Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 December	8 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 keep. Subject passes GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Sonnenberg[edit]

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

Not finding much in the way of significant coverage for this person; being a feelgood story doesn't obviate the need to demonstrate notability The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Try viewing the Google News links in the "find sources" link above. Significant coverage exists. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - There is a lot of coverage about this person available, however, most of it relates to one incident, so WP:BLP1E may apply. A documentary about his story won an Emmy Award and a Peabody Award (Chicago Tribune). His story appears to have been reported nationally (Boston Globe, USA Today, Los Angeles Times). This seems like significant coverage to me. 137.43.188.69 (talk) 12:27, 9 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) 22:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mindlessly copy and pasting the same message in every AFD tagged for Rescue. Dream Focus 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not upon whether or not sources are present in Wikipedia articles. This person has been covered extensively in reliable sources. The !vote above to delete doesn't appear to be based upon even an actual quick, cursory search for sources. Hopefully Wikipedia articles won't be deleted per this type of rationale, based upon what appears to be an analysis of current sourcing in articles rather than the availability of reliable sources. If this type of precedent were to exist, then any article could be deleted without actual qualification for the deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pot, I'd like to introduce you to Mr. Kettle. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged the article for rescue, I will try to edit the article myself to add sources, but as many of the sources are not available to me beyond a short abstract, I would appreciate other help. The sources I mentioned above should be a good start. 109.77.39.88 (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person is notable if an award winning documentary has been made about them. Dream Focus 18:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in WP:N which mandates that; perhaps you'd care to back that up with sources? (Seriously, if you can I'll gladly change my mind) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (e/c)While I respectfully disagree with DreamFocus that a person is notable if a documentary about them wins an award, The documentary itself should be considered coverage in a reliable source. The fact that a CBS program has devoted "much of its hour to following how Sonnenberg..."[1] adds to the significant coverage that is already present. To address Stuartyeates' comment above, in my opinion, whether sources are integrated into the article matters little to this discussion, as we do not delete articles for issues that can be fixed by editing, and adding sources to an article is editing, we should only be concerned about whether sources exist. I mentioned in my !vote that WP:BLP1E may apply, I am now of the opinion that it does not, because the event (Sonnenberg's family's car being crashed into by a tractor trailer), is not the main reason that he is notable, rather, it is his recovery from his burns, his attitude, facing the truck driver who caused the incident in court and many other issues. The sources I have cited only spend a minority of their words talking about the initial event, and the majority about other issues. Hence my keep is no longer weak. 137.43.16.22 (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person is covered in numerous reliable sources in detail. See Google News link below for some of them:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice work by Northamerica1000, thoughtful analysis by 137.43.16.22. Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added two refs, by themselves sufficient to establish WP:N notability as per WP:GNG (in combination with WP:NRVE, given that one of the references is an abstract). Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 14 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. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Are The Others[edit]

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

non notable unreleased album. only listed ref is band site. Only gnews hit is label site. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Album hasn't even been released yet, so there can be no third-party coverage about it yet. Fails all notabilty requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature. See WP:CRYSTAL; once this gets closer to release, and sources actually exist, an article may be appropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - unreleased, no confirmed track listing or release date, no significant coverage in reliable sources; this simply doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 01:21, 9 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) 22:29, 9 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 article's sourcing has not improved during this discussion. Sandstein 12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magma CMS[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without any comment. Non-notable software product (web CMS). Original PROD text was "Article has no WP:RS reliable sources; the only source is to the software's developer's website. No claim to notability." Since then, examples of websites using the subject CMS have been added, but these don't add notability themselves. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are either trivial or not independent. If that's the best the creators have been able to find I can't see notability being established. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:50, 8 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) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author, @Livit: "PROD removed by author without any comment". Yes, its my mistake, I'm still new on wiki and havent yet learned all the rules. I'm ok if others decide that this article should be deleted, but also, I would ask for basic guidelines. Magma CMS is a project active since 2002. Until recently this product was used for specialized customers and specific projects only. Independet articles and reviews in press and magazines are on pending and will be published in the following few month. After that, I will repost this article with additional details and references. I have read wiki article on notability. Any additional concrete suggestions on how to prevent this situation repeating again are welcome. Please help the newbie. Mr.dobrica 20:50, 10 December 2011 (GMT+1)

Comment Make sure that you get your sources sorted out before you write the article. Sources need to be reasonably detailed and independent. So a passing mention won't do, neither will a company's webpage, nor MOST blogs. If you can't find the sources don't write the article, wait till you find the materials you need. Good luck. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author, @Tigerboy1966: Thank you for your comment. Another thing, some of the oncoming reviews will be published in serbian, croatian and slovenian languages. Are these references valid for wiki articles written in other languages, i.e. english, french, german? Mr.dobrica 07:09, 11 December 2011 (GMT+1)

In theory, the languages should not matter at all for notability in the English Wikipedia. In practice, some editors will not agree with this principle and choose to ignore all sources they can't read. There should be several sources, and they should be intellectually independent from each other. Three in-depth reviews by different people would be sufficient, whereas any number of press releases published in various places would not be sufficient. For perspective, Foswiki, the TWiki fork, was deleted despite its popularity and its notability according to the slightly different German notability criteria. (But this was a borderline case, and the sudden appearance of several annoyed Foswiki fans at the deletion discussion didn't help.) I suspect that you will find it easier to get the article kept in Serbian, Croatian and Slovenian than in English, so maybe you want to start with these versions. When you think you have enough reliable sources, you can ask me for advice on my homepage. Just recreating the article yourself is not advisable once it has been deleted after a deletion discussion. Hans Adler 00:03, 15 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. Drmies (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Postal[edit]

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

contested prod. Only links are to own radio station. Non notable person/musician Gaijin42 (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent sources establishing notability, and very little chance that any will ever be found. Obvious self-promotion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, as a NN musician, but I'm totally stealing that DJ name when I go global. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local DJ who could one day be notable, but currently isn't. The sources are not independent or substantial, so do not meet WP:RS. The subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. If/when the subject does, the article could be recreated, but wait until notability can be established. Sparthorse (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I may be biased as author of this article, I disagree with many of the comments above. First off, I'd like to state that I'm in no way affiliated to this DJ (therefore it is not obvious self-promotion as stated by User: Dominus Vobisdu). However, I do know that he is very notable within the Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut radio market (from listening to him on 95.5) which inspired me to write this article. Please listen to the HotNewHipHop DJ Postal Artist Drop soundtrack also - this is testament to the fact that he works/is affiliated/has been cosigned by many notable musicians/DJs. It's very hard to establish notability as a DJ, I think deletion of this article should be reconsidered.Jmgoncal (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia,

A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles – I have seen an article of DJ Postal published in the Providence Phoenix where he did not talk or advertising himself

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. live exclusive mixes on Hot 97 Boston and 95.5 WBRU, one of the highest rated radio stations in the Providence-Pawtucket-Woonsocket radio marketJmgoncal (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is quoted from WP:BAND. #1 misses out the main sentence which is "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.". Even if he has been the major subject of one newspaper article, the criteria requires multiple appearances. If you could find the Providence Phoenix article, it might be one source. Its impossible to judge until you can point us at the actual article. #7 requires an independent, published source that says he is "one of the most prominent'" (or words to that effect) representatives of a notable style. Again, can you supply a citation to such an article? Merely claiming this to be true is not enough. #10 actually says "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc." I don't think appearing on a radio show is included in the intended meaning of this criteria. Sparthorse (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has not risen to the level of significant coverage in multiple 3rd party sources. The breif mentions, most often just in passing or in calendar entries, in the Providence Phoenix isn't doing much here to establish notability. This artist may be notable one day, but that day isn't today. RadioFan (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:48, 8 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) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to this web page, the name of the DJ at WBRU is "Postal", so this article lacks reliable primary sources that this topic exists. Article may have copyvio issues with this webpage and this webpage. This page is listed as a reference, but it is authored by "DJ Postal", so it is self-published, plus it is a dead link, although it can still be seen in the Google cache. Article has a promotional tone. There is a reasonable chance that the identifiability and sourcing problems can change with time, but for now the redirect should be deleted, also. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japonesque (Kumi Koda album)[edit]

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

unreleased compilation album, no RS sources, no claim to notability Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Album hasn't even been released yot, so there can be no third-party coverage about it yet. Fails all notabilty requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Release date is in 2012, so this violates NOCRYSTALBALL. MakeSense64 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nominator possible keep The creator has added 3 japanese links which they say establish notability of the album. My japanese is not up to this level of translation. Google does a decent job. The question is are those qualified as RS, and are they in depth enough to count vs being PR stuff. In any case, not as clear cut delete as it was at time of nom. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy. The first two references seem to be essentially the same press release (and the first is on a sales site, to boot). The Yahoo announcement looks more solid, but I don't see enough to demonstrate notability. Given that this compilation won't be released until next year, it could certainly yet achieve notability, but seems WP:TOOSOON right now. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:13, 9 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. Crystal ball guidelines not violated here given coverage of announced album by notable band. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enslaved (Soulfly album)[edit]

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

contested prod. non notable unreleased album. Albums do not inherit band's notability. All refs are to label's site. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Album hasn't even been released yet, so there can be no third-party coverage about it yet. Fails all notabilty requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as premature. Once the album is closer to release, an article may be appropriate - provided that it has the required sourcing. See also WP:CRYSTAL. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know nothing about this band, so I have no bias. But it is an upcoming album that has been announced. It does have references and seems to be on the right track. Could use better formatting, but perhaps when more information comes about. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This album has been announced by ALL of the following references, and is being released by a notable band and a notable record company.

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/news/Soulfly-To-Release-New-Album-In-March-23844.aspx/?eml=20111209/soulfly/world/newsletter/new-album/news-story

http://maytherockbewithyou.com/mtrbwy/2011/12/soulfly-to-release-eighth-album-enslaved-in-2012/

http://www.metalinjection.net/contact-us

http://www.smnnews.com/2011/12/06/soulfly-enslaved-release-date-set/

http://loudwire.com/soulfly-celebrate-15-years-enslaved-album/

http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/music/2361

http://www.metalstorm.net/events/news_comments.php?news_id=15275

http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/misc/aboutus/0,,,00.html

http://www.radiorockcafe.com/index.php/important-information/tune-in.html

http://www.metalhammer.co.uk/news/soulfly-announce-album-titlerelease-date/

http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=74705

Therefore, the album has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which meets WP:GNG.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roadrunner is the label, that one def does not count. Several of those are just 1 line announcements. Several more are the exact same text (reprinted press release) Gaijin42 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These sources merely confirm that the album doesn't exist yet. As of three days ago, the playlist was still "tentative", and the planned release date is three months in the future. Notices of future release of an as-yet non-existant album do little to establish notability, especially if they are based on press-release information from the artists' label. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:Music#Recordings,

"Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources.

In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects — generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label."

At this point, the band knows what the songs will be, but simply must order the songs properly. At a minimum, the material should be merged into the Soulfly and/or Soulfly discography articles, if not kept as is.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Actually, three of the refs in this article are from Blabbermouth.net, a news website owned by Roadrunner Records. The news site doesn't give any special bias toward Roadrunner artists, and it's generally considered a reliable source of information. The featured articles Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) and Slayer both use the site as a reliable source of information among many other articles. The reason why it was suggested for the track listing to been officially confirmed for a future album was to avoid a collection of possible songs from generally unreliable sources such as YouTube videos or fan blogs—a situation which can sometimes plague a future album article. So even though the ordering of the songs is unknown, the full set of tracks is known and officially confirmed by means other than YouTube and fan blogs. That, in combination with the other confirmed details, one could easily write a start class album article with verifiable information for Enslaved. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - According to the statement at the bottom of http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/:

"BLABBERMOUTH.NET is run and operated independently of Roadrunner Records. The accuracy of the information contained herein is neither confirmed nor guaranteed by Roadrunner Records, and the views and opinions of authors expressed on these pages do not necessarily state or reflect those of Roadrunner Records or its employees".

But I do agree with keeping this discography. This discussion has now been open for more than one week with no disposition.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:07, 16 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. TigerShark (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony PictureStation DPP-EX50[edit]

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

Delete since the recommended merge has not happened and it is still a non-notable product -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Catalog product listing with zero evidence of notability. WP is not a product catalog. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable WP:PRODUCT. Not possible to merge as no suitable article exists for it to merge to. This is one many hundreds or thousands of products that Sony make, I don't see how it can be merged into Sony. Mattg82 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 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) 22:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is advertisement if I've ever seen it. Sony or not who are they kidding?Silent Bob (talk) 14:37, 11 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. TigerShark (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sony SRS-17[edit]

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

Delete since the recommended merge has not happened and it is still a non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Catalog product listing with zero evidence of notability. WP is not a product catalog. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:35, 8 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) 22:32, 9 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 by Tom Morris under CSD G12 on 8 December, 2011. (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Morgan (choreographer)[edit]

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

Subject contacted the WMF offices requesting removal. Because notability may be marginal, I'm listing here. This is a procedural nomination, I do not have an official opinion. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - I'm not sure that we should really consider the request for removal by the subject, as we tend not to take that into account - provided the article does not violate any of our BLP policies. This article does not, so I think we need to focus on the notability of the subject only. Three of the four sources seem to mention Morgan more than just in passing ([2], [3] & [4]); having said that, the sources are not explicitly about Morgan. It's a hard call, but I'm not convinced that Morgan is notable. Having said that, another source (perhaps from somewhere other than the NYT) which gives reasonable coverage of Morgan would convince me otherwise. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep (Delete then re-Create, see below)~~, if the New York Times is anything to go by?

[5] that you mention actually says " an impromptu solo by Edward Morgan, the former Joffrey Ballet dancer who directs the troupe with Daniel Scott, made for serendipitous magic. MorganScott opened with Mr. Morgan's Stockhausen 2000: Dreams, a group work set to a score by Stockhausen that sounded, in its first moments, like thunder echoing through the gathering storm..." and then "Then came the magic as Mr. Morgan jumped onto the stage in a solo that looked like an improvised prayer. His long lean body, arms reaching up and, pressing into the pelting rain, echoed the long lines of the skyscrapers behind him. The image was unforgettably theatrical yet also poignant." i.e. Morgan stole the show.

Likewise, [6] begins with "If Edward Morgan and Daniel Scott could bottle the evening's warmth and bubbling spirits, they would have no trouble raising money to keep their company going. Mr. Morgan danced with the Joffrey Ballet for a decade and was a co-director of the recently disbanded Joffrey II Concert Dancers with Mr. Scott. It is clear from his choreography that Mr. Morgan knows his way around ballet." and moves on to "Mr. Morgan knows how to make his dancers look good, giving them plenty of delicate flourishes for their lyrical arms and fleeting emotional details that highlight the performers' engaging way of relating to one another on the stage."

These very warm accounts in the NYT would probably be enough to establish notability on their own, but there are numerous others, including

[7] says "The delight of the evening was Mr. Morgan's Cheek to Cheek, subtitled A Tribute to Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers and set to orchestral recordings of tunes by Youmans, Berlin, Gershwin and Kern. Mr. Morgan derived his choreography from old movie, Broadway and nightclub routines." is again strong praise; and even if the other pieces were greeted more coolly, the NYT critic certainly found Morgan notable.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep - Chiswick Chap puts forward a convincing argument, the NYT does seem to establish notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was looking at this as an interesting problem, but unfortunately found that the article itself was a copyright infringement of http://www.edwardmorganballet.org/, the subject's personal site. As the subject also requested deletion, it seems unlikely that the material could be released under a compatible license, and the content on the site has a copyright tag. As the infringement was foundational, it isn't possible to revert back to an earlier version, so I've nominated it for speedy. - Bilby (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the whole of the previous text, and created a brief but I hope well-cited summary of Morgan's extensively-documented career as a dancer, choreographer, and dance educator. I am sure others closer to the USA's dance scene will be able to do better justice to this major subject, but Notability cannot be in doubt.Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYT is good enough for me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then re-Create Bilby has explained to me that we need to undo the CopyVio history before editing the article afresh. Accordingly I have undone my recent changes and moved them to User:Chiswick_Chap/Edward_Morgan_(choreographer) where you are all welcome to help me create a replacement page. I therefore do not contest the Speedy but intend to replace the article as soon as the CSD, AfD process is completed. Hope that's clear, it confused me for sure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 8 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. With kudos to Phil. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal angels[edit]

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

Previously deleted via CSD. Recreated. Renominated for CSD by a different editor. Contested. Series of mini-edit war CSD reverts. Nominating to get consensus Gaijin42 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator also created Suicidal_Angels and requested that this article should be deleted with a typo. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that WP:MUSIC is met, no WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. Appears to be an attempt at notability by association. Obviously created by a member of the band per the username. CSD A7 seems legitimate given that there is no actual claim of importance. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced self-promotion with no evidence of notability from independent sources, and very little likelyhood that suitable sourcing will ever be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fully-protect from further editing. It's an brilliant example to preserve for posterity, from the excessive red-linking (almost sad and poignant optimism), promotional and un-encyclopedic tone, laughable references. So I'd prefer it moved to Userspace or Essayspace or wherever so it could be externally linked in the various Wikipedia:Red link, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:RS guides as an example of what NOT to do. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation by another editor without WP:COI if notability can be shown. There is nothing to save here, and the encyclopedia is definitely worse for having it included in its current state. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @LoveUxoxo - I love your style! It's so bad that it is worth preserving! --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would help if people commenting here could address the question of notability by, for example, explaining whether the nearly 200 sources found by the Google News search linked above constitute significant coverage in independent reliable sources, rather than poke fun at the style of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the lot. It's almost all concert announcements, album release info, and trivial concert reports from various European heavy metal blogs, plus a couple of same in some newspapers. Nothing here establishes notability. BUT there was one very short (two paragaphs) feature in the local Hamburg newspaper from two years ago that reports that the band won a contest against 1200 other bands and thus was invited to sign a contract with Nuclear Blast [[8]]. This sounds notable, BUT the newspaper goes on to report that this is "possibly the first step in a great musical career" and the expanded headline states that "something might come out of the Suicidal Angels" someday. So not notable yet. The lack of anything substantial in the two years since that report strongly indicates that they have not lived up to that promise... as of yet, that is. A single ambivalent two-paragraph feature in a local newpaper does little to establish notability, and the rest of the 200 Google hits combined doesn't add very much. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair enough Phil Bridger, and yes the nominator and (and !voters) are expected to adhere to WP:BEFORE and perform due diligence as to notability. It does seem to me though that in obvious cases such as an article like this one, the WP:COI problems are such that a it is a valid argument (in my opinion) for deletion without prejudice to recreation by an editor without COI, and that is in the best interests of Wikipedia. There is nothing to salvage here, and the article would need to be started gain from scratch, suitable sourcing permitting. I'd expect most of us have too much on our plate already, although if someone wants to prove me wrong that would make me be happy. LoveUxoxo (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nominator, possibly changing vote So, while re-reading WP:BAND, the "win or place at a major competition" line popped out at me. This article claims to have done so by placing first in "blitz" and "Nuclear Blast". Both blue links from the article go to pages that do not appear to be music contests. (A band, and a label respectively) So. If 1) the winning of the contests can be verified. and 2) Those contests are determined to be "major", then I would change my vote to keep. Else still delete. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, WP:BLP1E would apply, especially as the have done nothing notable before or since, and have received, as far as I can tell, no substantial coverage for it except on blogs and in one local newspaper. They appear to have been a flash in the pan. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, If it can be verified, and it is a major competition, then I think they meet WP:BAND, and notability is not temporary. However it is probably moot as I don't think those conditions will end up being true. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can certainly be verified, and it is major enough to be reported in the Hamburger Abendblatt, a major regional newspaper from outside this band's home country. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the band got only a two-paragraph article in a local paper that said that the award was a good start for the band and that the band may amount to something someday. That's a far cry from substantial coverage as far as WP:BAND is concerned. The contest is a talent competition run by Nuclear Blast to identify promising new talent, not to recognize major past accomplishments. WP:TOOSOON also applies. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with your repeated assertion that the Hamburger Abendblatt is a local newspaper. It is a regional newspaper with a higher circulation than The Guardian, the San Francisco Chronicle or Rzeczpospolita. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added references to the article confirming that this band flies through the general notability guideline, with coverage from all over Europe. I restricted myself to publications aimed at a general readership, because I don't know enough about heavy metal music to evaluate the reliability of the very many more specialist sources available. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but no cigar. All you added was a bunch of concert announcements, album release info, and trivial concert reports from various European heavy metal blogs, plus a couple of same in some newspapers. Nothing here even comes close to establishing notability under any policy, even if added all together. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the sources that I added were "various European heavy metal blogs"? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go through the souces one by one:

1) 3voor12: Dutch music blog. Trivial mention as one of five warm-up bands for a music festival.

2) Athens 24: Local events calender. Extremely trivial almost footnote mention as the opening act for a heavy metal concert.

3) The Hamburg article discussed above.

4) The Birmingham Mail: Local newspaper. Just an album review.

5) Debrecen Online: Local news portal. Looks like a decent feature, but source is trivial.

6) RTV Slovenia: "mutlimedia" portal. Extremely trivial mention in a long list of bands that also played at a festival (not headliners).

7) Cosmo.gr: Greek entertaiment bog. Says they also played at a heavy metal festival (not headliners).

8) la Repubblica, Bologna insert: Local supplement to Italian newspaper. Content doesn't show for me but headline suggests a local concert announcement with the band playing second string (presumably the same tour mentioned in the next source).

9) Dagens Nyheter: Major Swedish newspaper. Local concert announcement briefly mentioning that band played second string.

10) American online heavy metal encyclopedia. Very scant mention. Actually, the only thing they say is that the band is big fans of the bands they played second string for in Italy and Sweden.

So, nothing substantial. Even added together, they don't add up to much. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try harder. 3VOOR12 is far from a blog, and is published by Netherlands Public Broadcasting. I could go on to debunk the rest of your guesswork, but don't have the time or the inclination to deal with such filibustering. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Phil Bridger and I note his great work at refurbishing the citations of the article. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There are references (hence the "weak" in my delete !vote). On balance, however, they seem to lack the in-depth treatment we look for to meet our notability standards. While I'm happy with the Hamburger Abendblatt coverage and it is a step towards notability, it (and the mixture of non-RSs and trivial treatments) does not suffice to meet our standards for notability. Not yet -- perhaps in the future, there will be greater coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. My reasoning is similar to Epeefleche's, but I've reached the opposite conclusion. The Birmingham Mail and Debrecen Online both seem pretty reliable (by Wikipedia standards at least). Yes, neither is national in scope, but that isn't a requirement of either [[WP:MUSIC[[ or WP:GNG. There's enough depth in the Debrecen piece at least (I can't see the album review but from what I know of the source would assume that it's of reasonable length too) that the band would appear to meet both guidelines, albeit barely. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:37, 15 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. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neokey[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Proposed deletion declined by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11, which says that "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" get speedily deleted. Using Google Translate from Portuguese to English, this article's entire text is

"The NeoKey Neoprot was developed by Computer Technology Ltd, a company based in Sao Paulo Brazil, the NeoKey is a small USB device (similar to a stick) that acts as a key to run the software, or if you are logged in NeoKey a USB port on the protected software works normally, but if not connected NeoKey the protected software does not work.

"The NeoKey is driverless, like a USB mouse or keyboard, and allows different products to license independently, and also has the model NeoKey Net +, which can be shared using a single hardware for up to 255 stations simultaneously on a local network ."

The article is entirely unsourced, reads like a brochure rather than an encyclopedia article, and makes no claim to notability. That it's not in English doesn't help its case. CityO fSilver 18:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy for all the blatantly obvious reasons. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:31, 8 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) 00:11, 10 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 Clear Keep (non-admin closure). Mice never shop (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln[edit]

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

Per a suggestion at Talk:Clyde Tolson. An indiscriminate and wholly-original synthesis , an accumulation of Lincoln sightings. No encyclopediac purpose for this list of "X in pop culture" to persist. If it were "Significant, influential depictions or references to Lincoln", it would be somewhat more disciminate. See Wikipedia:In popular culture. Wtshymanski (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe that a lists or articles such as this defy Wikipedia:In popular culture, as such lists are "...verifiable and should contain facts of genuine interest to the reader" and are easily supported by reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, but the accumulation of referenced information does not become original research just because not everything comes from the same source, or because there might not be RS describing the topic with exactly the same parameters. WP:NOR refers to content, not choice of topics. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A topic might be true and verifiable and yet still of no encyclopediac value; a List of things I carry in my pocket is not a good topic for an encyclopedia, nor is the menu at the Stella's restaurant next door to my office. Neither is a list of "places the words "Abraham Lincoln" may have been wrtten down", which is virtually this list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination seems to only have been made in order to make a point, as a response to a discussion at Talk:Clyde Tolson. This is not original research, nor is it an indiscriminate list, and it is referenced.

I object to the POINT characterization; there was a suggestion made at that talk page that a similar trivia list existed here that could be consiered for deletion. I'd be inconsistent if I argued for retention of one list of movie trivia over another. The number of references is beside the point; there's a million copies of the Kowloon municipal bus timetable, but that doesn't mean Bus schedule of Kowloon is a suitable encyclopedia topic.--Wtshymanski (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IPC suggests that notable coverage in popular culture (as in where the subject plays an important part, more than just in passing) is reasonable grounds for inclusion. Unless Abraham Lincoln was just mentioned by a character, or was present only due to the setting, he has been an important part of the film/book/whatever. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to have non-Wikipedia references testifying to the significance of the appearance, otherwise we'll have editors saying that the Lincoln squirrel joke was the best part of that Simpsons episode. (I'm sure that's documented in many reliable sources, too.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that there are some entries in the article which are probably unnecessary; however, I do not believe that is sound reason for deletion. I would propose that the article is kept and then a discussion on the talk page initiated regarding any entries which should be removed. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article may need more references (not to mention conversion to prose format), but the concept is certainly encyclopedic. The changeability of depictions and perceptions of crucial figures in history is a sound, viable topic, and Abraham Lincoln is about as crucial as they come. Definitely not original research: see works like Lincoln, Inc.: Selling the Sixteenth President in Contemporary America by Jackie Hogan; Abraham Lincoln and the Forge of National Memory by Barry Schwartz; The Lincoln Enigma: The Changing Faces of an American Icon by Gabor Boritt; etc. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several complete books written about this topic such as The faces of Abraham Lincoln: paintings, sculptures, drawings, and photomontages. The claim that the topic is original and indiscriminate is therefore false. Warden (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't like it, but I think it is sufficiently encyclopedic. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SteveStrummer Soupy sautoy (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. Can we restrict this list to *cited* significant appearances? Otherwise we'll be forced to include the list at the Simpons fansite which includes every time a $5 bill shows up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not keep it just to significant references? As I've said, the IPC essay provides useful criteria for determining what is significant, there's no need to try enforcing any additional bureaucratic criteria. Regardless, none of this is rationale for deleting the article. As you are now discussing how to improve the article, are we to assume that your position has changed? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by nominator I'm still favoring deletion. The biggest improvement would be deletion. Since there seems to be no consensus on what criterion to use as a significant reference, this list veers toward an indiscriminate collection of information. It doesn't have to be that way, as List of fictional swords shows - if every appeaerance is required to have a reference to a reliable source. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think deletion ever counts as improvement to an article. I think that, if we are discussing how to improve the article, the deletion debate has become redundant. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change title to Abraham Lincoln in popular culture. It's not very likely that someone looking for info about Lincoln in this context is going to begin their search term with "cultural depictions..." LATER: I see that Abraham Lincoln in popular culture already exists, as a redirect to this article. That is backwards. --MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 14 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) Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ion Dacian[edit]

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

I found no reliable sources for this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:28, 8 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) 00:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ahem--no reliable sources? See this, for crying out loud. Just because stuff isn't always available online and in English doesn't mean it should be disregarded. Has anyone noticed that the National Operetta Theatre in Bucharest is named for him? This is such an obvious case of keep... Drmies (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Romania#Companies_and_Bucharest. Someone needs to get a double DYK out of this. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Per Drmies. There are piles of references via Google books (on Dacian himself, not just references to the National Operetta Theatre). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - online sources are a bit scanty, but this, this, this and this (along with having the country's premier operetta named after him) clearly establish his notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new sources and new interlink link. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:07, 16 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. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Nash[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:GNG. Only claim to fame is that he beat a 13 year old Bobby Fischer at an amateur tournament when the tween Fischer was still playing amateur level chess. We probably wouldn't mention that even in one line of Fischer's article. causa sui (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agreed with the PROD and put some of my reasons on the article's talk page. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable. As noted, one victory over Bobby Fischer doesn't change this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly not an essential article, but this is one of the kinds of pages that distinguishes Wikipedia from dead tree references. Edmund Nash helps build the web as it is linked from List of people who have beaten Bobby Fischer in chess. The information in the bio page isn't suitable for inclusion on the page it is linked from, but may still be of interest to users. The US Chess Federation saw fit to publish a short obituary (used as a reference in the article), and if the USCF finds his passing to be of note I think it is reasonable that Wikipedia might also. The page is referenced and does not make any promotional or memorial-type claims, and I see no evidence that there has been any trouble with vandalism or any other conflict. In short, the page adds to Wikpedia even if only a small amount, and I don't see any way in which deleting it would improve the encyclopedia. Quale (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The USCF will put an "in passing" for any USCF member that dies, I believe. (Anyone can submit one.) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess there are thousands of people who beat Fischer in chess, if we include his youth. I do not see the point of mentioning them. SyG (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dangerously close to WP:1E. Kinda think you have to have been a Grandmaster or at least been close to be a notable chess player. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article says that he was a master, but I didn't find any evidence that he was literally a master. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SyG (talk) 15:49, 10 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 deleted by Jimfbleak. Peridon (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potter head[edit]

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

Non notability. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete nominated for CSD. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deleted it as unremarkable-web a short while ago. No sources present or found.--Theda 16:53, 7 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. With all due respect to many of the deleters, spam issues are important but not by themselves a reason for deletion. The validity of at least some of the reviews is not in question (and isn't seriously questioned here), so keep it must be, with the hope that voters here will continue to keep an eye on this and associated articles. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarWind Software[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account (Runa zor (talk · contribs),213.238.8.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) with no other edits other than related to StarWind Software. Was speedied once under WP:CSD#G11 as Blatant advertising and once in a previous AFD.

This is one Part of a long history of multi project Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#StarWind_Software_Inc.

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is about another online file storage service, though they have to say it fancier: an international computer software company specializing in the fields of storage virtualization. References are routine announcements and petty trade awards. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant COI and POV issues. -down load ׀ talk 17:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability has been shown since the article was deleted in the last AfD. SL93 (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not familiar with this product but I had no trouble finding references using Google books, e.g., [9], [10] and [11]. Many more where those came from. The article may indeed be too commercial, the work of an WP:SPA and lacking citations to reliable sources. But those are content issues; here at AfD, our only concern is notability: It's not whether the sources have been cited, it's whether they exist. It appears they do. Msnicki (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They appear to be significant enough to have their software reviewed by ZDNet and other prominent internet media outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nintendude64 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - Are people just blatantly ignoring the cites or something when they make a !vote for delete? There are numerous reliable third party sources here. They're not some company ran out of a kid's garage, they're headquartered along the 128 Corridor in Burlington, MA along with hundreds of other companies. Companies don't have to be Google or Microsoft in order to warrant having an article here. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 04:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Delete + Salt – The company is no more notable than any of a hundred other small concerns, and seems to have people associated with it that consider WP a good advertising medium. If you remove Wikipedia, their parent company, their executives/owners, LinkedIn and their resellers/agents, the list of Google results dwindles substantially. Heck, I work in the business and I've never heard of them. (Update: !Vote changed because I was unfamiliar with the article's history (multiple deletes and re-creates). In some quarters, Wikipedia is considered a valid marketing outlet, and I have little patience with that philosophy.) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback. Especially negative one. Two things so far: 1) Page is updated with TONS of links. Including hard copy books. 2) History is BAD. But @ the same time can you judge on CURRENT state of the things? Not all people are smart enough to control their staff members. Would you kill for anything added again and again only b/c of bad history in the past? Any chance to pass this "correctional facility"? Thank you! AK47 213.238.8.10 (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very unhappy about COI and POV issues and previous AfD fail. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although there have been the POV and COI issues as well as the previous AfD, I think this article is not as spammy as before and it does have a lot of references to demonstrate notability. Change to Delete per comments re spam and coi issues and references are not independent.Vrenator ^talk 09:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - While some links have been added, a closer look reveals they all fail as reliable sources and seem to be nothing more than a collection of press releases, blogs, partner sites, self published material and mere trivial coverage and incidental mentions. For example; 5 of the links are to affiliate sales links on www.amazon.de/com/.co.uk and even the zdnet.com Blogger (Dan Kusnetzky) explains explicitly in his BLOG that a "representative of StarWind Software reached out to me... "_[12] as a "marketing message "_[13], Pure marketing, not reliable sources.

Note; While very little evidence of Notability exists, a large amount of Multi-language wikipedia abuse, Spamming, Conflicts of interest and Advertising Does exist;

Article Spamming (including the two on ru.wikipedia.org)

19:06, 25 August 2009 deleted "StarWind Software" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarWind Software)
13:01, 16 March 2009 deleted "StarWind Software" ‎ (G11: Blatant advertising)

00:18, 17 August 2010 deleted "Starwind" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
19:37, 2 July 2009 deleted "Starwind" ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
21:36, 23 March 2008 deleted "Starwind"

ru:StarWind Software Inc.

ru:StarWind Software

Notability has not been demonstrated and the sources clearly fail to support inclusion. It is clear that StarWind Software Inc. contunues its attempts to exploit wikipedia for their own marketing and advertising purposes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Content that does not belong in an encyclopedia is excluded. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place for StarWind Software to promote their products.--Hu12 (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on that. The user in question has stated that they simply wanted to make it a convenient source of information for their customers (on my talk page: User talk:Download/Archives/2011/December#StarWind Software Page), but that does not resolve the problems of COI and notability whatsoever. -down load ׀ talk 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, I gave three sources that popped out at me when I searched Google books. I'm not familiar with this product, but the sources appeared to be reliable and independent. It looked to me like there were plenty more, satisfying WP:GNG. What was wrong with those sources, in your opinion?
Also, you appear to be arguing for deletion based on who wrote it, that it was an WP:SPA. But on WP, most of us are anonymous and it's irrelevant who contributed the content; it matters only that the topic is notable and that the claims can be verified with reliable sources. We decide notability at AfD, but if notability is satisfied, we work out content disputes on the article talk page. Do you disagree that the issue here is notability, not content? Msnicki (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly, each of those you cited are merely incidental and insignificant installation mentions, perhaps at most, trivial. Nothing there to significantly establish notability nor lend support to the subjects notability.--Hu12 (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each one appeared to be at least a couple pages in length. I don't know anything about this product, but I think I know something about the hurdle at most AfDs, which is that we typically accept far less. More to the point, brushing off these sources as incidental without explaining why you feel that way isn't very helpful. You're not offering much reason why I should change my opinion, which, based on what I've seen so far, is that you're wrong. Msnicki (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insignificant mentions about installation in self published, Non-Notable books, does not Notability make. "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The explaination is clearly stated in the second sentence of the notability guidelines^[14]. Additionaly, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..."^[15]. Lastly, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered."^[16] Equally, by virtue of just having incidental search results in google books, does not inherantly mean the subject is notable.--Hu12 (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So which are they? Are they trivial or primary? You don't seem sure. Mostly you seem to be arguing by repeated assertion that the sources are trivial (or primary, which is it?) and therefore, notability is not established. Yes, okay, I understand the guidelines, that notability requires significant coverage in reliable independent sources. But we disagree about whether these particular sources are trivial or primary and you haven't given me a reason why I should change my opinion about them. Even if they are talking how to install the thing, I call that taking notice. I'm convinced these sources would pass muster in most AfDs. To get me onboard, you need to tell more about what's wrong the sources, not just cite what part of the guidelines would apply if I agreed with your complaints (or even knew what they were.) Msnicki (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go step-by-step...

1) Link to what you say is a "sales page" is a link on AMAZON to a an INDEPENDENT BOOK referencing StarWind and having it as a cover. Just wanted to show book is alive and still available for purchase. Can replace all the links with a links to author's pages (as did with Chris Wolf one). But the problem is not in links but it's somewhere else from what I understand?

2) Second ZDNet URL points to second part of of Mr. Kuznetsky review after he was contacted by CEO (that's all from public sources) to re-check some of the results he (Kuznetsky) got on his first review. That's not a PR. It's just an attempt to show the truth to everybody. Pretty much what we do here.

3) Books are not notable... Dear Hu12 are you a virtualization expert and Windows administrator to judge are they valuable or not? Did you read them all (including ones in German) in 12 hours?

People who write them are respected and trusted and here's a review for "The Complete Guide to Windows Server 2008" Mr. Mark Russinovich (Google a bit who's this guy) gave:

“This book is an invaluable one-stop reference for deploying, configuring, and managing Windows Server 2008. It’s filled with John’s unique and hard-earned nuggets of advice, helpful scripts, and shortcuts that will save you time and money.”

4) Wiki is not a place for product placement... Sure. That's why there are no products.

5) Bad history. OK. Are we talking about current page and it's status or what was before? If you keep deleting something you create bad history. You cannot put any IP writing something about StarWind into StarWind ban page. Trace back some IPs you've added to find whom they belong to.

AK47

PS Hope I'll find some time to create a permanent account. Did not think it's going to get THAT far.

213.238.8.5 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I have an account. Let's clap our hands :) Just in case it's me, ex-AK47.

APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. APS, with respect to citing books, they usually are not linked to anything. We don't link to Amazon, publisher sites, author sites, etc. All a book citation requires is author, title, publisher, year, and ISBN. Hu12, books don't have to be notable to be cited; however, you are correct that they may not be self-published and also that the coverage cannot be just a mere mention, say in a list of other products. However, even a couple paragraph description may be used to help establish notability: a few paragraphs or pages in enough independent reliable third-party secondary sources establishes notability as well as two very in-depth ones. I have not looked into the sources in this particular case and have no opinion as to whether or not this company is notable. Yworo (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's no problem to replace the links with quotes and ISBNs. APS (Full Auto) (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Vote changed to Delete + Salt, see below. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: was pinged on my talk page about this, so assuming good faith I've taken another look at the references currently in the article. Examining all the links, there's one that stands out as (a) clear in-depth coverage of the subjects at hand (i.e. the company or software) and (b) not obviously linked to the marketing actions of the company, [17]. Alas, that link appears to be from a reseller of the company, thus failing independence criteria. It is worth noting that articles that start A representative of StarWind Software reached out... and their follow-up articles cannot be regarded as independent, nor can articles where the product is mainly discussed in the comments, by a user with the same name as a company principal. There are many books referenced, but I can find no indication that the company or product is mentioned except in passing. As a result of this and a review of the history of the page I'm changing my vote to: Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources and Salt for apparent attempts at astroturfing. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's no problem to remove that one just if you don't like it )) There are many more in Google waiting to be added... What I just cannot get is - what kind of links are accepted as "notable" as you guys and girls keep saying bad things but no single one was capable to provide any example of GOOD one. Are blogs OK? Fine, I'll get some bloggers on board.

2) It takes 5 minutes to Google who "Storage Switzerland" are. They are not reseller of anybody they are independent reviewers / consulters. Calling them SW resellers brings you into trouble as you need to prove what you're saying. Can you point to a place where it's told? Logo? Pricelist? Internal memorandum? ANYTHING?

3) User:Msnicki had already told you how to to use Google books to find a quotes. And was kind enough to provide 3 links to the pages. So if you've failed to do something it means you've FAILED. It does not mean issue you've been working on is unbreakable. Try again. And again. One day you'll have success. Probably. If you need my help here I'll be ready to assist.

APS (Full Auto) (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, second ZDNet link is gone. SS link is gone. 4 new liks to independent reviews. Are they OK?

APS (Full Auto) (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of those links is behind a paywall for me but coverage of starwind in the [18] article is limited to the sentence I don’t have to purchase iSCSI mass storage since I can use Starwind to create iSCSI targets to connect my systems to. This does not amount to a review, in my eyes. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be true. OK, I'll remove this particular one. Any other ones you don't like (and reasons)? APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which link exactly? I've take them from SW "links" page and all had opened fine for me. Don't remember paying anything to anybody. OK, I can remove that one no problem. Had added a couple of new ones (one is in Russian but you can use Google translate and screenshots are in English in any case) so if you (I mean ALL) think they worth being mentioned I can proceed with the other ones. Oh, also renamed section to the one probably is closer to the real name. Thank you for cooperation!

APS (Full Auto) (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While more links have been added, they all fail as reliable sources and seem to be nothing more than a collection of press releases, blogs, partner sites, self published material and mere trivial coverage and incidental mentions; ZDNet Blogger (Dan Kusnetzky) explains explicitly in his BLOG that a "representative of StarWind Software reached out to me... "_[19] as a "marketing message "_[20], Pure marketing, not independent of the subject nor it is a review. the crn.com link contains a brief quote from StarWind's CEO, marketing the product whithin a slide-show list of similar vendor products. it-bezpeka.org.ua, techrepublic.com, techtarget.com links are simply inclusions in various blogged lists of related products and is considered "trivial coverage'[21]. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.--Hu12 (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Link you've been talking about was REMOVED. Also you may be far away from technology (and that's fine) but you should have at least common sense of wisdom to complete the reading (as there are few pages) to find out it was SECOND part of review and he was indeed contacted after he had completed FIRST one himself. He ran first one to verify marketing message compnany claimed. And company failed from his poit of view. This IS an independent, reliable and notable source. You told "press release" and "self published". Now please go and point which referenced links are PR and if something is self published also please point to them. It's easy to contact their authors and / or verify whom are they been working for @ the time they had shoot that review. CRN link is about giving industry award so it's NORMAL when people are telling something on nomination or when taking prize. You cannot discard URL only b/c company CEO was quoted saying "thanks guys!" taking some kind of Product of the Year teapot or whatever they had won. "Similar vendor products" - no they are not. Hu12 you need to be with a technology to judge on what's similar or not. Please do not do any wrong assertions being easy to verify as more and more you do less and less reliable you look. IT-bezpeka is about building a cluster on top of StarWind so it's NOT a trivial coverage. Google is your friend here with it's translation. Bother yourself finally to read two pages of what you're skipping to read. It's a core technology. Putting products face-to-face to compare them has been always treated as a reliable way to compare the things. What you say basically is "TopGear article about M3 put face-to-face with C63AMG costs nothing as it's pure marketing and is trivial coverage". Nice. What next? Also at least I'm still waiting for your feedback about how you judge on books you did not read and have no clue what they are about and what SHOULD be considered as an independent and notable URL. Thank you for contribution. --APS (Full Auto) (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by APS (Full Auto) (talk • contribs) 09:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been recreated and deleted 6 times already including a previous AFD by multiple WP:SPA advertising-only accounts. You, yourself have created an additional 2 accounts (Runa zor (talk · contribs), APS (Full Auto) (talk · contribs)) for the sole and primary purpose of promoting StarWind Software and have used multiple account related IP's(213.238.8.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),213.238.8.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),46.211.183.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),46.211.183.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),46.211.183.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),46.211.183.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) more above) all in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines. There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources you have added, considering the overwhelming community consensus that StarWind Software is non-notable. If your sources are'nt sufficient, bring better sources. No editor should ever be expected to do "homework" for another editor. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. An unreliable souce does not become reliable by virtue of repeating that it is.--Hu12 (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

. So what? If job was not done properly 6 times I think it's time to have it done in the right way on 7th. Or your official position is - something being deleted 6 times should be never discussed ever?

. Ruma is not my account and other IPs do belong to me. I've been talking to people always signing with the "AK47" name never hiding me is me. So it's not what you want people to think. Trivial to check.

. There's no conflict of interest as I'm not employed or affilated with the company.

. You've failed many times to describe why whey are not sufficient. You're just rejecting everything bringing up any possible reason. This is neither constructive nor acceptable.

. I'll re-work the article as product-oriented and as Msnicki adviced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APS (Full Auto) (talk • contribs) 22:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're making an argument to avoid, Hu12. WP:BURDEN refers to content, not topics: If a statement in an article isn't properly sourced, it can be removed. But we don't delete articles just because they're not currently sourced properly or because of the behavior of other editors. From WP:RUBBISH, "an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion."
For all of us participating in an AfD, our real burden is to see to it Wikipedia guidelines and policies are followed. From WP:DEL#REASON, we delete "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", meaning we're expected to join in that honest attempt before we !vote delete. Msnicki (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I continue to believe there is a notable topic here, but I also agree that this article is terrible. I thought about fixing it, but I don't have the time, the motivation or the books I'd need. Here's what's wrong with the article and how to fix it. I'm still !voting keep, but I'm only one and clearly outnumbered. These things need to be fixed now or my bet is that article will be gone, never to reappear:

The product appears notable, the company not so much. The article should describe the product, which is what appears to have gotten noticed in all the Google books.
Each statement will need to be backed up by a source. If it's an important statement, like "StarWind is a software product that ...", it needs to come from an independent secondary source. Primary sources should be used only to fill in details, e.g., internal architecture.
If you can't back up a statement with a source, take it out. We do not delete articles just because they're WP:TOOSHORT.
Put all the citations into standard format, using {{citation}} templates. A proper citation is not just a link to Amazon. (If the only link you have is to Amazon, omit the URL field and fill in the rest.)
Use the quote="..." field in the citation template to show what facts are reported by each source. Google omits too many pages to do this without going out and buying the books or finding them at the library.
Weed out any WP:PEACOCK language and marketing nonsense about supposedly impressive relationships with big companies. As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts, maam." Msnicki (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll re-work the article as product-oriented (as I think it was before but...). And will follow all your recommendations here. Thank you! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, inadequate sources, coi and spam issues. Salt due to persistent recreation of article. Yworo (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting extension. We are at the end of 7 days and if we close now, it appears the consensus would be delete. But APS (Full Auto) (talk · contribs) is a relatively new user and has expressed intent to rework the article to make a better case for keep. Unless there is strong disagreement, I think we should allow an extra week to see what happens. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose extention. Consensus for "deletion" is quite clear in this case, as was the consensus in the articles first AFD. Extended inclusion only serves to exasperate and waste the time of other productive editors. This article has been recreated repeatedly "7" (SEVEN) times by multiple WP:SPA advertising-only accounts and has been deleted a total of "6" (SIX) times by trusted administrators. Notability has not been demonstrated and the sources clearly fail to support inclusion. It is clear based on the history that StarWind Software Inc. has and will contunue its attempts to exploit wikipedia for their own marketing and advertising purposes. "Salt".--Hu12 (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean you're running out of arguments and the only one you have is - something done wrong a few times should be never tried again?

OK, let me know do I have time to continue editing the article for re-vote or not. Thanks! APS (Full Auto) (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get a re-vote, only maybe a chance to show us whether or not you can find and cite a couple good sources and change some minds. I asked if we could hold off closing the discussion but an admin could still decide that Hu12 is right and that the consensus is clear. My advice is do your best and let's see what happens. Focus mostly on citing those sources, less on what the article says. And work quickly. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand people are fine with notability, sources and links and it's spamming issue pissing them off, right? I don't think I can control or change this.

OK, will do! Catching up... APS (Full Auto) (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they want everything fixed, APS, but if you can produce two good sources (referring to our discussion on your talk page) that clearly establish notability, that will go a long way. Msnicki (talk) 17:17, 15 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. Sandstein 12:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrorevitology[edit]

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

Is advertising for the method in question using stuff like facebook as refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The word “ Vertebrorevitology” means vertebro ( lat. vertebra) – spinal column, backbone; re (lat. re – repeated action) – restoration; vita (lat. vita) –life; logy ( gr. Logos – word, knowledge) – science. Translating word for word the notion of "vertebrorevitology" means "a science giving the second life (restoring) to the backbone." I just threw up a little in my mouth. At any rate, the self published sources offered would appear not to meet the medical source guidelines. Google Scholar knoweth it not, and for a medical technique I'd expect that not to be the case. The article tells you the method is patented; but if it explains what it consists of in English, that part eluded me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Terrible sources (the one book referenced doesn't have anything to do with the "Vertebrorevitology" subject). Also, there's some question as to the credentials of the guy who came up with this method: [22]. 0 Google book results as well. --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not science but marketing. The references seem to be hopeless. If Ben Goldacre gets his hands on this... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, incomprehensible pseudoscience. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doc James, thank you for your remark. I didn't know that facebook is not good as reference, I used it to show the results of MRI before and after treatment. If it is a bad ref I can remove it.

I didn't mention any clinic or something else and I did not see any advertising in this article.

I don't know if I can use as ref the web-site of author of the method. If it is allowed I can add it.

I would really appreciate any help in editing. I believe you should give a chance to this article because something new doesn't mean something bad.

UPD Google search shows 325 results. Google Scholar didn't show results in English but it's just the matter of time, because Google Scholar in Russian shows 3 results. Author of the method ( whose name I didn't mention in the article) works in Ukraine and his book will be published in England next year.

I don't understand how international patents could be spam. I will be glad to discuss the subject of the article without preconceived notion.JonnyD55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC). — Jonnyd55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

JonnyD, the problem with references like Facebook and the author's website is that they are not independent; they are written by the subject and so they could say anything; there is no verification by a third party. All information on Wikipedia has to be supported by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JonnyD, I agree with what MelanieN has written about independent reliable sources. Even when the book you mentioned comes out next year, it will still not qualify as an independent source. Also, it is not the policy of Wikipedia to give new ideas a chance. Wikipedia responds to what has been published. It does not try to anticipate what may be published in the future. See WP:CRYSTAL. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Patent spam. No reliable sources provided to establish notability, and a Google search turned up nothing of substance except that the guy is considered a quack. It's basically meaningless pseudoscientific blither. Of zero encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know if Facebook is officially no good as WP:RS, but if it isn't then it ought to be. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable or generally accepted procedure. Seems to be provided by only a single practitioner (who is titled on his website as "professor", so there is no telling what his actual professional credentials are - physician? chiropractor? none at all?). No independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 9 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) 00:18, 10 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. Kubigula (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tapulous Contests[edit]

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

This list of three Tapulous contests from 2009 probably doesn't pass the GNG. Raymie (t • c) 14:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-Article does not tells about what is Tapulous;only lists are given.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 16:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article. Some of the material could be added to the Tapulous article. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 8 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) 00:19, 10 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.

This is Cokerox, I'll delete this, but i don't know how to

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Bhambri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Prerna Bhambri (2nd nomination)

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

Fails NTENNIS. Only one ITF $10000 title, and did not appear in any WTA main draw, contrary to what the article says. Never played Fed Cup. Empty WTA tour record. Survived an earlier AfD because group nomination was withdrawn. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked and saw nothing notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:43, 8 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 mayors of Toowoomba. (non-admin closure) jcgoble3 (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John McLeish[edit]

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

I don't think that just being mayor of Toowoomba is enough to be notable. The only reference the article currently has ([23]) is published by the Toowoomba Regional Council, which I don't think can be considered an independent source. I don't think he meets any meets of the criterion at WP:POLITICIAN and, having searched gnews, gbooks and trove nla, I don't think he meets WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say delete for a person from such a remote time; you wouldn't really expect to find much online about someone who was mayor in the 1880s. However, there ought to be something at Google Books if he was at all a historic figure - and there isn't.[24] Also, the Toowoomba article suggests that the population of the town was only a few hundred in the late nineteenth century, again suggesting that a mayor (as opposed to the founder of the town or something) might not be that notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he was mayor the same small town today, no one would pay him any heed. If there was no photo, this would be a speedy. I think the aged photo has a tug on those of us who like to preserve history, but there is no notability here. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about the photo. When I was looking for sources I was hoping to find anything that would make him even a little notable. If this article is deleted, hopefully the photo can be used on List of mayors of Toowoomba instead. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Toowoomba. Note: I am the article creator. I made this article a while back after the State Library of Queensland image donation, and really its only purpose is to showcase that image. Now that I think about it, it really shouldn't be a standalone article. However, I intend to eventually expand List of mayors of Toowoomba, so if the consensus is deletion rather than redirect please userfy so that I can use the material later. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your input, I'd be fine with a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per desire of content creator. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 10 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 nominator withdrawal. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trelowth[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no references, too little content. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 12:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -especially if it has been there since 1086. Sifting through all the autogenerated spam on google is frustrating though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most encyclopedias have entries for historical geographic locations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - None of these details were added at the time of nomination. It was simply a single, unreferenced sentence (that old revision can be found here). →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A notable article will always be a notable article, however short. Consider looking for the article in google books if in doubt and ask the creator to try to expand it. It took little more than 30 minutes to produce what we now have but this would not have been deleted even if it hadn't been expanded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 7 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) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WOW Alliance[edit]

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

The article has stood unsourced now for at least 2 years, and therefore fails WP:V. In trying to look past press release type information, I am struggling to find anything that give this alliance any degree of great notability Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Try this search:

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

— Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Do BBC News or CNN still count as WP:RS? Article could use expanding, for sure, but that's not a reason to delete. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough, although I wish someone would bulk it out. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article only "fails" WP:V if the topic in unverifiable, not currently un-sourced no matter how long it has been in that state. The sources shows by Livitup do indicate significant coverage by very reliable sources and thus passing WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable enough, and is verifiable. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 11:48, 14 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) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Parvin[edit]

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

Journalist killed as an intellectual martyr during a mass execution that killed 988 others. Does not appear to be notable as a journalist, and thus is not notable per WP:1E. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Try this search:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Keep She might be one of many killed, however, the sources mentioning her name and work exist, see Daily Star, G-books, Bangladesh Genocide Archive etc. I'm sure it is possible to find out more in Bengali or in other languages spoken in Bangladesh. Martyred Intellectuals Day of Bangladesh is important for the history of Bangladesh and we should not delete verifiable information associated with this date. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those sources do support that she was both a journalist and one of the martyred intellectuals. I am just not sure whether she is notable for either. On the other hand, there does appear to be a "docufiction" about her life [25][26] as well as, possibly, a book. Apologies, as I did not find either of those during my initial search. I cannot speak to the notability of the film or the book, except to note that it is difficult to find information on either in English. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, FCSundae, it strenghtens my position to keep the article. Bangladeshi celebrate those people as martyrs and builders of national freedom, and I don't think it is appropriate to apply WP:1E for this kind of articles. I can imagine a list mentioning the names and careers of individual intelectuals killed by Pakistani, however, deletion would be in my opinion a bad decision. Your sources suggest that there's a possibility to build a decent article about this journalist. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a national hero. I suspect that most sources are going to be in foriegn languages, but I'm confident they're there. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:02, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Marc[edit]

(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}}.

Contested PROD. It looks like it might be a little too soon for Kevin Marc to qualify under Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The sources in the article don't really look like they qualify as reliable sources for Wikipedia, and I can't find any other sources on Google News or Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEVIN Marc IS MY BOY. THIS PAGE IS THE TRUTH. THE INFORMATION I READ IS EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN ON THE SHOW JUST ALL THE INFORMATION IS STATED ON THIS TOGETHER WHICH MAKES IT INTERESTING. IM A FAN THAT MY NINJA - WHY DELETE THE PAGE HE IS A ARTIST ON THE COME UP AS WE SAY OVA HERE IN BROOKLYN. --JoseSantosAbdul (talk) 12:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)JOSE — JoseSantosAbdul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi I'm one of kevin marc biggest fan since he started i watched all the episodes how can you say its to soon. his career is going to be taking off heavily and fans like my self would love to read all this information posted on this page & it's reliable and interesting. IM A A TRUE FAN. KEEP THE PAGE . --Amy201210 (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)AMY <3 — Amy201210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I Feel like the article should be kept, He is a on the come up artists and his rising fans would love to have a great main source to learn about who he is and how did he come up as a star since his appearances on mtv and having a 20,000+ views web reality show which you tube announced as its 1st ever. it's great for his fans and for people who want to see all this information. he has sources and there all reliable! --Newsact11 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)Matt L.[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. If this artist "on the come up" makes it big, he'll get an article. Right now all sources are unreliable-looking blogs. To his fans who would like "a great main source to learn about who he is," may I suggest Facebook, MySpace, or some other such site. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not finding reliable sources to qualify this topic's inclusion in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This article is excessively promotional and the coverage from independent reliable sources just isn't there. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from WP:TOOSOON any article which includes "a over all entrepeneur" [sic] should be deleted on principle for crimes against grammar. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:18, 8 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) 01:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can find reliable sources that fit WP:V and WP:NOR and make the place where he was born in the box match what it says on the article.--CanvasHat 16:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete. I couldn't find any additional sources to support the notability of this music artist. The current sources are not especially reliable. The first source, Young Fresh Fly is described as:

YOUNGxFRESHxFRESH consist of 3 young, fresh, and fly dudes named Andrea Osborn aka Aro, Kyron Wakefield, and Devaun Ford aka Daz. 3 young, fresh, fly dudes (no pun intended), who together create a unstoppable force of creativity.

They didn't even spell the name of their own website correctly. The second, from TriStateSwag, is an online urban magazine that just started in October 2011, and for some reason, the interviews are posted with every word being capitalized, which suggest a serious lack of editorial oversight:

My Name Is Kevin Marc, I’m A Actor, Director & Rapper. Who Comes From Brooklyn, New York, Just A Ordinary 18 Year Old Who’s On The Rise & Ready To Succeed.

The third is a blog entry from one of the subject's own friends, so this is probably also not reliable. In lieu of other sources, the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines for musicians. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:27, 11 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. If defenders took the trouble to actually incorporate reliable sources discovered by the Google News searches, this would be much easier. As it is, GNG is passed. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sears[edit]

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

Non-notable activist. Should be merged into the Alliance Defense Fund article, if anything. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as in Outright Delete) per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:16, 8 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) 01:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD and actually look before declaring no coverage exist. Many major news sources do quote him and cover his activity. "Sears has also appeared on more than 1,000 radio and TV programs, including ABC's "20/20" and "Nightline," Fox's "O'Reilly Factor," NBC's "Today," and media outlets such as CNN, PBS and CBS News." [http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31980#ixzz1g9byAaIW] That's on his official website also. I searched, and confirmed he was on the television show the O'Reilly Factor. Dream Focus 17:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person has received significant coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources. See some of the links in this more-specific Google News search below:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable executive with ample coverage, appearances.– Lionel ^(talk) 10:45, 13 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. Per 1E. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russel Earl Winstead[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, for murdering his aunt. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly keep – This person isn't notable otherwise for the heinous crime he was convicted for, but it appears to have received significant press. Also, the title of the article appears to possibly be spelled incorrectly. Try this news search instead:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All coverage is about him murdering his aunt. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There does seem to be a fair amount of information for this article and according to this the article has been viewed about 500 times in the last 3 months alone. I hesitate in saying falt out delete it with a moderate view count like this with infomration available. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook not a newspaper stuff. Routine amount of coverage for somebody who killed someone, which doesn't automatically entitle one to a Wikipedia article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nwlaw63. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep - though i agree that this isnt any special case it seems to me that there is enough notability to justify inclusion.--BabbaQ (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. - DonCalo (talk) 18:33, 10 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. Nomination by a sock puppet of banned user KnowIG (talk · contribs). --MuZemike 21:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Australian Open – Main Draw Wildcard Entries[edit]

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

Nothing in this article which can not be added to the main Australian Open page, 2012 Australian Open, which already goes into detal about the Wildcards. Dotdotdashdash (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information has been added, which previously would have not been added to the 2012 Australian Open page. Popsiclesare (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've added the draws at a push you could still merge it in the main article or rename the current article, and get rid of the other wildcard stuff and just have the article focus on the wildcard play offs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotdotdashdash (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge. Just not enough to justify a standalone article. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For every grand slam there are articles made for the respective draws. E.g. 2011 Australian Open – Men's Singles for an example of last years. This is according to the guidelines of WP:TENNIS. This information about wildcard entries and playoffs can be added at the bottom of these articles already. When the final draw is made we then add the new information on top of this wildcard info. So better split and merge this into their respective main draw articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - We already merge the qualifying draws into the main draws. Why not the wildcards too? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion. Maybe the draws included in the article could in some way be merged into a new section on the Qualifying draw page? Technically it is still a form of qualifying, even if it's not through the main qualifying draw (Kyleofark (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Openings of years past as well as other events have their "main draw" and "wildcard entries" in their main articles. [27] Dream Focus 12:44, 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. Sandstein 12:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dagenites[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a (brief?) entry on this group in this book, but I'm unable to find any further coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 01:49, 4 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) 08:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:11, 8 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. TigerShark (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition F.C[edit]

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

This article does not assert notability per WP:CLUB or WP:NFOOTY, nor can I find any sources online which prove its notability. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't even figure out what league they're supposed to play in. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:50, 6 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) 08:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what we've got here, they would appear to be an amateur youth team. Not a notable club. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:10, 8 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) 01:08, 10 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. As much as it pains me to delete a journal, Guillaume's arguments carry the day. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identities: Journal for Politics, Gender and Culture[edit]

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

Article was PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, apparently moribund (homepage even appears to have been hacked years ago without anybody noticing). No independent sources except an in-passing mention in a book. Not indexed in any major selective databases. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." DePRODded with "pls take it through more thorough possible deletion process", so here we are. PROD reason still stands, no sources whatsoever, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Butler sits on their Advisory Board, although this referenced info was deleted from the page. David M. Halperin has also published in this journal. I created a stub, but I believe it has plenty of potential to be expanded. Strong keep Zigzig20s (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As has been discussed many times at the Academic Journals Wikiproject, membership of an editorial board generally does not mean much for this kind of publications. Unless there are reliable sources indicating that Butler has significant involvement with the journal, it is not appropriate to list her in the article. The article has been PRODded for a while, but no improvements have been forthcoming. This AfD will take some time, too, so you have had and still have plenty of opportunity to add sources to the article showing the notability of this journal. If you cannot provide sources, then your claim that the article has potential is just an empty one. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a reference for your claim that the editorial board was deemed unimportant by the project? Anyway, my hope is that we'll get more people with a new perspective involved in this decision-making process, since we both clearly disagree.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the talk pages, the journal article writing guide, DGG's suggestions for what journal articles should contain, and WP:NOTINHERITED. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable members of advisory board, and coverage in secondary source published by Oxford University Press. — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question What coverage? Note that references 1 and 2 in the article are actually identical. The journal is just one in a large list, i.e., an in-passing mention. As for notable members of the board (actually, apparently just one), that's WP:NOTINHERITED. And it's really a bad sign if a journal does not succeed to attract more notable people for its board. Few issues were produced, which seem to have been hardly cited at all and, hence, have not made an impact on their field. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:03, 8 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) 01:09, 10 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. Article has been improved with reliable sources since nomination. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ray Bower[edit]

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

I'm finding name drops and directory listings, but nothing substantial. Just one sentence mentions here and there. This has been tagged for non-IMDb sources for 3 years with none forthcoming. Everything out there on him is just name-dropping, absolutely no substance to the sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR. Being tagged for non-IMDb sources for 3 years (or 5, or 15) is not a reason to nominate a subject for deletion, it is a reason to improve the article.--Cavarrone (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improve with WHAT though? I just freaking told you, I found nothing but trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: fails WP:GNG with no references to demonstrate notability. In addition, no Google news hits are present for the periods of 2006-2011 [28] and 2002-2005. [29] Till I Go Home (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not exact: [30]. Anyway, he still passes WP:NACTOR as he "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". And GNews hits support this. --Cavarrone (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to !vote after I've had some time with the article on this quite prolific actor whose body of work from 1988 to present appears quite likley verifiable. And until I add it and the sourcing, I feel he at minimum meets WP:ANYBIO through a notable award for "Best Young Actor Co-starring in a Cable Series" for Salute Your Shorts.[31][32] Will have more to say upon my return. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm more than fine to switch my !vote if changes are made to the article which would demonstrate notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 11:59, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:05, 10 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. TigerShark (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard V. Kahn[edit]

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

Article clearly a self-promotional effort undertaken by the subject himself. Just a regular college faculty member using Wikipedia to make themselves seem very important. Laval (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far from satisfying WP:PROF that it is not even funny. That photo even looks like he snapped it of himself. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for DYK: "Did you know... that photo rights reside with the person that TAKES a picture not the person IN a picture and that Wikipedia's photo rights volunteers have been known to reject submitted portrait photos on those exact grounds?"

Trim. I am the user who marked this article as an autobiography (though wasn't signed in at the time). Though there might be a temptation to delete the article as a "punishment" for the blatant self-promotion involved, it seems like he might satisfy PROF by being the editor of a journal. There may be other evidence of notability that is lost in the enormous text that he has written. I get the impression that he has put his name (and links to his page) into a bunch of other pages here, so I assume anybody deleting his page would have to also clean those up. I'm not very active here, but to me it seems like the easiest solution would be to cut out the bulk of the article and leave something short that only covers the notable elements. --RadioElectric (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That journal (apart from being moribund - last issue published in 2009) is of very doubtful notability itself and certainly not a "major well-established academic journal" as mentioned in WP:PROF#8. The fact that he has seeded links here and there is no reason to keep or delete. If deleted, those links will just have to be cleaned up. I have already looked at some and removed where the inclusion seemd out of proportion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I need to get to work on a piece just now, but glancing at this article I suggest that the probable inclusion hook deals with the subject's political activism rather than status as a professor. That would be my initial take, anyway. I'm not sure that sources can be mustered in this respect, nor do I have time to look just now, I just offer the advice for the time being that running this bio through the "Professor" guidelines may mean a rejection, but seeking other sourcing may meet GNG. My two cents. The piece does need to be edited with a chainsaw, for sure. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 8 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) 01:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, by itself. Still, could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. The subject’s h-index is 2, based on a GS search. The Green Theory & Praxis journal currently has an average of 0.86 citations per article; way too low at the moment to qualify the subject under WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal).--Eric Yurken (talk) 22:01, 11 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of allergies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a hodgepodge of random bits of information about things that can cause allergic reactions. In truth, the list is potentially endless and the reactions are too variable to put in this kind of framework. No attempt is made to link the random observations to actual scientific classifications of allergy. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes it needs work, but I don't think deletion is the best course. It was kept by a large majority in April so I can't see this AFD being much different.--Michig (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My argument is that it cannot be salvaged even with work. The premise of the article is wrong. It must go. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst I can empathise with the proposers concerns, the lack of completeness or its ordering or lack of such, does not seem to conflict with policy or guidelines. The references are plentiful and it is clearly marked as incomplete. I would favour improvement and expansion with some added cautions about reliance on such a list included in the header. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need disclaimers, but we do need articles that are reliable and provide a useful framework. This article is neither, and there is no way in which this can be improved. Every biological compound can cause allergy, and the nature of the reaction is not usually related to the nature of the compound but to the immunological reaction to it. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My condolences to anyone who refers to Wikipedia for medical advice. That goes double if it's picked up unknowingly from an unscrupulous mirror. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can currently sympathise with that statement. However, WP:MED is working hard to render this statement obsolete in the future. This includes attempts to recruit new editors to medicine topics. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is currently an outrageous epidemic of allergies and the medical profession has been remarkably feeble in dealing with this because they don't seem to understand it, e.g. "GPs and other health professionals had poor knowledge of allergies". The hygiene hypothesis seems to be the best guess as to what's going on but few doctors seem to promote the idea that obsessive cleanliness is unhealthy and, instead, we have alcohol hand-washes spreading everywhere. The idea that the topic should be suppressed to the extent that we don't even have a list of common allergies such as peanuts and cats seems to be absurd denialism. Warden (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm usually a fan of not punishing incomplete information, this list is dangerously incomplete and wrongheaded. There is no limit to allergens, just ones that are more prevalent than others. Likewise, there is no particular limit to the reactions that can be prompted in an allergic reaction, just ones that are more prevalent and commonly documented. Altering this list to eliminate those showstoppers... and there's nothing really left to build with, is there? Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claims that the list is impossible to improve are obviously false. For example, a quick search immediately shows that the WHO maintains a classification system for allergens. Here is their entry for the common allergen Fel d 1 which occurs in cat saliva. There doesn't seem to be any reason that we couldn't improve the list to incorporate information of this kind and it is our editing policy to make such improvements rather than deleting. Warden (talk) 23:58, 30 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting Comment From a policy point of view, a list with no clear scope is indiscriminate information and therefore deletable and that's what I'm reading here. But for Col Warden's vote, I don't feel the keep side have addressed this and in a better attended debate might have deleted on that basis but the good Col has put forward a basis on which we could consider ordering allergen information. I think it would be extremely useful for the keep side to address a scope for this article (i.e moving to a list of common defined by X) and for the delete side to address the Col's argument that the WHO might give a scope around which to rescue the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does the scope have to be defined by the medical community? Can it be defined by what is considered notable by the mainstream media, i.e. what people are concerned with every day? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an editorial judgement. Obviously it has to be a widely accepted scope, we wouldn't use fringepseudomedicine weekly as our scope definer because its fringe and POV pushing if it existed but back in the real world there simply needs to be a clear agreed scope that most editors can accept. If one can't be agreed this will be deleted eventually as you can't have an uncontrollable list like this with no clear basis for inclusion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO data appears to provide a list of allergens, not a list of allergies. I think that's an important distinction because it does give us clear inclusion criteria:- the allergen must have a name approved by the IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Subcommittee (these guys) who appear to speak for both the International Union of Immunological Societies and the WHO. Hey presto, we have a well-defined list that's clearly completable. At first glance this looks like an important piece of background reading before starting the list. NB: This is not necessarily to be understood as a "keep" !vote. I'm proposing that what we need is an article that has a different title (list of allergens, presently a redirect to the article we're considering) and different content. It's down to whether we think the current content is a helpful starting point or whether it's easier to start afresh.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One difficulty with the WHO scheme is that it seems to be confined to proteins which provoke type I hypersensitivity. It therefore excludes allergens such as nickel which provoke allergic contact dermatitis. Readers should not have to understand the field in such technical detail in advance as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical resource. A suitable framework might be to present allergies here at a high level — common terms such as hayfever, food allergy and dermatitis. It can then point to more detailed articles and lists which present the content in a more structured and detailed way. Warden (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You both have good points. How about instead of changing the content, simply qualify the list by changing the lede to: "List of commonly described allergies", or something like that? After all, visitors to the page are not doctors. They don't say that they are having an allergic reaction to an allergen. They say that they are allergic to cats. They are ordinary people wishing to be informed by an article.

The absence of this list would leave visitors trying to find Allergen#Common allergens, and then clicking a bunch of blue links. I think they would prefer some sort of table with the most notable allergies laid out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Renaming to "List of allergens" would be functional for this article. (This link currently redirects back to this article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of allergens. This topic is notable.Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One can simply sum it up as "everything" per the full text of this [33]. Yes one can be allergic to anything from heat to cold to pressure to any foreign substance breathed in, touched or eaten. Thus it is not a reasonable list. The causes only make sense in the context of how common they are and that belongs on the page allergy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source is about food allergy and food is not "everything" - not even close. People aren't allergic to many/most things such as rainbows or bicycles and so the claim of everything is absurd hyperbole. Where there is a general class of items such as food then the list can deal with these by linking to a general article such as food allergy. Warden (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DocJames. This is going to go nowhere good. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How so? Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When it comes to lists we should consider both notability AND usefulness. I agree it would be more properly named List of allergens, because that's what it really is. Allergens are notable, so the question is : do we need a separate list article for this? Given the rather small size of Allergen I think this list should be merged into it, replacing the section Common allergens. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're supposed to consider the potential state of the material, not its current state (which at AfD is often woeful). A proper article on allergens would be rather long, and so would a proper list of allergens. I do think we want one article and one list in this case, rather than trying to make the article be all things to all people.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD was in 14 April 2011 and had a massive number of people saying Keep. Anyway, it has ample blue links linking to Wikipedia articles for various types of allergies. It can be rather useful for people wondering what sort of things they might be allergic to. I just found out some people are allergic to their own semen. Semen#Semen_allergy Yikes! Dream Focus 17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:LIST, and is properly sourced. Lack of a well-defined scope may be an issue, but that is for the talk page. It is not grounds for deletion. If the scope issue cannot be worked out at talk, then maybe consider AfD. So far, the only discussion on scope has been a single post at talk Talk:List of allergies#You can be allergic to anything, with a single reply. Where's the due diligence there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is becoming very clouded by confusion about the difference between allergy and hypersensitivity. My understanding is that an allergy, formally defined, is anything leading to type I hypersensitivity. My understanding is also that anything that doesn't lead to type I hypersensitivity isn't an allergy, but a hypersensitivity. Thus, although it's possible to become hypersensitive to virtually anything, it's not true that you can be allergic to virtually anything. The list of allergens is finite and completable from the source I've already discussed. I'm afraid I feel that !votes suggesting otherwise should be disregarded.—S Marshall T/C 09:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The jargon of hypersensitivity types certainly complicates the matter. This would be a good topic area for an outline - presenting the lay reader with the overall structure of the field's articles and lists and so helping them to navigate to the right destination. Warden (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that with medical lists like this one, lack of completeness should be a major concern. For instance, Aspirin (one of the most common drug allergies) is not even on the list (except via NSAIDs, which do not directly mention it). Perhaps either deletion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) or a merge with allergens is a way to go. Presenting this as though it were a complete list is potentially lethal to some reader or readers out there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope readers don't rely entirely on the Wikipedia for their medical information. And it says it isn't a complete list at the top, so I doubt anyone will be confused. If you see anything that should be added, then do so. Dream Focus 16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the foot of every Wikipedia page, including this one, is a disclaimer which says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". We wouldn't be able to get anything done if articles had to be accurate and complete at all times. For most topics that would be impossible - medical knowledge is advancing every day, for example. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a disclaimer doesn't mean that we should include potentially dangerously misleading information willfully. As has already been pointed out, this list is not complete, and will not ever be complete. Anything can be an allergen. Get over it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding "perfect is the enemy of good", is Mr. Warden seriously of the opinion that there is anything "good" about the list under discussion? Fascinating. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"dangerously misleading information"? How is it misleading? Do we need big bold text saying that not all allergies are listed? Would anyone honestly be confused? Dream Focus 17:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Medical information on Wikipedia, our disclaimer notwithstanding, needs to satisfy high requirements of completeness and accuracy at all times. This hodgepodge, based on a mixed bag of sources whose reliability is not always clear, is not only incomplete but also potentially dangerous. Sandstein 18:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could say that about thousands of medical articles — shall we delete all those too? For example, medical articles which are graded C are "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.". Articles of this sort include Anaphylaxis, Anxiety disorder, &c. It is clearly not our policy to delete articles for this reason and our disclaimers make it very clear that readers should not be using them for medical advice. If you think that's not enough then you could stick some cleanup banner tags on the article to make it even clearer that they are a work-in-progress. Warden (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You can be allergic to basically just about anything and everything. Now, if it would be renamed List of common allergies I could reconsider, but as of now no chance. Nageh (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming an article is performed by using the move function, not the delete function. We are discouraged from moving the article during this discussion to avoid confusion, otherwise such bold improvement would already have been done. Warden (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Yet I don't see any indication that this list would be given a more proper title after this deletion discussion. Nageh (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed above. For example, S Marshall said "I'm proposing that what we need is an article that has a different title ...". Warden (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see WP:DISCRIMINATE--this is a list of allergies, that is most definitely not "indiscriminate" by any consideration. It is well sourced and passes WP:LISTN. I'll stay out of the "renaming" issue because that is not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indiscriminate by definition in that it could never be anywhere close to complete, as you can basically be allergic to just about anything, as I explained above. That includes but is not limited to just about any protein. Nageh (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unable to complete" is not the definition of "indiscriminate" by any means that I can find. "Indiscriminate" means "without care or making distinctions" or in a "thoughtless" manner. This list is clearly not "indiscriminate" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keepULTRASTAR123| KABOOM! 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By which rationale?

Comment. This list is problematic for so many reasons. First, you can be allergic to just about anything and everything, including but not limited to just about any protein. Second, the potential reactions you may show are not limited in any way, and can be all through category I to IV, albeit one is usually much more common. Third, potential reactions are largely dependent on the category the allergy falls in, and not the allergen by itself. Of course, digesting an allergen results in different reactions than inhaling or skin contact, yet the principle is the same for all allergens. Last but not least, this list will never include the more rare allergies just because you can be allergic to just about anything and everything. This list is indiscriminate. Nageh (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE look up the definition of the word "indiscriminate" -- it doesn't mean what you think it means.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE indicates that we should not have "Summary-only descriptions of works; Lyrics databases; Excessive listings of statistics" and this is none of these things. Topics are not indiscriminate just because they are large or numerous — we have many lists with thousands of entries. In this case, the list is not currently large and we can manage your objections easily. If all proteins may trigger an allergic reaction then we can say this briefly as we just did here and link to protein so that readers understand what is meant. We should also list the common examples and this may be done by using the WHO definition of a "major allergen", for example. We are not required to list all proteins as we already have a list which does that and we can point to it: list of proteins. Warden (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a workable basis. Let's see where it goes. Nageh (talk) 13:27, 17 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. TigerShark (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdale Plaza[edit]

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

Local shopping mall within Sydney's suburb of Rockdale, no assertion of notability or significance. Till I Go Home (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ORG. run of the mill suburban centre. LibStar (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retain If you delete this shopping centre article then you would have to delete about another 30 Sydney suburban shopping centre articles which are on par with this article. J Bar (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid reason for keep, in which the likelihood of an administrator (who is closing the AfD) taking the vote into consideration is very poor. It does not matter one bit that 30 Sydney suburban shopping centres have their own articles. Such pages, including Westfield Parramatta and Westfield Bondi Junction pass the WP:GNG with independent published sources. The subject in question fails the GNG with no availability of sources to demonstrate notability. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a first pass over the said articles and PROD'd about three and tagged about half for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 10 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) 01:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's now over 7 days, was this AfD properly listed? LibStar (talk) 13:17, 17 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. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semiotics of the Salem witch trials[edit]

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

Article consists entirely of original research (especially WP:SYNTH). In addition, this does not appear to be a notable topic – I can find no journal articles or books that discuss it. Jenks24 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure there is a good article on the Salem witch trials already. This one is really just one person's opinions. Nothing wrong with that, but not a suitable encyclopedia article.BigJim707 (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge what can be sourced to Salem witch trials. I agree that most of the page is OR and that this topic is not independently notable. It is, however, a valid concept that is relevant to the target and appears not to be covered there already. In addition to the references in the article there are other sources available - e.g. [34] and various papers that can be mined e.g. [35]. My view is that it is worth a short section in the target. TerriersFan (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that first source is RS, then I agree that a merge would be a good option, but according to this you only have to pay to publish an article on that site and it doesn't appear that they are reviewed in any way. Regarding the gscholar search, I couldn't find any articles actually discussing semiotics and the Salem witch trials together, just articles where both happen to be mentioned. Jenks24 (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TerriersFan may be right that a short semiotics section could improve the already quite comprehensive Salem witch trials article, but I don't think that this personal essay is a useful starting point for that effort. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any valid information to Salem witch trials, then redirect – Appears to be an essay with significant synthesis. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per TerriersFan and NorthAmerica1000. I had prodded this ("This appears to be original research in the field of semiotics.") but some information could be valid and kept as a small section. It's certainly consensus that this topic is not yet ready for its own article. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:ESSAY. Not only is this completely OR and SYNTH, I can't fathom, in this turgid, rambling mass, what the point is the author is attempting to make. I see no reason why some poor closing admin ought to sift through this to decide what - if anything - is "valid" information worthy of inclusion in other articles, and so Oppose any merge result; if those editors advocating merging would care to take a swing at it themselves, that would be fine. Ravenswing 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-encyclopedic title and many aspects of an original essay in content. I have a hunch that there is material here which may be used profitably on several different pages, but I don't have any idea who is motivated enough to do that. This appears to be a college term paper ill-advisedly ported over to WP. The creator seems to have only worked on this page but came back to it more than once. Will the closing administrator please leave a message for the creator explaining how to userfy the material following the seemingly inevitable Delete outcome? Carrite (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, synthesis, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:OR. I have a question though - Would any of you merge voters merge the content yourself and if so, how will you go about it? SL93 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge per TerriersFan. Although if it is too much work, I am happy to go with Delete. Way too much OR. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge (with others) -- This is a borrible article, without a proper lead, and with no explanation of what Semiotics are - the word is not in my vocabulary. HOwever, there might be something to merge. I do not know enough of the subject to be able to judge that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you don't know enough one way or another to tell, how can you advocate merge? Surely a prerequisite to merging is having valid information worth merger. We cannot just assume, absent any evidence of the same, that, well, there must be useful information because, well, there just must be, that's all ... Ravenswing 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have an article on the trials. If there's a body of work on this view of the trials, this the current article doesn't link to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 10 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 all. Strong arguments were made regarding the lack of coverage in reliable sources, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:EVENT. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuperKombat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have notified the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat (2nd nomination): Papaursa (talk · contribs), Umi1903 (talk · contribs), BusterD (talk · contribs), Astudent0 (talk · contribs), and Mtking (talk · contribs).

Single-purpose accounts were not notified.

Sockpuppeteer WölffReik (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WölffReik) was not notified.

Madison-chan (talk · contribs), blocked for vandalism and tagged as a sockpuppet of SailorSonic (talk · contribs) was not notified. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 29, where DRV closer Spartaz (talk · contribs) wrote regarding the previous AfD:

Its pretty clear that this was a defective discussion. The SPA votes should all be discounted unless they advanced well founded policy based arguments. However, from the discussion I'm reading here, the delete arguments failed to address the possibility of sourcing that was provided on the talk page and consequently deleting this would have been a poor outcome. As such a close of no consensus appears reasonable and perhaps could be considered as something of a not proven deletion case. While I am loath to encourage unending further discussion, its clear that a proper consensus can be found by examining the possibility of sourcing and directly addressing them and that no benefit would be gained by delaying this, so I'm closing this with permission to immediately relist at afd.

At the previous AfD, participants supported deletion based on WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. However, the "delete" arguments did not analyze the sources mentioned by OlYeller21 (talk · contribs) on the talk page:

Coverage from reliable sources

I'm seeing several hits in a Google News search and Google News Archive search. I can't read most of them but it indicates to me that a G4 may probably doesn't apply after reading through the arguments made at this article's previous AfD. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I cannot read the sources in OlYeller21's searches, I cannot tell whether they establish notability and will take no position on them.

The following pages are also nominated for deletion:

SuperKombat World Grand Prix I
SuperKombat World Grand Prix II
SuperKombat World Grand Prix III
SuperKombat World Grand Prix IV
SuperKombat World Grand Prix Final
Local Kombat

As the previous nominator wrote: "I am also nominating the following related pages because they are either the events sponsored by the organization or, in the case of LocalKombat, an organization run by the same people promoting smaller events."

I am confident that the closing admin will discount the non-policy-based arguments advanced by both single-purpose accounts and established editors.

This is a procedural nomination. I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all clearly fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. coverage is limited to fighting sources, not a wide range of non fighting sources like mainstream newspapers. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to be match the criteria. Pundit|utter 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge - Merging all into a single SuperKombat article would seem to make more sense than deleting everything. SuperKombat is a pretty series of regular tournaments with a large (83 country) broadcast and there are plenty of references that can be found for the article. That's notable.

http://www.onlinesport.ro/stiri/sporturi/box/81658/lista-premiantilor-la-festivitatea-superkombat-international.htm
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/11/24/2583316/k-1-k1-its-showtime-kickboxing-news-results
http://ziarpiatraneamt.ro/superkombat/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stvfetterly (talk • contribs) 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I couldn't find good reliable sources. The translations I found were either simply fight results or about the banquet SuperKombat threw after its Grand Prix final. I don't find anything that shows the events pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all & salt all none of these come close to WP:GNG, this is a waste of the communities time. Mt king ^(edits) 21:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all per WP:RECENTISM, WP:EVENT, clear WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I refuse to enter the arena of sources and here's why: virtually every day we have sporting events which include notable sports personalities, in stadiums which are notable, teams coached by notable coaches, reported on in reliable and notable sports sections around the globe. We have articles on virtually none of these individual events. Arsenal F.C. has been kicking soccer balls past defenders for 125 years and only 47 of their individual matches have articles in the pedia (almost all championships). Thousands of notable boxers have been bashing each others' brains out for over a century and only 126 of those bouts have articles about them (and no boxing cards which I can see). The New York Yankee organization alone has played several tens of thousands of games, virtually every one of them meeting GNG (based on newspapers and the sporting press as sources) but outside of perfect games and championship games, almost no games with articles about them. WP:ROUTINE sporting events just don't rate coverage in an encyclopedia. The reason I raise all this WP:OTHERSTUFF is the threshold of common practice, what wikipedians do in practice based on boatloads of OTHERSTUFF. Thrilla in Manila, yes. SuperKombat World Grand Prix IV? Please... BusterD (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the individual tournaments could probably be removed as non-notable, but to remove all mention of the recurring event (the SuperKombat article) as a whole would kind of be like deleting Basketball because not all NBA games are notable.--Stvfetterly (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I disagree with the analogy, and I'll offer instead what I think is a more accurate one. I'm not advocating deletion of the pages Kickboxing or Mixed martial arts. I'm asserting that a Scout Pack #722 bake sale in which Emeril, Rachael, and Martha donated some of the cookies doesn't merit a Wikipedia article just because some of the scouts and their parents have internet access, have decided to promote the sale here, and almost all of them decided to use multiple accounts in violation of policy in order to affect the AfD process. BusterD (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per Astudent0. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep The pages clearly meet the basic criteria and for this reason should not be deleted. BigzMMA (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you come to that concision, what coverage exists is just routine of a sporting event, nether the company or there events have attracted significant coverage outside of that, so if you contend they do you need to provide the sources you are basing your comment on or risk having it discounted by the closing admin. Mt king ^(edits) 21:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It meets the basic criteria supporting notability through GNG, and I find it a shame that no-one else is looking for this type of coverage. BigzMMA (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that all you like, but unless you can demonstrate it with links to sources it is likely to be discounted by the closing admin. Mt king ^(edits) 19:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User WölffReik just added the entire previous discussion to this one. I just reverted it. Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does User:WölffReik have to do to get blocked? Multiple abuses of socking and gaming of AfD procedures, including this third attempt at a fair discussion. Why isn't this user blocked indef? He or she is clearly here for another reason than creating an encyclopedia (except for a promotional MMA/kickboxing one). BusterD (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider bringing this issue to WP:AN/I. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find enough independent sources in any language to show notability. The individual events are worthy of a strong delete--they don't come close to meeting WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 16:47, 9 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) 01:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep Criteria supporting notability:

1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage 2. Promotes a large number of events--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable 3. Has actively been in business for several years--the longer the organization has been around, the better 4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters 1. Coverage in 83 countries, all the events live on Eurosport which is international television not only European. Possible contract with HD Net in future. 2. Promoted 7 events in 2011, 6 in Romania and 1 - the final from Germany, 5 shows were World Grand Prix. 3. Yes, SuperKombat's mother is the well known organization Local Kombat (promoted events with K-1 and other European promotions from Croatia, Hungary, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic from 2003 to 2010). Same founder. LK was broadcasted by HD Net some events like K-1 Europe's GP in Bucharest - 2010, not only Eurosport, you can check out. 4. Hesdy Gerges current It's Showtime champion, Albert Kraus former K-1 Max champion, Alexey Ignashov, Ben Edwards, Errol Zimmerman, Mighty Mo, Bob Sapp, Carter Williams, etc. all fought in the promotion in 2011. All are known from K-1. What are some users trying to do? To destroy the kickboxing database while MMA has here all kind of obscure promotions pages? Not only from United States, but also from Europe. User:Rickr20 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete main article, strong delete the rest The events fail WP:SPORTSEVENT and Local Kombat lacks significant independent coverage. As for SuperKombat--it is a new organization that has only 7 promotions, almost all in Romania. The TV coverage of their events is nice, but seems to fall under routine sports coverage. The sources seem to generally be routine reporting of results. Jakejr (talk) 11:11, 17 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 as failing WP:N due to failing WP:RS and WP:V. While it appears the tool is widely used, it does not appear to have been widely discussed in reliable sources. Should this change, or should reliable sources supporting notability be found, there is no prejudice against recreation or undeletion of this article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNU AutoGen[edit]

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

non notable program, article created by author of said program. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of references to it on wikipedia that have been there for years. It is also a required development tool for GCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkorb (talk • contribs) 22:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article was sent to AfD 12 minutes after creation. If it's just a problem of notability and doesn't fit any CSD criteria, it may be better for everyone involved to find references and/or wait. §everal⇒|Times 22:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — If it's notable enough to keep in French, (fr:GNU_AutoGen), then it's notable enough to keep in English. ~ neko-chan :3 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AutoGen is also referenced here, and has been for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_code_generation_tools though the wiki links were redirected to some automobile company. Cheers - Bruce —Preceding undated comment added 23:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: The French article shows no notability also. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice -- I hadn't seen that French page before. Much better than the one I hacked together. I'm kind-of busy at the moment, but when I have a chance, I'll pull its format over for my English page. Thank you! Cheers - Bruce —Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: really need third-party WP:RS. The Wikipedia comparison-of topic is not useful for this purpose. The inclusion in gcc sources is interesting, but not every component of gcc itself is notable. Notability is found where there's an independent reviewer (who is known for being an expert) making note of the topic, or some other in-depth treatment. We can discuss sources when they're provided TEDickey (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even close to notable. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. I looked; I don't think there's anything out there. Furthermore, if you read what this thing does (yawn) it's really not surprising there's nothing to talk about except just man page stuff and, hence, no sources to be found. Wikipedia is not a manual. Msnicki (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RMS was quite impressed ten years ago, but now, the tool is widely used worldwide by package maintainers and looks like a standard to me. AutoGen is part of the GNU project, in terms of notability, there is worse;) IMO, it is important to understand all the plumbing under the covers... Regards. (Genium (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The article by Calcote which you cite indicates the opposite - not really used. Google hits have to be taken with caution, since the name of the script could be used for other purposes (and have to take into account duplication). Likewise, RMS's comments don't indicate that he was "quite impressed" in any sense. Providing WP:RS is still the recommended way to proceed TEDickey (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article by Calcote shows that it is another common convention to provide a script, often named autogen.sh, that runs all the needed pre-build tools, the point is not his opinion here. "quite impressed" is not the correct wording, English is not my native language sorry ;) RMS semmed to welcome the tool ten years ago, the reference that I gave next shows that the tool is widely used today... (Genium (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Long ago and far away, I proposed generating some of Gnome's code to reduce the duplication they had all over the place. They chose not to do that, but liked the name "autogen" and have been using it for their bootstrap script name ever since.

WRT usage, you won't find direct reference because it is just a development tool. I added it here because it is a GNU project and the GNU project page listed its constituent projects. I figured it worth a couple of words just so as to not have a dead link. So, two fairly well known usages are: Makefile.am generation in GCC and GRUB and option/config file processing in NTP and LilyPond. There are others. But few bother to let me know they are, unless there are problems, and nobody using it puts up a banner saying, "We use AutoGen". It is just a tool. Bkorb (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. autogen is a very commonly used piece of software, used by many other notable software projects. It is part of the GNU build system and is used by virtually every GNU project. Mattl (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But assertions that it's useful or contains valuable information aren't compelling arguments in an AfD. To establish notability in an AfD, we need sources. Have you found any? Msnicki (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - and the editor promoting the overall category hasn't had much luck sticking to the facts available in the cited sources - not much point in arguing, after reading the editing history. One would suppose that the topic's author would be able to come up with useful sources - that's what would be most helpful TEDickey (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric de Castro Lopo "libsndfile" http://mstation.org/erikdecl.php
tcpreplay http://pkgsrc.se/net/tcpreplay
GCC - Look at top level Makefile.def and Makefile.tpl, plus the fixincludes component is driven by generated code. (full disclosure -- I rewrote fixincludes)
GRUB - very similar (Makefile.tpl and Makefile.def)
NTP - contains several programs. They are all configured via AutoGen generated source, both command line options and config files.

There are others, but I don't track usage. I respond to issues. There are enough issues that I know it is used. If I introduce a problem, I'll get fairly quick notifications. Bkorb (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:RS and WP:Notability don't appear to address who uses a product, but rather focuses on how people who are known for their expertise are making note of it, advising their readers of the pros/cons. For instance, the source citing Calcote did not appear useful, since it focused on something else, more or less dismissing autogen as the way it used to be done, without discussing why autogen was unsatisfactory. TEDickey (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm not understanding because the GCC project certainly does use it. fixincludes used to be, for example, a completely unmaintainable horrible mess of a shell script. There were two or three people on the planet who were able to edit the thing and it had to be edited every time there was a significant change in the set of target platforms for GCC. That happens a lot. Using an output template and a file defining the required header file fixes, that all gets generated.

the fix definitions: http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;a=blob_plain;f=fixincludes/inclhack.def;hb=d09fd72c630c4886367f1977cdb366aa82950e32
the fix template: http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;a=blob_plain;f=fixincludes/fixincl.tpl;hb=d09fd72c630c4886367f1977cdb366aa82950e32
the fixups as C code: http://gcc.gnu.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=gcc.git;a=blob_plain;f=fixincludes/fixincl.x;hb=d09fd72c630c4886367f1977cdb366aa82950e32

Doing it that way has made it trivially possible for the port maintainers to manage the fixups without requiring a bottleneck (fixincludes guru)�. Once the GCC maintainers saw that, they applied the technology to the make file issue. I could go on, but I am a bit pressed for time. Thank you Bkorb (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really quite beside the point whether GCC does or does not use this software. What's needed to establish notability – which is all that matters in an AfD – are reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS. You don't have them. Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The manual was published 10 yrs ago on this website. AutoGen is listed with the best programming tools... (Genium (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The site tells how anyone can submit content - see http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/contribute.html TEDickey (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content for autogen is a copy of its documentation - http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/gnu/autogen/html_chapter/autogen.html TEDickey (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ALT Linux AutoGen maintainer is Alexey Rusakov. (Genium (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The interview doesn't seem to mention that. There are by the way many package maintainers TEDickey (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AutoGen seems to be referenced by the Course Hero online learning platform. (Genium (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The webpage says they have "Over 7 million study materials". From the context, it appears that there's no reason to regard a particular item on their webpage as more notable than a Google search TEDickey (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from site:

Course Hero hosts the largest online database of study materials with more than 7 million student-uploaded documents from over 4,300 universities around the world. With lecture notes, study guides, textbook help, practice problems and exams, and video lectures, Course Hero has the learning resources you need to excel. Search for materials by school, department, course or professor.

TEDickey (talk) 02:20, 7 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are other reliable sources:

Re: Makefile questions
Re: GNU autogen code generation (Genium (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Sources for what? They're random mailing list discussion, not reviews in any sense of the term. WP:RS goes into a lot of detail - keep the guidelines in mind when offering possible sources to support notability. TEDickey (talk) 23:19, 10 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. Sandstein 12:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFS-Ganesha(a Network File System user-level server)[edit]

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

Appears to advertise, but there may be some salvageable material on the page. There are no sources stated on the page at the moment, and a Google search brings up the project's SourceForge page. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an active opensource project with source forge(code base) and active community and mailing list, [email protected] and github (https://github.com/phdeniel/nfs-ganesha). Please let us know what else we need to give/offer to take it off of delete list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.63 (talk)
- Reply - Significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish that it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the 2007 paper from USENIX. I'm afraid I can't spare time to work on the page per se. http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/wips/slides/deniel.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.103.253 (talk)
- Reply - A paper presented by the author of the software is not an independent source as needed to establish incvlusion. -- Whpq (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation to the paper and to the list of open source projects on CEA's website (which includes NFS-Ganesha). Though it sounds like these do not meet requirements. I also included a citation to a presentation on NFS-Ganesha (hosted on youtube). The presenter is not the founder of NFS-Ganesha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.185 (talk) 21:16, 1 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, CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:53, 8 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) 01:39, 10 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. Sandstein 12:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Discipline and Punishment[edit]

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

Essay →Σ τ c. 06:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears perhaps to be an essay for a classroom assignment, and lacks references establishing this as a discrete and notable topic. Every assertion of fact in such an article needs a reference to a reliable source, which are lacking in this case. In the end, it is little more than personal opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (1) The material is referenced to a book (William O'Grady, Crime in Canadian Context - Debates and Controversies, Second Edition). (2) It is exclusively concerned with alternatives to incarceration. We have an article Alternatives to imprisonment, which is essentially the same topic, though I seem to think that "imprisonment" doesn't technically include all forms of custodial sentence. James500 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Alternatives to prison, imprisonment and incarceration produce respectively 30,100 and 174,000 and 415,000 results in Google Books, including books whose title consists of those words. James500 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Obviously the material in Alternatives to Discipline and Punishment cannot stay where it is. Can it be rewritten and merged into Alternatives to imprisonment? James500 (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't quite put my finger on why - product of an unhappy mating between WP:OR and single source fluffcruft (trying to dress up a concept as a field of study). But pretty clear in my own mind that it is a Delete. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copy and paste of a student essay. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:41, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Grantham[edit]

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

As depicted, subject is scarcely more than a routine if admired professor at a large North American university, of which there are thousands. Being friends with Nobel laureate Paul Krugman does not make him Paul Krugman, or give him Krugman's C.V. Nothing presented distinguishes Grantham as being more than a "widely published" professor. — Preceding nomination made by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - Seemingly a venerable professor of economics. I'll do a little digging this morning, I usually don't spend much time on academics but this would seem to be a pretty obvious keeper, based on career information in the article. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ comment- Emeritus Professor specializing in the History of Economic Thought with 40 Publications. Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is HIS CV in case anyone is wanting to improve the article. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any basis on which he fits the requirements of WP:PROF. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the guidelines about academics' notability, just being published a few times doesn't make him notable. Also, I seem to recall that referencing a work with a person's own CV is frowned upon around here Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (academics), "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:19, 8 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) 01:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to me to meet WP:Prof. Professor Emeritus of Economics (Economic Evolution and Revolution in Historical Time By Paul Webb Rhode, Joshua L. Rosenbloom, David F. Weiman) at McGill. Well published and cited economic historian/cliometrician (he is not noted as a historian of economic thought!) and winner of the Cliometric Society's annual prize - the Clio Can (2000). (Msrasnw (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. Professor emeritus is not a title of any particular distinction suitable for passing WP:PROF. It just means "retired professor". So I think the comments of Carrite and Msrasnw should be interpreted based on what they say about his achievements, citations, and prizes, not for that title. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on the honorific emeritus: My understanding is that at McGill the honorific, "Emeritus", was conferred by McGill's Board of Governors on retired full Professors.. who had made outstanding contributions to the University and/or scholarly communities through excellence in research, teaching, creative or scholarly activity, academic leadership or any combination thereof. I think this changed, last year or the year before, to being conferred by the Provost for all retired full Professors who held their rank for at least 5 years and had maintained the standards for which they were appointed to that rank. So whether he was appointed under the new or old system - it is a title of some note. (Obviously more if under the older regime) McGill's requirements for full professorship are of course research excellence. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Some of the material in bold face is routine rhetoric. "emeritus" adds nothing of significance to Professor, except that he's retired. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add one additional observation on whether "emeritus" has any special bearing on notability here...while it is an affirmation of contributions, research, etc. by the governing board of an institution, it is very much a routine action. That's not to say "emeritus" is conferred on every retiring professor. It is not, and these are sometimes the exceptional cases. Perhaps the best recent example that was covered in WP:RS is from the University of Illinois, which last year went out of its way to deny Bill Ayers emeritus status – it is the exceptions that are notable. So, when taken in context, "emeritus" status does not go significantly toward WP notability. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete A full professor at one of the highest quality research universities in Canada would generally be notable--if he is a full professor--the McGill bio cited in the article says Associate Professor. . It is perfectly correct that simply writing a large number of publications is not notability, and this is a good example of the 40 publications listed in [36], about 30 of the mare book reviews, which do not make anyone notable (I have several times that figure myself--they are very easy); what does count is writing a large number of peer reviewed publications in good journals In this case, only nine of them at most are peer-reviewed journal articles, and the citation record of them is very weak also. MS Academic search includes book review--GScholar does not, but includes working papers:I see at most 5 peer-reviewed papers. Most notable historians write books--have has never done so. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure Google scholar is the right way to measure impact in this field, but I only get an h-index of 6 using GS, not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I'd be willing to change my mind on this with sufficient specific evidence of impact, but just asserting that he's "well published and cited" isn't good enough. As for the other WP:PROF criteria, the only other one that seems plausible is the Clio Can, but that seems to be a service award for "Exceptional Support to the Field of Cliometrics" so I'm not convinced it qualifies as a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" under criterion #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Adding to the points made above, most widely held book in libraries, Technical and organizational change in French agriculture between 1840 and 1880, currently in less than 5 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject’s record is indeed a bit stronger than the initial numbers suggested, but not by much. When the middle initial is used, the numbers are much lower. When it is not used, a lot of false positives come up, which need to be removed one by one. The actual numbers seem closer to those quoted by Msrasnw, e.g., h-index of about 10 and approximately 200 library holdings for most widely held book Labour Market Evolution. I am still not convinced they add up to enough for WP-notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 13:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worries about some of the metrics being quoted: Looking at one of his books Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation this seems to be held by more than 200 libraries world wide (Worldcat) and has been subject to multiple independent reviews (this could then allow a pass of WP:auth if we wanted to):

Garside, W. R. (1996). Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation. Business History, 38, 1, 172.
Engerman, S. L. (1995). Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 48, 4, 873.
Shanahan, M. (1995). Labour Market Evolution: The Economic History of Market Integration, Wage Flexibility and the Employment Relation. The Economic History Review, 48, 3.)

Another book Agrarian organization in the century of industrialization : Europe, Russia, and North America is listed by Worldcat as being held by only 136 US libraries.

The work being quoted as his most widely held book (Technical and organizational change) seems to me to be his Thesis which one would not expect to be very widely held!

The H index I get from Google Scholar seems to be at least 10. But I have only had a quick look with my results here: Prof Grantham's H index from Google Scholar.

Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Keep as meeting notability guidelines for WP:AUTHOR. Carrite (talk) 00:27, 15 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. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Omer[edit]

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

This article was originally deleted as part of a bulk nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Shamrock (fighter) but I have been asked to review the deletion per the following sources:

http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/Sherdog-Prospect-Watch-Alan-Omer-17130 - Sherdog article, headlined as 'Sherdog Prospect Watch: Alan Omer.'

This article meets WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage" as it address the subject directly in detail, "Reliable" as it is a verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline, and "Sources" as the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources and multiple sources are generally expected. See below's link for evidence of this.

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/2/12/1989095/world-mma-featherweight-scouting-report-4-alan-omer - Bloody Elbows article, headlined as 'World MMA Featherweight Scouting Report: #4 - Alan Omer'

This article meets the same WP:GNG guidelines as the link above, however, they are both different as where the top link talks about Omer's background, this article breaks down Omer's whole fighting style, and ranks him amongst the other prospects in Europe.

http://www.mmauniverse.com/events/reports/bamma-2-event-report-by-julian-radbourne - Article, goes into full detail about each fight result on the BAMMA 2 card.
This article meets WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage", as it is shows all of the BAMMA 2 fight results, which has other sources covering the event as well, "Reliable" as the website covering the results is independent from BAMMA and again it is widely available in other sites covering the event, "Sources" as it is a secondary source (not produced by BAMMA or their parent company), "Independent of the subject" as I already mentioned it wasn't produced by BAMMA or their parent company.

Personally, I am not persuaded that the sources are sufficient for RS or GNG but this should be a community decision, which is why I am relisting this for individual discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Alan Omer is a former BAMMA World Featherweight Champion, the first I should point out. BAMMA is recognised as a notable organisation, and if he won a major title for them, he is notable also. He has articles about him in multiple languages, such as English, German and Polish, and by translating all of them, we can see that he is very popular in Europe, and he is on a 'Prospect Watch' by two major MMA articles. He has also competed at Shooto, a TOP TIER MMA promotion I should point out. BigzMMA (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Fails WP:GNG as three sources (I found the same three sources in my Google search) does not count as the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the articles mention him as a "prospect" show that he has not really reached notability. I don't see that he meets WP:GNG or WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, per TreyGeek. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MMANOT is not a valid enough reason to decide a page's notability anymore. For a start GNG trumps it, which means if a page meets GNG, you can't use MMANOT for a reason why to delete it, and if the page meets MMANOT but doesn't meet GNG, then it can be deleted. I'd would of thought you'd realise this by now Astudent0. There are multiple articles out on him in different languages, which according to GNG, it still counts, so you may want to look at these pages again before deciding. BigzMMA (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the fact that he has articles based entirely on him means he is relevant. And lets also not forget he has competed for a top tier promotion (well two if you want to count BAMMA like me). The current trend on Wikipedia seems to be that if a fighter competes at least once for a top tier promotion, he seems to be notable, which if you look at a fair few former UFC fighters, you can see that this is the case, so this is where my case comes from. BigzMMA (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to additional articles (other than what is cited above) to bolster your claim that the individual is notable? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mmaranked.com/prospects_fighters/prospects_alan_omer.php - another prospect watch on him
http://www.yourmma.tv/fighters/interview-details.asp?index=141 - interview with him over Shooto victory and a bout with Jason Young at Cage Warriors that he would later pull out from due to injury.
http://www.groundandpound.de/en/general/interviews/news/a-good-fighter-always-finds-a-way-to-the-top/ - Interview which he talks about his return to competing after recovering from a injury. It also starts off by saying the UFC wanted him for the last season of The Ultimate Fighter (which was TUF 14) but couldn't because of his injury. This is from a reliable website but I will find another source that can back this up.
http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f56/fighters-tuf-14-tryouts-1696051/ - Sherdog confirming that he did try out for the same season, but injury forced him out the competition. There is a video further down the page which it shows the TUF tryouts, and you can see him in the background at times.
http://www.mma-core.com/videos/_Phantom_MMA_XTFC_Fotoshooting_Alan_Omer?vid=10019727 - German language interview with Omer on MMA-Core, another big, reliable source.

Any more needed? BigzMMA (talk) 11:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good effort, FYI #4 is a forum and doesn't count as a reliable source, #5 has nothing but advertisements for me. So by my count there are 5 reliable sources covering Omer. It's a good start and my deletion !vote is wavering. I hope your intent is to include these additional sources in the article since they are hard to find (for me) in a Google search. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats a start at least! :) I will add them in now, and I will find another few more articles on him just to seal the deal :P. BigzMMA (talk) 10:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC) There also a couple on the main page here that I haven't mentioned if you want to have a look? BigzMMA (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.kaefiggefluester.de/news/18-national/105-1-goeppinger-fight-night-alan-omer-im-hauptkampf - Just found this one, it talks about his most recent fight and mentions his TUF opportunity.

TreyGeek, how many more notable articles should I bring up to verify Omer's notability? Also would you be able to fix the references on the main page, I have no idea how to do it but they are the same links as the ones you agreed with me to be notable, reliable sources on Omer. Thanks BigzMMA (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not convinced that these are significant and reliable sources. Barely making a list of the top 20 prospects in his weight class fails that test, while fight results and post fight inverviews seem WP:ROUTINE to me. Mdtemp (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barely made it? He is ranked 4 in most prospect watches in his weight class, I'd hardly use that line considering his position, if he was somewhere between 17-20 then fair enough, but this man is a TOP 5 PROSPECT in his division, agreed upon the most respected and notable MMA based websites, you can't say that isn't something worth pointing out? Most other pages have their entire reliability claim based on fight results/post fight interviews so why should it play against someone else other than them? BigzMMA (talk) 10:02, 16 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 as a hoax. GraemeL ^(talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Dunn (Science)[edit]

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

No indication of importance or notability according to WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -- Luke (Talk) 03:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted as most facts can be found in the references I will add more now. More references, he is quite famous for various reasons in Australia as proven by the references. PaTCat0 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC) PaTCat0[reply]
Keep it, it has no reason to be deleted. It is rather helpful. 04:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.13.25 (talk)
Delete. Bravo for teaching for 45 years, but that's not enough. Speedy delete as a hoax. Occasional test dummy for Australasian New Car Assessment Program? Plus the boxing feat questioned by Tigerboy1966. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources provided barely mention this person, much less establish his notability, and I don't even see any evidence provided yet that they are necessarily about the same individual. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely being a teacher, professor, soccer player or boxer does not quality for notability. I am unable to find coverage which would demonstrate that the person in question passes the GNG. Speedy delete: I only just noticed the ridiculous claims after reading Tigerboy1966's post; the article is most likely a hoax. Till I Go Home (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete So he's 7'3 and he's beaten Kostya Tszyu. Either WP:HOAX, nonsense or a bit of both. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article needs reindement but it is very factual. 220.236.248.38 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can we move this one along please. It's probably too silly to cause serious offence, but this is WP:BLP and we have to be v. strict. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under the WP:CSD#A7 criteria, after I removed the blatantly untrue statements and the unreferenced personal info, there is nothing notable at all left over. The-Pope (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference are fine actually READ all of them, you're acting like children. Read the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.248.38 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't say that your accusing other Wikipedia editors of "acting like children" is likely to sway my recommendation in favor of keeping this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am inclined to agree. Accusing other Wikipedia editors of acting like children isn't exactly assuming good faith. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy. Let's move on. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

PaTCat0 (talk) 04:44, 9 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) 01:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "greatest man alive" caption strongly suggests it to be a hoax. Mythpage88 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested speedy deletion, because the original author has kept including unrelated content and obvious nonsense to the article. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 15:18, 11 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 -- Y not? 20:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European International Business Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. My research confirms that although this WP:ORG publishes plenty itself, and there are plenty of passing, trivial mentions, there's a giant hole where the substantial multiple third-party coverage should be. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 21 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, causa sui (talk) 17:51, 30 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per JFHJr. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:44, 8 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) 01:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From what I am finding this looks like it might have coverage, just in other languages such as 1 and 2 I could keep looking but I'm sure at this point has something to it. The article needs work though.Silent Bob (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggested that editors working on this article search google news Here and good luck.Silent Bob (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 15 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 Moonlight Resonance. m.o.p 05:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wing Chung[edit]

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

no sufficient notability for an individual character. --Naiveandsilly (talk) 11:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was not properly transcluded. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moonlight Resonance - I can't find any reliable sources. I don't think Chinese wiki has an article on this character either. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:27, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moonlight Resonance. This individual character is not notable enough for its own article. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 00:20, 10 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. m.o.p 05:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Wing Ho[edit]

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

no sufficient notability for an individual character.Naiveandsilly (talk) 11:37, 24 October 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 November 17. Snotbot t • c » 19:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 24 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moonlight Resonance - no reliable sources. I don't think Chinese wiki has an article on this character either. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:25, 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, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moonlight Resonance. I agree with Cerebellum. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:39, 8 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) 01:44, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Cleveland 2 Cali: Day 2[edit]

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

A various artists compilation with a press run of 100 does not qualify as notable. 78.26 (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing sources that would show this to be notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:43, 8 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) 01:44, 10 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. Sandstein 18:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UpGo[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this application. The first reference is unreliable and the second reference is a dead link and leads to a website called City Rover. SL93 (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I confirmed (and marked) a couple dead links in the article and poked around through the various Google searches. I couldn't find reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. The closest is the Krueger blog but that's just not good enough for me or the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little to no coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:42, 8 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) 01:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG; no reliable indepedent coverage. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:01, 14 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. Sandstein 18:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zanaro's[edit]

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

Not-notable. Fails WP:Corp Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Try this search, which is more specific:

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

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:40, 8 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) 03:41, 10 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. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonald Birch[edit]

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

I found zero sources. The only link redirects to an error page on "Doteasy.com $0 Web Hosting". This website in a Google search says "Make a free website with Yola". Likely hoax. SL93 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward delete. He's not a hoax. Magicpedia has a bit more about him. In particular, the University of Iowa ext. link shows that he was a real professional magician, and the Twin City Opera House does state that Birch Hall was named in his honor. However, I haven't been able to find anything that supports the awards listed in Magicpedia; the International Brotherhood of Magicians doesn't have anything on him and his "Presidential Citation", nor can I find him being awarded a "Master Fellowship" from the Academy of Magical Arts. He has some favorable press reviews (second to last page of the U of I material), but I don't think that does more than establish that he was a moderately successful performer. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across those first two sources later on. I wonder how this discussion will go. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Struggling to see the necessary notability. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:39, 8 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 05:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kashless.org[edit]

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

Closed website that does not meet WP:WEB. Citations are press releases and startup blogs. Shii (tock) 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Citations are not solely press releases and startup blogs whatsoever. Here are some reliable sources:

Hal Schwartz, Eric (July 26, 2009). "Kashless Gets Star Power". Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Kaplan, Jeremy (July 23, 2009). "Free-Stuff Site Kashless Prepping for Major Expansion". PC Magazine. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
"Trash To Treasure: Web Site Serves As Junk Emporium". KETV 7 (Omaha). August 31, 2009. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia would be enhanced by this article's improvement, not its deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Bit crap, but OK. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources cover it. Dream Focus 18:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article documents an interesting, but defunct organisation, and there are sufficient inline citations of reliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:39, 14 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. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Evans (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Notability is not inheritable, so the fact that Bad Lieutenant is notable, does not mean that Jake Evans is notable, what I doubt. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO point 6 as a past member of Marion (band), and current member of Bad Lieutenant (band). -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Point 6 from WP:MUSICBIO is a good rule of thumb, but I think it fails here. Marion was a notable band from the '90s, but he wasn't part of it--until they reformed in 2006. New Order was a massively notably band from 1980-2009, but he wasn't a member--until Bernard Sumner decided to carry on, under a new name; see the Bad Lieutenant section in the New Order article. I assume that Evans is a talented musician, but that doesn't make him notable, and when I search for evidence of his own notability, I come up short, with mostly side mentions in articles that focus on the notable members of Bad Lieutenant and Marion. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:37, 8 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) 04:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also, Evans was involved in only one completed album. Of the two references in the article, one is unreliable. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:00, 14 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. Delete votes don't address the later arguments and article improvements. Drmies (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorva Gokhale[edit]

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

Lots of google hits for "Poorva Gokhale", but no reliable sources or results that can verify content in this article. Article does not establish reasonable notability (WP:ENT) matt (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable at all. Vincelord (talk) 15:38, 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) 01:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are just enough reliable sources in English to see that this actress is a soap opera star in India. This actress works in the Marathi language and in the Hindi language. It's not surprising that English sources are hard to find. I don't know how to look in Marathi. Google does include a Hindi option but I don't know how to write her name in Hindi in order to do that search. Cloveapple (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:ACTOR point 1 with multiple significant roles, and in particular, one of the leads in a series with coverage in the press. Thanks to Cloveapple for improving the article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Under a different spelling of her name we have even more (surprise) coverage of this Marathi/Hindi actess in English.[37] Meets WP:ENT. Pushes nicely at WP:GNG. User:Cloveapple did good... real good in his effort. 05:50, 14 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. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boots and Sonny's Drive Inn[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:CORP Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Substantial local coverage is readily found, e.g. [38][39][40]; case would be stronger if someone could find some regional/national coverage to go with it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Really not a big fan of encyclopedia pages dedicated to restaurants. Especially ones with insightful references like: "You can drive by the brick building with the yellow roof at the corner of Henry Street and Church Street daily from Monday to Friday between the hours of 11 and 2 and find that you will have difficulty finding any kind of parking outside the restaurant." --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:35, 8 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) 04:01, 10 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) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dickie Brennan's Steakhouse[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:CORP Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous, highly rated New Orleans restaurant, gets ample coverage, as shown on GNews[41] and GBooks[42], and the article already mentions (although does not link to) some of the non-local coverage, such as this feature in The Wall Street Journal[43] and its accolades from Playboy[44] and Maxim. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it needs serious improvement and fast. At the moment the article lacks independentt and reliable third party sources. Listings and reviews are only seldom considered reliable sources. So the Wall Street Journal and Playboy articles are not reliable sources. The Google News links is a nice one, but gives a blank. The Google Books link also does not look very convincing, but... then I came across Frommer's New Orleans. That is a reliable and independent source. Find more of these independent Guids and you might convince me. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After perusing links provided above by User:Arxiloxos, this topic appears to meet WP:GNG. Contrary to the nomination for deleting this article from Wikipedia, this article appears to pass WP:CORP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Steak houses are just intrinsically non-notable, no matter how well regarded they are. Unless someone assassinates a politician there (or preferably more than one...) or something, I tend to think it just doesn't get over the bar. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Jimbo should eat there. ^{*cough* Mzoli's *cough*} S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 13:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

on what basis do you say the "Steak houses are just intrinsically non-notable, no matter how well regarded they are" ? I can prove you're wrong: Peter Luger Steak House DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, every rule has its exception, although the Michelin star should be sourced. I have seen another run of the mill restaurant where Obama and Medvedev popped in for a burger. To me, that qualifies it as notable. But Dickie Brennan's? Sorry... Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Mentions by The Wall Street Journal and Playboy, and results from Google Books and News, are indicative of the steakhouse's notability. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:51, 14 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. Notable vehicles get reviews, and we are fully justified in refusing to consider an article on one that does not have that or similar reliable sources. No prejudice againsr re-creation when they become available. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Z Electric Vehicle[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There is a single blog post at Gizmag [45], and beyond that, no independent sources have covered this company. Note that ZEV is a common generic name for a zero emissions (electric) vehicles, and is used by some other Z Electric Vehicle competitors, such as the Vectrix ZEV, which can produce a lot of false search hits, e.g. [46]. Note that while this company does exist, there is no presumption of inherent notability, and as WP:CORPDEPTH explains, there must be sustained, deep coverage, and "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In any case, we've got zero RS for this vehicle. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage exists ([47], [48], [49]). Peter E. James (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are blog posts rehashing press releases, or responding to other blog posts, such as the last one that reiterates what Gizmag said. Actual reporting would look something like either riding the scooter itself and writing about it, or researching the company using sources other than press releases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:05, 20 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, v/r - T P 01:03, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In a stunning case of unreliable sources striking again, the second source ([50]) has this bit of text:

the author is the President of the Z Electric Vehicle company.

Naturally, this is fine for verifiable information, but it cannot be used to support notability. The other article does provide WP:INDEPTH coverage of the products, but less of the company itself. Furthermore, this is strongly looking like a case of an article relying on a single source for notability. The other sources above are largely routine coverage of press releases and at least one of them even refers back to the Gizmodo article for its content. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:31, 8 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. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Tuna[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, due to no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The company does not appear to have done anything to make it notable, so significant independent coverage becomes vital for notability, and I can see none. Pepper Itch (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the company can definitely become notable in the future - but for now, it fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: another award-winning ... television, Corporate Video & multi-media production company. Non-neutral advertisement, and no showing that this business has had the sort of significant effect on history, technology, or culture to be remembered in an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:30, 8 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) 04:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable, and as such, fails WP:CORP; Ghits yield results about the fish, and there were only rare unreliable results about the company. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:41, 14 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. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty's Lunch[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, most of the article looks a case of WP:SOAPBOX Night of the Big Wind _talk4th 01:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks kind of like Jimmy Wales' favorite South African restaurant. Shii (tock) 01:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Five references from multiple independent reliable sources. Satisfies WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on nomination Exactly how does WP:1E (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event) apply to a restaurant? PS: Welcome back yesterday from your 3rd block in 6 months.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, WP:1E is indeed for people. But the true mening is that the restaurant claims most of its notability due to a single event: the threat of closure. And all the five local newspaper source point to that fact. And welcome to the world of unneccessary personal attacks. Please remove that attack. Night of the Big Wind _talk 06:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see the fact that somebody reasonably famous used to enjoy eating there makes it sufficiently notable. Otherwise we'd have a heckuva lot of articles on restaurants. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify. There's nothing about a famous person in the article.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems notable for the campaign to keep it open, as recorded in the local press. NB Legis's reason for deletion (above) is erroneous because the cafe does not claim to be the favorite haunt of any celebrity. The article may well say too much about non-notable or promotional info, but that can be dealt with without deletion. Sionk (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly local campaign to keep open a strictly local eatery, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that all of the articles are from Pittsburgh, which is 30+ miles away from the restaurant. Further, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the source for 4 separate sources, is a major American newspaper. The campaign to save it garnered significant notice from major media, which makes it per se notable--they don't cover the threatened closure of non-notable restaurants.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I write this, I'm sitting about about 8600 miles from Pittsburgh; 30+ miles is nothing. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette would have to double it's daily circulation to make the List of newspapers in the world by circulationStuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the 35th largest newspaper in the US.List of newspapers in the United States by circulation--GrapedApe (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just 9940 internet hits for "Shorty's Lunch", 0 on Google News. Skipping the ballast (facebook linkedin wikipedia youtube yelp myspace download twitter review vimeo tripadvisor), your are left with 3860 hits. As it looks most of them addressbooks and reviews/descriptions. Excepts that fight to save their place in 2004, there is no relevant third party coverage. I did not find any relevant out of state coverage or special events. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Google News Archives There are like 15+ news sources, dating back to 1999.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a working link? This one just gives 0 (zero) hits... Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The link works for me. Google News > Archives > search "Shorty's Lunch." 15 substantial hits on the first 2 results pages. There are more, too.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please give me the link to the first result page, because I think Google News is doing weird here. I can find absolutely nothing. Night of the Big Wind _talk 02:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Go to http://news.google.com/archivesearch and search for "Shorty's Lunch." Here are a bunch of those articles linked: User:GrapedApe/Shortyslunch. Some articles from the Observer-Reporter are paywalled, but they still count to consideration of notability. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm, by now I have found some newspapers. I could not find anything special in it. Only non-local papers (Milwaukee) report about Shorty's Lunch-sponsored sports. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I have read through your links, thanks for the effort supplying them! Unfortunately, both papers are local one. Having noted that, I read through all your links. There is, to my opinion, absolutely nothing in those articles what supports the claim for notability. Sorry. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Where in WP:GNG's notability standard of "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" say that "newspapers from the area don't count." Besides, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Pittsburgh Post (a now-defunct major Pittsburgh newspaper) aren't local to Washington, Pennsylvania. Different counties and 30+ miles away.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NRVE. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A restaurant is not an event. Nor does WP:NRVE apply: WP:PAYWALL says verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries--GrapedApe (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        1) But the potential closure is, and half the article is about that! 2) True, but your sources add nothing to the notability. Paywalled or not. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        To my opinion, you have failed to prove why Shorty's Lunch is notable. I stop my discussion with you now, and will wait at comments from others or the closing admin. Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:13, 11 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) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per news coverage found by GrapedApe. Seems to indicate some notability. HurricaneFan 25 — 02:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - It's well referenced and makes a colorable claim to meeting GNG, so I lean to keeping it.--Kubigula (talk) 05:31, 16 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) 18:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ma-V-Elle[edit]

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

Not a notable band, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding their albums for deletion:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment turns out to be a possible copyright infringement of http://www.muzic.net.nz/artists/713/ma-v-elle Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides being not notable as a band, the article itself is about half a "copy and paste". Bearian (talk) 01:21, 13 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.