano" meaning "take [them]." Lambano Blosko is a user whose English is sub-par (evidence by past edits and summaries) and who has only recently joined Wikipedia and has almost entirely focused his/her activity on helping the Cynthia Basinet article. The username in fact literally proclaims "Over my dead body!" in Greek to the editors and admins who would suggest the article be deleted. Five Point Lexicon (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment was made by a blocked sockpuppet who is continually attempting to disrupt this process. Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cynthia Basinet. Given the history, it would be unwise not to look closely at all aspects of this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As of now, the sources cited in the article are mostly reliable, and the information in those sources meets the standard to establish notability. The article certainly needs to be improved, and the sockpuppeting needs to stop, but those are not reasons to delete.--Aervanath (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs used on Strictly Come Dancing[edit]

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

Unsourced affair that looks remarkable like List of Songs Used on Strictly Come Dancing. Merging enough or is one of them a hoax? Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed at all. Completely unsourced and only of interest to the most hardcore of SCD fans. Nate • (chatter) 06:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. They both seem very fancrufty to me. I can't see how this information is nontrivial or interesting to anyone who is not a fan of SCD. E.g. how does the fact that a particular song was featured on SCD change it at all?--Coin945 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 December 2011 (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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Nicklin[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, also unreferenced BLP. Zlqchn (talk) 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy? Though this article may have an element of satire, it is pretty much an attack page about a non-notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:33, 20 December 2011 (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 discussion obsolete Hekerui (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Santosh joshi[edit]

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

article is merely promotional, no criterion of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG met Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (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} 01:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think these information are correct , this person is beongs to a hindustani classical genere.i think Wikipedia shouldn't remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.116.112 (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC) i know this artist and the information given is correct and useful . and i suggest remove this page from deletion wikipedia must not remove this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.91.202 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Pandit santosh joshi is an Indian Classical singer of Bikaner's Joshi gharana.i request not to delete this article[reply]

Keep I've copy-edited the article, which does have sources (in Hindi). Joshi appears to be a major exponent of classical Hindustani vocals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources remain unclear because the article lacks inline citations. Just pointing to some sources is not evidence unless you can confirm what the sources say. Nothing claimed in the article confirms a point of WP:MUSICBIO Hekerui (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i am agree with all of you.pandit santosh is a lead classical singer of joshi gharana in present scenario of indian classical world. he is such a superb singer and a lead light of indian classical's Joshi gharana.i heard many audio's and you tube videos of pt.santosh ji. he is marvelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapanasinger (talk • contribs)

That he is marvelous is an argument best avoided. Please cite an independent reliable source for a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Hekerui (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2011 (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 My Little Pony characters#Earth Ponies. v/r - T P 15:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkie Pie[edit]

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

Requesting this to be deleted. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - What are the grounds for the deletion? Have you followed WP:BEFORE? Carrite (talk) 03:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My Little Pony characters#Earth Ponies. The subject lacks a significant amount of non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources needed to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Why? No reason advanced (besides "I want it deleted") for deletion, no actual nomination. Nate • (chatter) 06:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the nominator did not cite a deletion reason, I just cited a reason above. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My Little Pony characters#Earth Ponies, every other My Little Pony character redirects there, so Pinkie Pie should too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs)
Delete or Redirect Why should only Pinkie have a page while the other main characters are are redirected to a list article? Like the rest of the character pages, Pinkie Pie lacks notability. Not enough for a page. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair that both Rainbow Dash and Pinkie Pie got their pages up. So WHY do they still exist when the others that I created will be thrashed and deleted? Explain that!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. No evidence of sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, add redirect to "list of" page. On its own, this is a non-notable article; the more general subject was discussed here in the My Little Pony wikiproject, which in essence said "individual pony articles are not notable and will be redirected. Any redirections that are reverted will lead to an AfD such that the community can decide on the future of the article". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2011 (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. Nominator did not advance an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Dash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I think its better this whole thing would be merged. Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close Nominator wants a merger and that is not what AFD is for per WP:SK1. Proposals for merger should be discussed at the relevant talk pages with articles tagged. Keresaspa (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2011 (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 (without objection). Neutrality^talk 20:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guanimes[edit]

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

No sources or information pointing to any notability. Would probably be better suited for a cookbook than an encyclopedia. DaffyBridge (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puerto Rican cuisine - it clearly does exist but isn't notable enough for its own page. Neutrality^talk 01:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2011 (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.

^ [102]
^ [103]

[1] [102]

[2] [103]

[1]

[2]