Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 1

< 30 June	2 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Hello guys! My friends and I made a sport. Thought you may want to enjoy it yourself. And visit the Wiki page and help not get it deleted Classic WP:MADEUP Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gopple Ball[edit]

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

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

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

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

Stuff I made up one day --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense - there are so many violations of WP guidelines - verifiability, sources, etc as well - that a speedy deletion is called for. --AJHingston (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aside from major news stories, creating an article on the day that its subject first happened is a pure guarantee of non-notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete no assertion of importance. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this claims to be something made up in the article. Speedy deletion is within reason. --Bsapp7 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NOTMADEUP -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snorkrvast - which is AfD jargon for "Delete" used exclusively in reference to pages about nonsensical made up pseudo-games. Carrite (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant hoax. (How did this get by NPP?) Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note : External canvassing is occuring here to prevent deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not a blatant hoax, as the game does exist with a set of rules that were recently invented. And I see no evidence of external canvassing in that link. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Hello guys! My friends and I made a sport. Thought you may want to enjoy it yourself. And visit the Wiki page and help not get it deleted because it is loved by MANY." Seems like an attempt to canvass !voters to me. I'll remove the speedy tag though. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops - missed that line when I scanned the thread there. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:10, 8 July 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 consensus is that friendly matches are not notable. Further, fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man Utd Vs Barcelona 2011[edit]

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

Contested PROD; the reason for nomination is that friendly/exhibition matches, regardless of teams, temporal context or any other parameter involved, are usually not notable enough to rectify an article, per WP:N. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is just another friendly match with no inherent notability. It hasn't even happened yet, so we don't even know if anything interesting will come of it. – Pee Jay 00:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A standard friendly between two professional teams isn't notable. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is nothing to suggest that this game is notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable match. If by some chance the article is kept, the title needs to be changed to remove the slangy "Man Utd" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notableWarburton1368 (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable friendly match. --EdwardZhao (talk) 20:11, 8 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Wall Street[edit]

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

Not sure what to say about this contribution, maybe you best see for yourself: The article seems unencyclopedic to me, an amalgamation of statements that have little to do with each other, and with the article's title. Pgallert (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Predictions of post-capitalist economics" since that seems to be the main topic of the article. After that keep or delete depending on the sources provided. It should be possible to find some sources for notable predictions. BigJim707 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the same reason as BigJim707. GVnayR (talk) 03:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original essay. One might write an encyclopedic sourced article like Anarchist critique of contemporary American capitalism, for example, with a more narrow focus. This is a much too broadly drawn topic for anything meaningful to come of it. It's essentially a trojan horse for POV as well. Focus and source. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, THIS: The form of capitalism that has been prevalent since the beginning of the modern era may cease to exist as we know it. sourced to an opinion piece on a newspaper website is not in any way encyclopedic. Under this principle, any crazy-assed statement making the web under the banner of Fox News would be "in." It's just the idle speculation of one dude, and an obscure one, writing commentary to make his deadline. Carrite (talk) 14:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay. Far too broad and POV to be an article. OSborn^arf_contribs. 18:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inherently contrary to core policy; an improper WP:POVFORK. Warden (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOV and would require a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:13, 8 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Endangered Xobats[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Article is direct copy of bio on the Reverbnation site here. Haruth (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One person, with friends, making music is not notable until secondary sources say so. BigJim707 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Note that I have removed the material that was copied from Reverb Nation. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:Music. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, there isn't even any unreliable-source coverage. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable music group.--EdwardZhao (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Information Systems Audit and Control Association. Sandstein 06:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control[edit]

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

Delete, Articles only source is the company offering. I csd as this is a multiple recreation/advertisement article but since it was "encyclopeadic in tone" I'm taking it here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks WP:RS coverage to meet WP:GNG … the only cited references are the subject's own website. Happy Editing! — 70.21.17.51 (talk · contribs) _{00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Dear Wikipedians: I'm trying to understand why it seems to be a focus on deleting the article related to CRISC certification from ISACA. It is not my intention to advertise it, as it needs no such advertisement in this encyclopedia (ISACA thakes care of that aspect by itself). Please keep in mind that this it is one of the four certifications created and maintained by ISACA which is a recognised organisation focused on promoting best practice in IT audit, security, risk management, and governance. I've noticed that twice the same user ("Hell in a Bucket") has nominated the article for deletion, first because of lack of notability, now because the only source is ISACA's website. As I said in the article's talk page, there are good reasons for having this article in Wikipedia. To sum up:
- 1- There are already articles on the other 3 certifications (CISA, CISM, CGEIT) offered by ISACA, and they have been considered notable enough to keep (so why not CRISC?);
- 2- In few months after it was announced, almost 10% of ISACA's membership (9000 professionals) have applied for the Grandfathering for this certification, that should give an indication of the importance given by the GRC community to this certification;
- 3- The first exam has already been taken in June 2011, so this certification is a reality and not just a proposal;
- 4- The supposed lack of coverage in references is due to this article having been created as a "start" so it has the basics covered and is a baseline to allow other editors to review it and contribute adding content;
- 5- I made clear my intention to search for additional verifiable sources to expand the article, as soon as I have more time to do so.
- 6- I created this article in good faith WP:AGF, so that needs to be taken into consideration before asking for deletion of this article. I'm not an expert editor, but always act transparently and in good faith.

I kindly request that the CRISC article is removed from the "deletion" list and reasonable time is given to the wikipedia community to improve its quality. After all, that's one of the key strengths of this encyclopedia.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I can see you're confused as to how article should be if it's in mainspace, The article as it stands and the certification as it stands lack ntbility. You use the CISA article as a reason it should be kept but look at that article compared to yours. WP:GNG requires that the product be covered by third party sources which help validate if it's a notable product or ust something being sold. As is it appears right now that it's a non notable product that's being peddled on Wikipedia. If you think you need to beef it up consider making a subuserpage like User talk:DPdH/Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control once it meets the notability guidelines then move it to mainspace. Something I've learned in the 70 or so articles I've made if the notability is in question before you publish make sure you have at least three 3rd party sources when you publish and it may help avoid csd and deletions. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I was able to find online some 3rd party sources, mainly in the form of news about the progress of the Grandfathering program, and added the links to the article (which still needs some work on it). Given that already 5000 professionals are certified (more than those certified as CGEIT!), I think that notability should be no longer questioned. And same is true for article deletion. Rhather than that, I kindly ask you to help improving the article and finding additional 3rd party verifiable sources. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly, or perhaps merge all of these certifications into the ISACA article. The tone is certainly acceptable, but all I am finding in news/scholar/books is announcements that the certification is available, or that individuals or businesses have been awarded it: all press releases in other words. There isn't so much information in these subpages that merger would mar the article in chief. Should the title really begin with "Certified...." rather than "Certification" or "Certificate"? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge option sounds reasonable, however given the current extension of the article I think is more tidy to keep it. As per ISACA, the title starts with "Certified...", please check original source. Bear in mind the certification has just 1 year since announced, and 1st exam was taken in June 2011. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since you give a good case as to why it is not notable yet. If it ever becomes notable enough to have its own article, then the idependent sources would support it. W Nowicki (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point where I gave a case of not notability? As I mentioned above (6th July), the fact that "... already 5000 professionals are certified..." in just 1 year, shows that this certification is important enough (at least for part of the GRC community, represented by ISACA membership) to be considered notable enought to keep the current individual article. Which in turn will give more room for expanding it. Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 04:51, 9 July 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 - Unanimity that this is not a genuine political party. Further, it fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royalist Party UK[edit]

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

I did finally find some coverage in a reliable source, a local Northampton paper: http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/community/from_art_to_politics_wedding_fever_s_here_1_2576178

I quote:

"Northampton School for Boys (NSB) pupil Tom Harrison, aged 18, from Abington, Northampton, is so interested in the Royal Family, he and some friends have set up a new organisation called The Royalist Party. Set-up last summer it is not yet an official political party but the boys, including fellow NSB pupil Daniel Foster, aged 16 ,and Jack McDowall, aged 19, who is a student at Southampton University, hope to apply to be an official party soon. Tom said: “I have always been interested in politics and think the monarchy should have a greater role in this country. We do not believe in an absolute monarchy, but we do feel the Queen should be able to use the powers within Government which she so rightly still has today. “We do realise the importance of Parliament but we aim to break the bonds of the Government over the British Monarchy and begin to re-build this once great nation.” He added: “We obviously welcome the Royal Wedding as a chance to celebrate history being made.”"

I think it is clear that this is a very minor project from some well meaning school-kids, and that it is far from being a notable political party. Fences&Windows 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 21:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 21:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficiently notable yet.Trying very hard not to think of this Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't even give automatic notability to registered political parties, so this is nowhere near notability. Sorry kids, wrong website to promote yourselves. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a class project, not a real political party — and I'm one who holds the notability bar for political parties, their leaders, and youth sections about 2.54 cm. off the ground. Sheesh, the anti-social things they're teaching kids in school these days... Carrite (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, not a real party; the creator of the article is the adolescent creator of the organization. Wikipedia is not for things you and your friends made up one day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:27, 8 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of Secret Stuff[edit]

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

Independent YouTube film - Google news search shows only one news story from NPR, no other significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:MOVIE. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to have increased in notability since deletion. It should also be SALTed, or an indefinitely fully-protected redirect to Nigahiga, to prevent recreation. 117Avenue (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They made it to IMDB, which seems to be the strongest claim to notability that wasn't there before, but IMDB's standards for notability are lower than ours and cannot stand alone as a claim of notability. —Soap— 23:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aurakisene[edit]

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

Non-notable, non-verifiable. Zero ghits on Books, Scholar, News; just three on WWW. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless I'm missing it, none of the external links even menition "Aurakisene". Notability has not been established. - SudoGhost ™ 01:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also please note that there are two redirects, Aurakisene Buddhism and Aurakisena, that should be deleted as well. - SudoGhost ™ 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Aurakisena Buddhism with an a.Sjö (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a hoax and at the very least not notable.Sjö (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability-establishing coverage available in article or basic source review, apparently WP:MADEUP. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:29, 8 July 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Equals Three Episodes[edit]

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

Not a notable web series JDDJS (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: where is the significant coverage of this series? ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom: It's something like an expansion to a notable series Babelcolour5 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? And there are no sources to show that it is notable. JDDJS (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a breakout from an article about a notable YouTube web series. Babelcolour5 (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to prove that it is notable? JDDJS (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of notability would be more plausible if the series had an article of its own, but right now it is only a redirect to a small section in another article. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the most-subscribed channel on YouTube, with nearly 4 million viewers, and the series a a whole has over a billion hits (source).--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 17:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One, the the page you linked it to is not List of Equals Three. Two, there is no source saying it is the most subscribed too. Three, even if it is, there doesn't nessecary have to be a list of every episode they out up. JDDJS (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page I linked to is Equals Three--the series is on the RayWilliamJohnson channel on YouTube. You can see the most subscribed here. And by that logic, there is no reason to have any of these.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment nigahiga is most subscribed, but they have been going back and forth on most subscribed for a while.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 19:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ray William Johnson is the most subscribed series, not equals three. He runs more than one series. JDDJS (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you quite understand. The only series on the RayWilliamJohnson channel (which is most subscribed) is equals three. Breaking NYC and Your Favorite Martian are on separate channels, which are still very big, but not most subscribed. Equals Three is the most subscribed series. If you go to his channel and watch all the videos, they are all equals three.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 18:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No credible sources available. If sources can be found, then I would say keep it. --Carnold30 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While you can read various numbers on youtube regarding this series (number of views, number of likes/dislikes, number of subscribers), it lacks sources from anywhere other than youtube. The listed sources are from a less than reputable online journal written in blog format, Ray William Johnson's personal website, and youtube itself. That being said a "TV guide" isn't needed for a singular youtube series. An article for the series itself should be created before a list of episodes is even considered as a page. --GuidingArrow (talk) 00:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you look at Fred Figglehorn's artical page about the list of episodes, or any other TV show's "list of episodes" articals it doesn't have any references or stuff Babelcolour5 (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the episode list is just part of the article as in the case of Fred, then references aren't that big of a deal. But when you create an article just about the episodes, you need at least one reference. JDDJS (talk) 14:10, 6 July 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 (WP:CSD#G7) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ziegelburg[edit]

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

I've had a look for sources and can't find anything that fits the supposed location. Warden (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why didn't you tell me and I would have db authored it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify you; you did {{db-author}} it. Please explain why you created this castle in the air. Warden (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld (sole author) tagged it for deletion, so deleted per {{db-g7}}. – Athaenara ✉ 19:14, 1 July 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. No argument put forward by nominator (Non-admin close). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhartiyavidya[edit]

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

naveenpf (talk) 18:29, 1 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Retriever[edit]

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

Dogbreedinfo.com has been deemed an unreliable source previously, so don't throw that out there! I haven't found coverage in any suitable sources whatsoever. Anna^talk 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Anna^talk 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - How does the Dog Wikiproject regard the notability of mixed breed dogs? Personally, anything that's referenced so often on the web (see a google search, google news search (returns zero), and a google news archive search (returns 10 hits)), is usually notable. I'm not saying that a # of hits implies notability but it, very generally, it means that enough people are talking/thinking/writing about it for it to be notable. I'm guessing the Dog Wikiproject has discussed this issue at length and come up with a much better answer than anything we'll come up with at this AfD. OlYeller^Talktome 18:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here, though it never really went anywhere: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dogs/Dog_breeds_task_force/Archive_2#Breeds_notability_guidelines Designer crosses are typically measured against the general notability guideline. Perhaps some people are thinking about these dogs but no reliable information is published (except that it's a cross between the Aussie and Golden). Also, bear in mind that "Australian Retriever" is prone to false-positives, and I see a few in the Google News results.

Here are two previous AfDs that you may be interested in reading through: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corgi-Chihuahua, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo

I just can't see how most are worthy of standalone articles. A list would be okay if not for the following: there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these designer dogs, most exactly like this one (lacking coverage in reputable sources). The notable ones, which include Goldendoodle, Cockapoo, and Puggle, are perfectly valid albeit in need of more robust sourcing. Anna^talk 19:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. With the number of recognized breeds, assuming notability of every plausible combination would result in a large amount of under-sourced articles. I can't see how a designer breed is notable without passing WP:GNG.
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. "Australian Retriever" produces no Google New search hits. A Google News Archive search produces 8 hits, none of which are coverage of the breed at all; only mentions of or coverage of dogs who are Australian Retrievers (lost/found dog, describing the dog of an owner who was interviewed during coverage of an event). It seems obvious to me that there's some coverage out there that assumes that the breed exists but I don't feel that this breed (or any designer breed without significant coverage) can have WP:IAR applied to support an article. OlYeller^Talktome 13:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent indication of notability given, or found. Miyagawa (talk) 21:34, 4 July 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 per WP:G7 after author blanked page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox Wonder[edit]

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

At the moment, there appears to be nothing more than rumor about this console when notable sources were searched for. Also see WP:CRYSTAL, section 5 Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a hoax, certainly unverifiable, delete with leave to recreate if reliable sourcing becomes available. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Delete the subpage for its games as a bundled nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to be found about this at all, possibly a hoax, if not, WP:CRYSTAL is relevant. Quasi human | Talk 18:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - At User talk:Dirt Pecker‎ he (User:Dirt Pecker) has tried to attribute my name to a final warning which I never issued. I'm not sure what on earth is going on, but it makes me believe that this article may well be a hoax after all. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 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. There is no consensus here to delete, it's all to either keep or merge the article. I'm seeing no clerk consensus in favour of clear cut merging, so this can be determined through editorial discussion. non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forever home[edit]

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

This term doesn't seem to merit its own article. I was unable to find sources -- let alone reliable ones -- describing what a "forever home" is, so it would apparently fail the verifiability policy and consequently the general notability guideline. There is an article in Cape Cod Today that says it is "life for an unlucky pup that might not otherwise have gotten another chance to live theirs", but that's not a useful encyclopedic definition from a reputable source. Anna^talk 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Anna^talk 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge The term is current, certainly. I recently provided a "forever home" for a young kitten... I hadn't heard the term before, but now that I have I keep hearing it in lots of places. Perhaps there isn't merit in an article by itself, but it ought to be trivial to merge it into Pet adoption. -- Evertype·✆ 19:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually just let me know and I'll do the merge. -- Evertype·✆ 19:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Evertype, and once again I'm baffled as to why this was listed among the language-related deletion discussions. What does this article have to do with language? Angr (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some words/phrases are listed, and I thought it would perhaps qualify as a "dictionary definition" as well, but will remove it. You'll see that I noted my uncertainty in my edit summary. Anna^talk 20:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: The article is short and weak, but the term is real. Many animal shelters can verify this is a term in popular use in the animal rescue community. Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand the comments about it being popular but can't find any sources. Can anyone? Anna^talk 20:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's one of those words that is at the moment colloquial and hasn't made its way into the OED! LOL! But here's what Google gives us -- lots and lots!: [1]. Montanabw^(talk) 04:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very true; however unfortunately those results lack any reliable definitions or discussions of the term, as far as I could tell when I looked. The Cape Cod Today article above could count, but it's hard to extrapolate a definition or analysis from that bit of journalese. I'd probably support a merger as well, since "forever home" isn't too tricky of a term to merely define. Still, I can't really see the justification for an entirely separate article. (And thanks for replying! Few do -- though that's perhaps my fault; I'm sure I seem cantankerous sometimes ;) ) Anna^talk 02:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the next question, if a merge, merge to where? Is there an animal adoption article or something closely related? Montanabw^(talk) 00:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Pet adoption, Rescue group, and Animal shelter Anna^talk 01:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick. If Pet adoption is a strong enough article, that title sounds like the best home for a merge. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 5 July 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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl and rind[edit]

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

Article is either about an un-notable organization or is a hoax. Searching google news/books turns up nothing relevant, regular google search doesn't even turn up unreliable sources. Borderline Speedy, but AGF, I'm nominating it here. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. I asked the author for sources when the article was first posted, but all that has been produced is a 1912 NY Times clip which does not mention the society. I have added above a "findsources" for "Pearl & Rind" which the talk page says is the official name, but that draws just as blank. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax or unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable, non-existent. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – In all probability it's a hoax. But even if it does exist, there is absolutely no evidence that it does, let alone that it's notable. The subject is completely unverifiable. Voceditenore (talk) 10:35, 4 July 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. Completely fails WP:V. I can't find any evidence that this film exists or is going to exist. If this were real then somebody somewhere on the net would be talking about it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Rapids[edit]

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

Not yet in production film. I can't find sources to verify its existence, never mind its notability. Fails WP:V and WP:NFF. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. No indication in a search engine test of any sources (reliable or otherwise) mentioning this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 1 July 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. looks like we do now have a consensus and that the issue is that the sources are not quite there. This now falls to delete but I will specifically all recreation if the sourcing improves Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turbulenz[edit]

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

This article is about a video gaming platform that has not received sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that this platform has yet to be released. As best as I can tell, it is in beta testing based own their won web site. The only coverage is this NY Times reprint of a tech blog which is really about the company raising some funds. Whpq (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia doesn't ever talk about products in beta testing? Anyway, this article from the San Francisco Cronicle is not a reprint of the NT Times: [2], it is about their presence at GDC 2011, this one is about the launch of a program to fund third parties: [3], this one about Strawdog Studios mentioning singing a contract to develop a game for the Turbulenz platform: [4] and Strawdog Studios is a recognized entity in Wikipedia: [5]. Latestversion (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a reference to the presentation Turbulenz gave on the NVidia Booth at GCD 2011: The Future of Browser Gaming with the Turbulenz Engine, this is the direct link to the recording of that presentation: [6], I guess NVidia is a reliable source?. Btw, you can see part of their product offering running on their YouTube channel: [7]. 86.17.249.8 (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how to identify press releases, and why these must not form the basis for Wikipedia articles? Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a presentation at GDC on NVidia's Game Technology Theater is a press release? You obviously think NVidia allows anyone to pop into their booth to present stuff, right? Well, they don't, it is usually a personal invitation based on their knowledge of your technology and they are very careful to associate their name with other people. And the presentation they gave pretty much contains most of the information already on the wiki page. Latestversion (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a primary source, my question to you still stands. Marasmusine (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidelines primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia and that is my point, the presentation at GDC 2011 was vetted by NVidia, not a press release sent to a newspaper, I assume that you understand the differences between the two and that was my refutation, not whether it was primary or not. Also I think that presenting the technology as part of the NVidia presence at GDC is a reliably published way, have you actually watched the presentation? the demoed the technology live. Latestversion (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can use reliably published primary sources if there is sufficient secondary sourcing. We cannot base an article on primary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was only able to locate press releases and other primary sources. We cannot base an article on these (WP:V). Marasmusine (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company exists, they gave a presentation at GDC 2011, two creditable sources, NVidia and Strawdog Studios, are aware of them or working with them directly and nothing on their wiki page contradicts what they show on their demos or what they presented. Latestversion (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)— Latestversion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now. Aside from the NYT reprint I found these three articles [8] [9] [10] and two more from gamesindustry.biz [11] [12] (which I cannot assess in terms or reliability). Even with these, I feel it lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG as it all revolves around the fundraising and the partnership with Strawdog, and the articles fail to review the subject in a substantive manner. It seems likely that they may become notable in the future, but not just yet - frankie (talk) 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you guys keep ignoring the collaboration with NVidia [13] also reported here [14], doing a live demo and presentation at GDC 2011 is not reliable enough to prove what they are working on? OK, I agree that they are not incredible notable yet, so you want to delete the article and them a month later add it again because Develop magazine runs a full featured article on them? because everything on Wikipedia is only about hugely notable subjects, right? WP:UA I think there is place for this company on Wikipedia, there are smaller companies listed here than Turbulenz. Btw, if you want to known the team you can attend this event or just check github.Latestversion (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The collaboration with NVidia is not being ignored. It has been considered and for me, is not an independent source. Companies making deals to develop stuff with NVidia, (or any other company) doesn't establish notability when there is insufficient independent coverage as is the case here. As for being an unusual article, this is in no way quirky or unusual. In fact, developing a video gaming product is blandly normal and business as usual. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about NVidia is about the repeated comments about lack of reliability of the sources, not about notability, if you read my comment again you will see that I agree that the company is not a notable one at the moment. What I do not understand is why someone keeps saying that there are no reliable sources about the information on the article when they did a live presentation with a second party at GDC. Latestversion (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about the unusual articles is just to point out that lack of notability is not always a reason to delete an article, obviously my English is not good enough to be sarcastic. Latestversion (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to deletion of an article notability is usually the main issue. Primary and secondary sources may be used to build content (although no article should be based on such sources alone), but in order to see if the article is kept then the subject must have received significant coverage by independent reliable sources (the actual concerned guidelines being WP:GNG and WP:CORP). Both Strawdog and Nvidia are affiliated with Turbulenz, and as such are not suitable to establish notability, even in the case that they would be suitable to reference the article - frankie (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cloud gaming (OnLive, Gaikai) is an evolving area and they seem interesting. Surely this can be a stub article for now, and extended as the space evolves? There are other web engine developers who are already on Wikipedia with very little public information available (ShiVa (game engine)). As the Turbulenz page stands it's informative without being a marketing article. I'd keep this in it's current form. Mutande65537 (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)— Mutande65537 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - The existence of other articles is not a good reason for keeping this article. Each article at AFD needs to stand on its own merits. What coverage exists to establish notability? -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I think we could agree that there are reliable primary sources, so the issue seems to be the lack of secondary ones? well, in that case I consider this Gamasutra article and this VentureBeat post both secondary and reliable, they are both analysis of the technology and personal interviews, clearly not press releases. Latestversion (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If we do not agree of what is primary and what is secondary, I would propose that in the spirit of WP:FAILN: For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort, we could simply follow the recommendation: Place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors, and wait a fixed period of time, for example 2 months, for new secondary sources to appear before finally (or temporary) deleting the article. Latestversion (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability is not unclear in this instance. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Notability is obviously unclear because there is enough coverage in reliable sources: NVidia, Strawdog, Gamasutra, VentureBeat. You have not refuted that there are both reliable primary and secondary sources. Latestversion (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article is now attached to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutande65537 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Not relevant to this discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found this article which appears to be a second/third party source with comment and some analysis [15] Bigdawg15779 (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)— Bigdawg15779 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Sources cited are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As Cullen328 correctly points out, a source does not need to be solely devoted to a topic to establish a presumption of notability for the topic, merely to cover the topic in more than a trivial fashion. WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "significant, interesting, or unusual" are subjective judgments; if I may be permitted to quote a very good essay on this topic, "notability is not fame and importance, [and] notability is not subjective". Deletion is called for when an article fails WP:N or passes it but fails WP:NOT; neither case has been demonstrated here. cab (call) 8:40 am, 20 June 2011, Monday (12 days ago) (UTC+4) I am not sure where this comment originated since it is unsigned; feel free to revert my strikethrough but please provide some background in the edit as well. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From this dif it looks like it was added by Spartaz when he undid his close. I've asked him about it on his talk page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 9 July 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! 17:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally closed this as no consensus but have relisted per request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The only coverage about this company in independent reliable sources to just note that they raised $5 million in financing. Based on WP:CORPDEPTH, that is not sufficient coverage to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Inadequate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As the nominator notes, the only reliable coverage of the company, apart from regurgitated press releases, is a brief NYT blog entry, which is not quite enough in terms of WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:05, 9 July 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. WP:SNOW —GFOLEY FOUR— 20:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatbitchology[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, no evidence of existence and may be pure vandalism. Got an AfD because of controversy of vandalism. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not entirely sure why this couldn't just be speedily deleted --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bit of controvery to speedy delete this page. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 17:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is there worth discussing seriously? This seems a clean cut case for speedy deletion if ever I saw one. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the article creator wants this page deleted. [16] It can be revived if his other page manages to survive. (I don't think it will, but it's best to not be too quick to assume.) —Soap— 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete Not a hoax, as it seems to be mentioned in this book, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell this meets the criteria of WP:NEOLOGISM. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Of course it is vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know but some people say differently. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not much to argue about here?. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:47, 1 July 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dibble Dabble[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be part hoax, part non-notable game. Unreferenced, except for a single YouTube video with no clear description or comments and categorized as "comedy". Full of silly claims about being played by famous historical figures like "Dusty Baker, President Gerald Ford and Reese Witherspoon". The line "The pool of Jamie Guido in East Brunswick, New Jersey is widely thought to be the origin of this game" makes it sound like something made up one day. First nom was speedy closed for procedural reasons. Dcoetzee 15:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Searching the web I did find at least one source for this game, although it might be part of a grander hoax. See [17]. Dcoetzee 16:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That does not appear to be a reliable source, and appears to be on a site where people place random things. Also beware of websites which just echo back scraped Wikipedia content. It is surprising there are few Google Book results listing and describing this and other swimming pool games. I'm surprised there is no article on Diving games. An obvious game of "diving for things in the water" in general should have a place in such an article, given that at least one reference such as [18] is used for validation. This unreferenced material does not qualify for a standalone article, and is just a long "How-to." Edison (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely not a hoax and no different than most of the other games in Category:Swimming pool games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlward4th (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jlward4th, as the article author I hope you can give some insight into where you learned about this game, and a published source where we can find a more comprehensive description of it. It doesn't have to be online but we do need more sources if there's going to be any chance of keeping it. Dcoetzee 20:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability due to the lack of reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to publicize games someone made up which have not gained notice in reliable sources. Edison (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this thing has been on our database since December 2007, any sources which are used to supply notability must either a) be really major, or b) pre-date December 2007. I'll accept that people have played this game in a swimming pool, but ffs read our notability policy. DS (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Maybe it is a hoax, maybe it isn't. But this so called game is not found in any more than one source, and there is absolutely no assertion of notability that can be believed. Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C)} 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and create List of water games article ~~Weak keep or merge~~ - There is a water game as described in the article, but it goes by a variety of names. I've played it myself. but it was called "tee". There is a reference to it as "dibble dabble" in a 1993 book, here: [19] , Growing Up Latino, by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1993, p 92. Im not saying it necessarily meets WP notability guidelines, but it is a fact that such a game exists, and the phrase "dibble dabble" is one of the names of the game. Does it meet WP notability? Probably not. Is the article as written now good? No, it appears to have a lot of made-up material. But the game does exist. I have no objection to deleting the article, but shouldn't the existence of the game be mentioned in some WP article? --Noleander (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see an article named water games or swimming pool games into which it can be merged ... I guess I'd lean towards keeping a tiny stub article or creating a WP:List article List of water games that names the game and gives a one-sentence definition of it. --Noleander (talk) 22:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and for reference, here are some other WP articles on water games:

....... --Noleander (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a dictionary that mentions the phrase "dibble dabble" as related to throwing things into water: [20] from On the formation of English words by means of ablaut: a grammatical essay, by Karl Warnke, Publisher Max Niemeyer, 1878 ... although it does not discuss the game, it does discuss the phrase. --Noleander (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I dont see any reference to this game in any book that is about kids games, so that would argue against a dedicated article. --Noleander (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the List of traditional children's games, which seems to be limited to "on land" games, to the exclusion of water games. (I cannot believe I'm spending this much time on an obscure game article :-) --Noleander (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also the List of rural sports and games, a list of obscure games played in UK by kids. That looks like a good model for a water-game list: a concise list with 2 or 3 sentences defining each game (or link to the article, if there is one). --Noleander (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage the creation of a list of water games article, but at least one reliable source for each should be required, with an inline ref, to head off things made up in school one day from being added. "Diving to retrieve" games in general have at least the one book I cited above. Edison (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a keep or delete? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking me (Noleander) that is Delete, and create new List article. I just created the new list article, and if anyone has any sources to contribute, that would help. --Noleander (talk) 13:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to creating a redirect in the article's place. Mkativerata (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wunderwaffe DG-2[edit]

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

When I prodded this article, I didn't realize it had been prod-deleted before, so here we are. Weapon used in the game Call of Duty. No notability independent of the game itself. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as trivia only sourceable to game guides. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete Weapon not real. Insignificant in all contexts except for the game.--Jgarcia44 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as a mention on the games. Although the weapon isn't real and encyclopedic, perhaps it can be mentioned on the games instead? SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 7 July 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. (Non-admin closure of my own nomination.) Singularity42 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jagster[edit]

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

Fictional website/search engine from the Wake (Robert J. Sawyer novel) trilogy. I was originally going to tag this to be merged into the article(s) about the trilogy, but it turns out there is very little Wikipedia content about the plot, characters, etc. Makes no sense to include this as a seperate article at the moment. Singularity42 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 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. Big Dom 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gael Etock[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't yet played in a professional match. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's a real player and the page should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwiwiwiwi (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having never played a fully pro match, he fails WP:NSPORT, and in the absence of significant coverage fails WP:GNG as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:10, 6 July 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. Big Dom 09:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hub Productions[edit]

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

Australian "fan experiences company". Lots of external links but do any of them actually establish the notability of this company? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one relevant reference in the article and that doesn't even meet WP:RS. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 18:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is verging on 'advert like' and no real evidence of notability. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete references in mainstream media. Section that was 'advert like' removed. Other Australian companies that provide similar opportunities have articles despite providing no, or very few, references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.41.115.43 (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly fails WP:CORP. Lacks indepth coverage. Almost all sources are not indepth and some are tangential. LibStar (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications of notability - this is basically spam. I think that this could have been nominated for speedy deletion under category G11. Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable third party sources. I didn't find anything on Google or Yahoo that would indicate significant importance. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 5 July 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 and rewrite. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Szarvas Rovas inscription[edit]

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

Notability and inclusion of content already the subject of deletion nomination. Vanisaac (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a fringe theory content fork. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpathian Basin Rovas. This is part of a rash of articles created by the same editor, all of which are at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. Striking my delete above as I find Alensha's arguments convincing concerning the topic itself. I hope other editors who have access to the Hungarian sources will work on this because the current content is not acceptable and had basically been used as a coatrack for the movement's theories. I especially hope someone will check the Vékony references to see if they actually support the claims made in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree the extension of the article with the alternative theories, this is a correct method. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete as a scientific description of a well-known famous relic. A transcription made by an officially acknowledged Hungarian scholar Assoc. Prof. Vékony is included, which is surely correct. However, if anybody knows a more accurate, published transcription - it is possible to include. This article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This Wikipedia article is actually verbatim from your article (which you have subsequently removed from the references):
G. Hosszú: Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
On Wikipedia you are now crediting the two transcription tables to Prof. Gabor Vékony. However, in your article they are credited to Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work [21] does not appear to be on the same scholarly level as Vékony. It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your assertion that the WP article is a "scientific description". Nor does it inspire confidence that your references actually support the assertions you make, as opposed to providing a basis for original research and synthesis. Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for checking my article. The work of Libisch, Győző (2004), whose work [22] is a catalog of the Rovas inscriptions, and he included some descriptions of the researchers. It is very usable, since it is a CD edition. He explicitly referred to Vékony. In my cited article, which was the submission of the Hungarian Standards Body (but I wrote it)
G. Hosszú: Proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS. National Body Contribution for consideration by UTC and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2, January 21, 2011, revised: May 19, 2011
I also referred to Vékony. As you see, Vékony published in Hungarian and in German. I do not know any publication of Vékony in English about the Szarvas Rovas inscription. That is why, I had to translate it to English. Obvious, that I use my own translation in every publication, where I refer to this result of Vékony. Moreover, the book of mine
Hosszú, Gábor (2011): Heritage of Scribes. The Rovas Scripts’ Relations to Eurasian Writing Systems. First edition. Budapest, ISBN 978-963-88437-4-6
is the review of the results of the Hungarian scholars besides some own results. I cited this book many times, since it is in English, oppositely the majority of the Hungarian books in the topic of Rovas scripts. However, I excluded this book from the reference, since I was criticized that I want to advertise my book. Therefore, I have to cite the original Hungarian books, only. (Anyway, I cited these books earlier as well, when I cited my book.) Please, let me know, if my reasoning was not clear. Thanks. Gábor -Rovasscript (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main reason editors are !voting for deletion is that in their view these articles constitute original research and synthesis of a fringe viewpoint, not accepted by the majority of scholars in the area. Advertising your work by adding your name to the article is a secondary issue. You appear to be using Wikipedia to lend credibility to your work and gain a wider audience for your ideas and the movement with which you are closely associated, particularly since the article cited above concerns the proposal you are currently making to have this "script" approved for coding by the International Organization for Standardization.
Removing your article from the references does not change that. Worse, it masks the fact that this article is copied verbatim from it, including all the tables and illustrations. Plus, there is a serious discrepancy between the two articles concerning the reference for the tables, substituting the name of a more well-known scholar (Vékony) for the Wikipedia article. You cite Vékony (an archeologist) multiple times, mostly work from 1987, and seem to be claiming that he categorically agrees with your views and conclusions. I actually very much doubt that. Incidentally, there is an article in English from the Hungarian Quarterly which explains the controversial nature of some of Vékony's views with rebuttals and criticism from several academic linguists. Surprisingly (or perhaps not) neither this article nor any of the scholars it quotes appear in your Wikipedia articles. Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hungarian Quarterly is not a scientific journal and the cited article was not referred in any paleography papers. Therefore, I simply did not know this paper. I thank you for including this article of Riba, since it is in English at least, and for the correctness it is necessary presenting the alternative theories as well. When I started this article, it was not my task to create a full study. Everybody can contribute. At first, I included that theory what I think the most correct. I never wrote that other approaches do not exist. -Rovasscript (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess you are not familiar with the Rovas scripts. However, you state without any basis that I "seem to be claiming that he categorically agrees with your views and conclusions". However, I clarified many times - and you can read this also in the several submission of mine to the ISO/WG2 (character encoding standard organization) that this concept was created by Vékony. If you do not know something, how can you state it? The fact is that you is going to justify why this article should be deleted. However, the original purpose of the AfD is to help the editors to improve the article and avoiding the deletion. What happen here is not ensuring the quality of the Wikipedia, but a completely different thing. I have no illusion: it will be deleted, despite of the fact that this contains only independent information with controllable references. This page fulfills the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk)

Keep and rewrite. I'm not sure about the other articles (the amount of information about this subject on the internet makes it impossible to tell scientifically proven truth from nationalistic fringe theories) but the Hungarian version of this article states that this artifact was studied by András Róna-Tas, Csanád Bálint and István Vásáry (members of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), who identified the alphabet to be identical with that of the writing on the Treasure of Nagyszentmiklós. Its discoverer Irén Juhász is a noted archaeologist, she published this artifact in Magyar Tudomány (journal of the Hungarian Academy) and in Acta Archaeologica (I couldn't find the archives of these journals from 1983 online, but Róna-Tas himself lists them in a bibliography of a book. So the artifact is clearly notable.
Now about the validity of the translation of those runes. Gábor Vékony was a respected archaeologist who taught archaeology on ELTE (one of the most prestigious universities in Hungary). His theory merits a mention, even if it was rebutted later. (Articles like this must mention all significant theories on the subject, and if there is a debate about them, the wikiarticle should show all points of view instead of deleting the article.) Riba's rebuttal should be included too, especially as he refers to one of the academians mentioned above. – Alensha ^talk 23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fully agree with extending the article. In order to be accurate, some facts about István Riba: He is the editor the "HVG" (Weekly Word's Economy), an economic journal in Hungary. I never read any reference to his article in the paleographical papers. Consequently, his article cannot be taken as "rebuttal", only a "critique". However, for the correctness, I will include the reference to his article. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but he refers to the works of Róna-Tas, and those are important. Not everything in that article is Riba's opinion. – Alensha ^talk 20:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, the article by Ribas is a summary of the controversy, not his own opinion and I have made that clear in the text now. Further material was then added by Rovasscript, which is very unclear, slanted to support Vékony, and does not accurately summarise the key points of the Ribas article. But that's a discussion for the talk page if the article is kept. Voceditenore (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created the English version of the Hu-WP: Vékony Gábor article. -Rovasscript (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the term "Rovas" and the classification of the script are partly the problem I have moved the article to Szarvas inscription and edited the text for terminology which makes it less bad. -- Evertype·✆ 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete I really don't understand how an article should be deleted based only on the fact that its content represents/may represent an alternative theory or a minority opinion, in this case a scientific one. This fact (if its indeed the case) should be specified in the article and no rewriting is needed.

The other point I want to make is that it is totally right for an editor to link his/her scientific article to Wikipedia and use it as source if

the article is already published.

And there was a point that the author of this Wikipedia article wanted to promote some kind of movement by writing it. So what? Does this mean automatically that the article can't be fair and ballanced? Föld-lét (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And I can see zero original research or synthesis in the article, and if you think that there is any of that kind, than it would be nice to point it out. 109.98.236.189 (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, logged out somehow: Föld-lét (talk) 09:26, 4 July 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) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragomir R. Radev[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:BLP. avs5221^{(talk|contrib)} 10:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What sort of deletion rationale is WP:BLP? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick search of his name turns up papers by him that have been cited by 547 others, in addition to various other papers that have been cited multi-hundreds of times. [23] While I'm no expert on professors and their notability, the amount of impact he appears to have had on his field makes it appear that he passes WP:PROF #1. Being a recipient of the ACM "Distinguished Scientist" award seems to pass WP:PROF #2. Additionally, judging by all the entries on him in various universities, he may also meet WP:PROF #4. Thus I believe that this article should be kept. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Radev has been twice elected as the ACL secretary, which matches for WP:PROF #6. He is also the founder of North American Computational Linguistics Olympiad (NACLO) and the coach of US team in the international linguistics Olympiad (ILO). I believe this matches the criterion in WP:PROF #7 (he person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.) Finally, according to Google Scholar his h-index is 33 from 3079 citations, which is ranked as the top 1/3 of one percent of all computers scientists in http://arnetminer.org/. Therefore, I also strongly believe that this article should be kept. Vqazvinian (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2011 (PDT)
Clear keep as exhaustively explained above. Nominator is advised to read WP:Prof and carry out WP:Before before making any more time-wasting nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Senseless nomination.DrPhosphorus (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Six papers with over 100 cites each in Google scholar is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I'm not convinced the ACM Distinguished Scientist is enough for #C2 — it's a grade of membership more than an award, a step below fellow which would be enough for #C3 — but there's enough other reasons to keep this that it doesn't matter. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 5 July 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. Big Dom 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson University[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a non-notable degree mill. Claims to be a "National Accredited University by NPSAA", but there's no NPSAA on the US govt list of recognized regional and national institutional accreditation agencies or specialist accrediting agencies. I'm guessing that "NPSAA" refers to National Private Schools Accreditation Alliance, whose confidence-inspiring motto is "We warmly welcome you as you are". There's zero coverage online of any "Bryson University" from WP:Reliable sources. The first draft claimed affiliation with Cornell and Wake Forest University: this claim has since been withdrawn. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable degree mill. All genuinely accredited universities appear on government lists of recognised colleges, published online. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not even sure the NPSAA referred to in the nom is the one which supposedly accredits this university. The National Private Schools Accreditation Alliance doesn't purport to accredit universities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson University is not approved for operation in the state of Mississippi, and doubtless it appears on other state lists too. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been semi protected from persistent removal of AfD notice and maintenance templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a non-notable degree mill. --Pstanton (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of third party sources. I didn't find any results in both a Google and Yahoo search. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete I always feel a little bad about deleting articles about degree mills, because when we do, the top hits for Google are almost always then their own, highly deceptive websites. However, we're lacking sources and this clearly faills WP:N. So there's not much for us to do. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:21, 7 July 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. Big Dom 09:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pavithreswaram[edit]

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

~~Delete~~ The article does not provide reliable sources and and is not notable. Suraj T 08:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per long standing custom any town/village is inherently notable regardless of size, but I'm not sure this is either. There is an area designated Pavithreswaram on g-maps [24], but it doesn't seem to be any kind of continuous settlement. And this article lists locations that are in fact in nearby villages like Puthoor and Cherupoika. And I don't know where the author got that 26k population figure. If this can be verified as an actual village, I'd vote keep. --Oakshade (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fall short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The place does exist [25], [26] confirm that it is there (one of them is a government source). Lynch 7 14:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Existence ≠ notability; a one-word mention in a list, and a passing one-word mention in the personal details of a priest, is a lot less than what notability guidelines require. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, really? I'm afraid GNG doesn't speak anything about geographical places in particular. Notability concerns about geographical locations have been raised in the past, and if you'd followed them, you'd have found that there was no consensus. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Notability_(geography), Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations), Wikipedia:Common_outcomes#Geography_and_astronomy. Lynch 7 14:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As per generally accepted terms, all geographical locations on Wikipedia are considered as inherently notable. The links provided by MikeLynch testifies that -- Tinu Cherian - 15:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep is now a reliably sourced region, so standard precedent is to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is now reliably sourced. I had some time in my hands and decided to look up Pavithreswaram for reliable sources and got a bunch of them and I have improved the article. I have struck through my delete above. And the article has much scope for improvement. Suraj T 05:13, 8 July 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. Big Dom 09:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goffs Oak F.C.[edit]

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

The general rule of thumb at WP:FOOTY has traditionally been that a club must have competed in the FA Cup to be deemed notable enough for an article. This is not the case with this club. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Can't find any evidence that this club is notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable club. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable club, hasn't competed at a high enough level and doesn't meet the GNG. Giant Snowman 10:09, 6 July 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. Big Dom 09:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KOK Europe GP 2011 in Vilnius[edit]

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

also nominating:

KOK Europe GP 2011 in Chişinău.

a sporting tournament that fails WP:GNG. no evidence of indepth coverage in third party sources, 1 mere gnews hit [27]. being televised in a few countries or having notable participants does not advance notability. there must be independent coverage of these events. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both cards were loaded with non-notable fighters and lack reliable sourcing and notability claims. Just routine sports coverage and that's not notable. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My findings were similar to those of Astudent's. Papaursa (talk) 00:57, 7 July 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. Big Dom 09:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parviz Iskenderov[edit]

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has won no major tournaments, no significant coverage of achievements. and fails WP:BIO in general. nothing in gnews and nothing in major Australian search engine trove [28] despite being active in Australia. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has only primary sources and I found nothing to show he's a notable kickboxer. I'll admit 68 fights is a lot of fights, but that's unsourced and there's no indication he's won any titles. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no independent sources that show this individual meets any notability criteria. Astudent0 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The bottom line is that we have a lot of speculation here, about the long-term effect of this tour. If anyone has concerns, this can always be renominated in a year or two, but there's a fairly obvious lack of consensus in this debate. Courcelles 05:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 royal tour of Canada[edit]

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

Royals go on tours, that's part of the job spec. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. and following on from the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama's visit to India, this should also be deleted. Mtking (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Running through the list of criteria at WP:EVENT: The visit is unlikely to have a lasting WP:EFFECT, since royal tours are routine. Also the lack of WP:INDEPTH coverage in the article makes it highly unencyclopedic. One paragraph in Prince William & Kate Middleton's pages will be enough to convey the notable information in this article. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 09:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The future of constitution monarchy, to some extent, rides on the success of William and Catherine. The success of William and Catherine rides on their ability to connect with the public. This is their first real chance to do so, and many consider this tour to be critical. Once the tour is over, myself and others will be able to rewrite the article, summarize, and get a real narrative going. But until the tour is over, there needs to be somewhere to start collecting the information and sources together. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the only way to resolve our difference in opinion is to wait until the tour is over. I'll be happy to be proven wrong. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there reliable sources that the future of the constitutional monarchy is at stake? None are referenced in the article.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, nothing's on the line as so much as politicians platforms including removing the monarchy. But public pressure is continuing to boil. Take these editorials:
      - "Young, attractive, but increasingly irrelevant", Vancouver Sun
      - "Postscript: It's time for a Canadian head of state", CTV Montreal
      - "When will Canada grow up?", The Toronto Star -- Zanimum (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The future of constitution monarchy, to some extent, rides on the success of William and Catherine. The success of William and Catherine rides on their ability to connect with the public. This is their first real chance to do so, and many consider this tour to be critical.; and yet the article makes minimal mention of this critical facet. Indeed if you could provide in-depth coverage and content within the article to demonstrate how criticial this tour supposedly is (those editorials are interesting, but only opinion pieces, I'd like to see objective reporting). Whilst I appreciate you don't have to write all this content now you do have to back up your "keep" view with decent and substantial sources --Errant ^(chat!) 12:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Summarise and merge into Monarchy of Canada and History of monarchy in Canada, although the notable effects of this tour will only become apparent during and after its course. Most of the current content reads like stuff from a tabloid or day planner. Nightw 09:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you, after the tour is over, the style of the article will greatly change. Once it's over, I plan to rewrite in thematic sections. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources and easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds. Speculation as to the "lasting effect" of the visit is, uh, speculation. As the tour, the coverage, and the creation of this article are ongoing matters at the moment, suggest revisiting this article in one month to re-evaluate. As to specific content concerns, AfD is not cleanup. - Dravecky (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cited WP:INDEPTH as a notability, not content, policy. I'm more concerned that the sources will not allow the article to expand beyond what it is. With regards to an event like this, in-depth coverage (imo) should be on issues regarding diplomacy, international relations, etc, not nostalgia, public admiration of the couple and animal rights. But then again, that's my opinion, and I don't expect everyone to concur. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 14:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a historic event event seeing as it is Kate Middleton's first royal tour as an official part of the Royal Family. Also, once the tour commences more information will readily available. --Rvanwinkle1 (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Future King of Canada brings takes his bride there on their first overseas tour. But I have to add I reviewed this for DYK Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, giving that this is the first official duty of Prince William and Kate Middleton as a married couple.Demon Hill (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
week keep First Official royal tour for the couple! (insert thousands of references here) A merger into Royal tours of Canada is not out of the question because no other tour has an article. But I can see that this being contemporary (current event) that the article will grow way beyond just a section type entry. thus meriting its own article.Moxy (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything useful where necessary. Diego Grez (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge any useful content to the targets already noted above. WP:NOTNEWS. God help us if we write an article every time famous people go somewhere. Reso lute 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree Obama's visit to India was far more notable than this. However, we should be careful in using the previous precedent as an argument here, as per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Citing_this_page_in_AfD and other guidelines. I would also add that the decision to delete the article on Obama's visit to India, while made after due process, was highly contentious; point being that it is a weak precedent to use for this situation. That aside, are we going to write articles on every trip Will and Kate make? I agree that WP:NOTNEWS is relevant here. Delete--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obama's visit to India was, according to NDK, "a 10-day, four-nation swing through Asia that will put heavy emphasis on opening markets to American goods and creating jobs at home." Big whip. If a Republican beats Obama in a couple years time, they'll likely do a tour of India for the exact same purpose. This visit is about a commoner-turned-Royal (and a Royal-since-birth) proving that they can indeed stand up to the scrutiny leveled on an unelected official, and that they can revive interest in the monarchy and thus Canada's/UK's/... political system of constitutional monarchy. The Constitutional stability of 16 nations rests on their performance, only they can help cauterize the unrest. And I'm sure that any country would much rather avoid Constitutional questions, over being comfy with a trading partner, albeit a large and powerful one. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of the significance that you're assigning to this visit is mentioned in the sources. I see no evidence that that the future of the monarchy is in any way on the line or that the two royals are in any way under close inspection (except from tabloid sources presumably) as future monarchs. It is certainly true that the status of Queen Elizabeth (and perhaps the immediate heir Charles) as current head of state is somewhat controversial in some nations, but this trip isn't being made a focal point of that. One of the sources you cited above said the trip is mainly significant as a warm-up for their visit to Hollywood!--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I may jump in (as an IP editor I'm aware I carry no weight on AFD decisions), while there may have been weak sourcing as of 2 July regarding notability, in the days since numerous international sources including CBC, BBC, etc have reported on the impact this trip is having on the image of the monarchy abroad, on establishing Kate as a major figure beyond simply being William's consort, and the Slave Lake visit is one of the few major visits to a disaster zone to take place during a royal tour. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while this article may be quite light and newsy it is certainly vastly more notable, and with vastly more impact than the average secondary school, which generally are accepted to meet the notability criteria. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First overseas visit by the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. When I first saw this article, my reaction was that it ought to receive the same Wikipedia treatment as the previous Royal tours, which don't have separate articles as far as I could tell. This tour should be added to: Royal tours of Canada and List of royal tours of Canada (21st century). To keep a separate article will put undue weight on a current event, one which is comparatively lightweight inasmuch as the tourists are "Duke and Duchess", not "King and Queen". PK T(alk) 13:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not just a random Duke and Duchess, they are the King and Queen heir apparent to the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, population of over 2 billion at last count, and indeed King of Canada heir apparent. As the modern world questions the relevance of constitutional monarchies, this couple is widely considered the greatest hope of survival for this form of government, at least in the Commonwealth. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, if you check, you might find Charles ahead of William in line to the throne. William will likely become King someday, but he ain't yet. He's not in a position to do anything historic on this trip. PK T(alk) 15:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Actually, Charles is heir apparent, and this justification is highly WP:POV. It isn't Wikipedia's place to advocate for (or against) the British monarchy. Based on your explanation, this then belongs at Debate on the monarchy in Canada or a related article on the overall commonwealth. Royals come to Canada every few years. There is absolutely nothing special about this trip. Reso lute 15:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your pop of 2 billion is incorrect. I believe you're including India and Pakistan, and perhaps others who are not subjects.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the purpose of the current trip vs. the trip that Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip made in June/July 2010, when they celebrated the centenary of the Canadian navy, opened a new terminal at the Winnipeg Airport, laid the cornerstone of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, and other events. The current trip won't have events of similar historic importance - so why should it be detailed in its own article? PK T(alk) 15:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. Some trips, like QEII's to Ireland are notable. This isn't one of them. Hot Stop (c) 13:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With respect, "William & Kate's first royal tour as a couple" is not really an argument, especially when the delete !votes have cited very specific policies. The tour is certainly worth mentioning in their respective biographical articles, at Monarchy of Canada, or added as an entry to Royal tours of Canada. However, the event is significant because of the fact that it is the first royal tour by the couple (as pointed out by the keep !votes), not because of what actually happened (or will happen) during the tour. That to me does not merit an article. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 14:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eraserhead1. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 14:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per my previous comments above. This tour is less about the sum of its parts, and more about proving Catherine's ability as future Queen of the United Kingdom, Queen of Canada, and Queen of 14 other nations, more about reviving interest in the Royals, and by extension the concept of Constitutional monarchy which has existed in the UK since the Glorious Revolution (1688), and I really don't think I'm being melodramatic to say the Constitutional stability of those 16 nations by stemming latent unrest with this format of government. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Johnsemlak above, the sources do not discuss how the future of the monarchy is related to the tour. While I was happy to agree to disagree with you prior to 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC), your arguments since then have gone way beyond the context of the tour itself. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Dravecky has noted, AfD is not Cleanup. Whether my take on the topic sucks isn't as relevant as whether the topic is. Wait a few weeks, and then retest the validity of the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you just admitted all that talk about the survival of the monarchy is irrelevant to the article's notability. Cleanup? The article is perfectly fine considering the sources cited. It's the lack of in-depth coverage in the sources that do not justify its notability. We'll just have to wait and see if that changes. - Yk³ talk ~ contrib 15:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources do not support your rationale, then we are into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH territory. Reso lute 15:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zaminum, with respect, your last argument is way over the top. The tour isn't going to "[prove] Catherine's ability as future Queen" in the least, even if she slurps her soup and snorts when she laughs. The tour has none of the gravity you suggest. PK T(alk) 17:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William will surely act as a confident to the Prime Ministers in office during his era, as has Queen Elizabeth and the Kings before her. But for Catherine? This sort of tour is the only real thing she'll ever do, officially. So indeed her ability to handle herself in public is the only thing she really needs to do. Monarchy's relevance is tied to constitution monarchy's existence. Constitution monarchy's existence is tied to my country's constitution. I don't see how her success or failure isn't tied to the continuation of our current format of democracy. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious that your argument is entirely your own personal viewpoint. This is, I would note, not a valid rationale at AfD. Reso lute 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a pretty big event, definitely deserving of an article. Most media say 300-500,000 saw them in Ottawa. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most accounts seem to suggest 300K in the morning, 300K in the afternoon, but the Globe and Mail and NZ Herald say 500 K at night. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Over a million people a year attend the CNE, PNE, Calgary Stampede, etc. If size of crowds mattered, each of these would have an article for every year's festival. Resolute 19:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those festivals are annual, Royal tours of this size and hype aren't. And frankly, the Stampede is a sporting event, and as such, there should be pages about the results. Considering that sports is meticulously covered on Wikipedia--try this featured article about one cricket player's play during just one year of his career (and there's 17 articles in that series)--there really should be articles about each year of the Stampede. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid AfD rationale. Regarding the numbers, the BBC had only 100,000. But going with the larger numbers, how much of that is mainly because it was Canada Day in the nation's capital and lots of people would be out anyway?--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If you'll read my comment again, I was suggesting that each year of the stampede be a candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for creation, it had nothing to do with AfD. As for 10,000, that's most likely the physical limit of how many people can be on the lawn of the Hill, the crowd spilled out onto the streets for blocks, basically just people seeing the event on a screen. Wikinews reported 25K in 2006. There was stats in one of the online videos I've watched, not sure which it was though. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly meets WP:N. - Presidentman talk·contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but review in a years time. As discussed elsewhere, this is probably WP:N as it is the Duchesses' first offical tour abroad. In a years time, when this is no longer WP:NEWS, the future of the artcile can be reassessed and it can be merged into the relevant articles elsewhere if neccessary. Martinvl (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. What is with the anti-royal family on articles like this. In fact I'd advocate a new series on royal visits from previous years and locations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't generalize, Dr. I am a royalist; I just want this trip to be given the proper weight in the long series of Royal visits. That having been said, I completely agree that Royal visits of previous years can and ought to be covered with articles of their own, not just the two lists that I previously named. PK T(alk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a relevant article per my standard approach to news articles. Coverage is minimal and largely news reports of the visit - there is little in depth analysis of merit and no historical context against which to set this (compared to, say, the Queen's visit to Ireland). Interest in the new couple of obviously going to be high in the coming months - but lets not confuse media coverage with enduring notability. Contributors to this article should, as always, consider contributin to WikiNews. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable event. Has generated a debate in Canada about the role of the monarchy, and resulted in protests in Quebec. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, it's duller than a knitting needle, the kickoff to hundreds or thousands of similarly routine events. NOTNEWS is a policy which is always misapplied in deletion discussions, and, though this is more ambiguous than most, it is no exception. "Enduring notability" does not mean that you say ooooh la la, that's the day the aliens came. It means only that people make a note of the event. In other words, the next time these people come to Canada, will news organizations say, "this is their first visit since..." or "by comparison to their first visit..."? Answer is clearly yes. Even the common people will be expected to know, sort of, that they were to the country previously. That's notability. Dull, unremarkable notability, but notability nonetheless. And yes, the Obama India trip should have been retained as well. Wikipedia isn't paper; there's no reason why we can't index thousands of these trips per celebrity, if people are so motivated to write the articles. Wnt (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly notable and well cited article. No reason to delete. --Gaxtreme (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much else to say. May the Obama article will need liking at again. Agathoclea (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A puff piece that doesn't even mention anti-monarchist protests that have met the tour in Quebec. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon? As of the last edit of July 2, there were seven occurrences of the word "protest", not including the one referring to a protest in 1964. The protests themselves happened July 2 and the day you made this comment. Editors were waiting for a bit, to see which articles would make the best sources. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as above. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like this is a fairly significant event, as their first royal tour. Whether to have articles about Obama's trips is really not the question here. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability has clearly been established. Chzz ► 03:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not so much because it is a significant event for Canada, but because it is a significant event for the British royal family. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a significant event for Canadian culture and the royal family.Wheatsing (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Vale of Glamorgan, I doubt the people of Canada are that superficial that their opinion on their country's political system will be changed by a state-funded visit. No anti-royalism on WP, there's a page on somebody just because where sister might be Queen Consort one day. Bevo74 (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave the other point be, but please note that Vale's point was incorrect, as there were seven occurrences of the word "protest" in the article, as of the day before his comment. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant event for both the Canadian and British monarchies. JonChapple ^Talk 08:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I almost said delete, until I reread the article and made note of this - "British news outlet ITN is filming a documentary on the tour." To me, that makes this particular trip notable in that the documentary will serve to provide it with significant coverage after the fact, which pushes it past - again, just in my opinion - the threshold of this just being a news event. The significance of this trip as the first one to a large part of the British Empire that will one day see the couple as the leaders of, in addition to my statement about the documentary, makes me offer a suggestion of keep. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- British Empire? We haven't had one of those since the 1940s. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - A slip of the tonuge, my goodness... the context was and is still the same. Strikerforce^{Talk Review me!} 05:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strikerforce was referring to the Commonwealth, and you know that full well. Secondarily, if you'd like to get technical, this Wikipedia actually considers the empire to have existed until 1997. And it wasn't until the 1982 Canada Act that Canada as a country didn't have to ask the motherland for help, when dealing with the Constitution. -- Zanimum (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for the time being. Whether or not this tour is truly "significant", it is certainly notable for Wikipedia purposes in the sense of receiving extensive media coverage, not just in Canada (where the event is taking place), the U.K. (where William and Catherine are from), and the U.S. (where they are going immediately afterward), but in other countries as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article may not be significant to some people's standards, but the article is certainly creditable. It has many sources and is notable as a Wikipedia article. It has a plethora of media coverage and is a well done article. --Ltuck3 (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Royal tours take place all the time, too trivial to merit own article. PatGallacher (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It could of course be the first section of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge royal tours Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with above comment - merge into Royal tours conducted by Duke & Duchess of Cambridge or similar. --Who.was.phone (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's on the news in Britain most evenings, at the moment - more's the pity. Notable. --Dweller (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Per the massive array of reliable sources in the article that establish notability and per WP:SNOW. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep I am surprised it has even been nominated Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! ^(Whisper...) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A massive event. I'd also suggest that the 1919, 1939, and 1959 Royal tours should have their own articles. If you read any historical records from the period, these were defining events for the country. - SimonP (talk) 18:53, 7 July 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. Big Dom 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K is for Killing[edit]

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

Non-notable book Sergeant Cribb (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My first reaction was that someone was nominating a Sue Grafton novel for deletion, but no, her notable book is called "K" Is for Killer. This similarly named novel may well exist, but it is not notable, because it hasn't received in depth coverage in reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability-establishing coverage cited, unable to find any. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wiegand[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Received coverage for performing at the White House once; none of the other references are third-party (either the subject's website, a press release from an organization that hired him to speak, the Youtube channel of a production company that hired him...) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As much as I admire a college-trained political scientist who has built a solid career based on a resemblance to Teddy Roosevelt, I don't see much coverage outside of the mighty Sacramento Bee, and that only in passing. I just don't see the requisite significant third-party notice. If better, more in-depth references are found by the end of five days, I'd happily change my !vote. Gotta love the idea of a Teddy Roosevelt impersonator, notable or not. --NellieBly (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I find substantive profiles of Wiegand at WBEZ (2008) [29] and the Buffalo News (2010) [30], as well as a number of briefer mentions at GNews [31]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The statement by Roscelese that "none of the other references are third-party" is not really accurate. Wiegand has been reviewed by the following newspapers and publications that I've located. News Enterprise. (2010) 09-04-2010 [32] See also The "Daily Beacon" at the University of Tennessee, (2010) [33] also "The Mountain Press" at [www.themountainpress.com] 22 April 2010

Here is are some videos of Wiegand - see for yourself and tell me that this person is "non-notable!" See [34] Ok - Weigand is not a left-wing admirer of TR (I am) but he IS significant in that he's done TR in all 50 states and is positively reviewed and continues to be called in by all kinds of private and public organizations across the Country to portray the 26th US President. SimonATL (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, he does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Google News search finds only a single article about him, from the Sacramento Bee, along with dozens of articles about other (apparently more notable) people named Joe Wiegand. As for the references at the article, his performance at the White House is documented by press release type articles at the websites of the White House and his own college. All the other references are self-referential and not acceptable as sources. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, did you note the additional substantial profiles--WBEZ and Buffalo News--that I cited above? --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:54, 30 June 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! 05:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources identified by Arxiloxos which I was also able to find by adding the name "Roosevelt" to the Google News Archive search, which filtered out the similarly named people who don't impersonate Teddy Roosevelt. The fact that other people are named Joe Weigand and have received some news coverage is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as no one has written articles about them that could be nominated for deletion. Good Google search skills separate the wheat from the chaff, and we are debating this Joe Weigand, not another one. I don't know what makes a newspaper "mighty" but the Sacramento Bee is, I believe, an eminently reliable source, as are several of the other sources identified. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that fact that other people are named Joe Weigand and have received some news coverage is not relevant to this discussion. While it may not be the New York Times, or the Le Monde, the Sacramento Bee is, an "eminently reliable source." Wiegand is obviously not "insignificant.

Did some source checking over the weekend. Let's consider the statements behind the initial decision to suggest deleting the Wiegand article. "Non-notable person.

1. "Received coverage for performing at the White House once." Discussion. Coverage of the performance was given by multiple web sites. For example, the Northern Illinois University covered his performance here: [[35]]. I re-read the article and noticed that a few months ago, more information was added to the article nothing that organizations such as the Oregon History Center, covered Wiegand's appearance there and also mentioned, after the fact, (not by way of promotion) that his performance was received by young people. 2. "None of the other references are third-party." Discussion. Reason 2 is clearly inaccurate as cited by several editors as the Sacramento Bee is a 3rd party source and as a daily newspaper and web site passes the "eminently reliable source" test as well as several other small local and regional newspapers with their associated web sites including several universities (See the above noted "Daily Beacon" at the University of Tennessee, (2010) [36] and also "The Mountain Press" at [www.themountainpress.com]and several towns such as the "News Enterprise," (2010) 09-04-2010 [37]. No more time to discuss. Please make a decision sometime soon. Thanks! Searcher4001 (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Historical Society source is not independent and thus does not attest notability; it's a press release from an organization that hired him to speak, they have an interest in promoting him. Newenterprise.org does not appear to exist, much less to be a reliable source, and student newspapers do not attest notability. It's also disingenuous to pretend that I'm just ignoring a vast multitude of independent sources; at the time I nominated the article, none of the other references were third-party, and - guess what - at the time I write this, still none of the other references are third-party. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Kraus[edit]

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

Article about a musician that is based on unreliable or simply incorrect references.

Cabalaza Music Magazine cannot be verified to exist.
There is no result found when searching the site of the Puerto Rico Daily Sun for this subject.
There is no result when searching the site of The L Magazine for this subject.
The discogs.com page appears to be about a different musician with this name, based on the fact that none of the listed records match the record listed here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the reasons given by the nominator. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added sources (sorry, they're in Hebrew) that demonstrate that she released two albums, as required by WP:BAND. (The first album is a collaboration.) She also appears in MOOMA, the encyclopedia of Israeli music, which by itself indicates notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I don't read Hebrew, can you please supply the names of the two albums, and the label on which they were released. WP:BAND calls for two albums on a major label, so that information will be important in deciding the outcome here. I should note that the original sourcing issues that I mentioned above are still present; if this article is to be kept, it will need to be rewritten with valid sources, or scrubbed clean for lack of sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The titles of the albums are already in the article, but i added more sources. The first one was released through NMC Music, one of the largest labels in Israel and the second one through High Fidelity music, which released albums by the popular artists Assaf Amdursky and Knesiyat Hasekhel, and is going to release the new David Broza album. I'm not sure what to do about the other links that don't work, but all the info can be found in the links i added. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article lists a single album, titled Boutique, apparently released on a label named "High Fidelity Records". A Google search for information about this album turns up lots of download sites, but no reliable sources. There is no indication that "High Fidelity Records" is a major label by any standards. It also lists a collaboration titled Busa released by NMC Music which is claimed to be "one of the largest labels in Israel" and yet does not have its own functioning website (see [38]). A Google search for an album named "Busa" on "NMC" turns up nothing. Admittedly, I'm searching in English; Hebrew sources might escape my searches. I'm hoping another editor with a working knowledge of Hebrew can evaluate the sources that have been provided, and possible find more. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know what your standards for a "major label" are, but Assaf Amdursky, Knesiyat Hasekhel and David Broza are among the biggest artists in Israel. You can see them listed in the catalog on the website; if you don't read Hebrew and don't believe me, you can find plenty of people who will confirm it at Category:User he.
    - NMC operates on the web on the website http://www.songs.co.il (see the NMC logo at the top). I updated the link at the article about the label. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:28, 22 June 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! 05:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article violates Wikipedia policy for Original Research WP:OR. Several citations do not exist or are unverifiable. Links to English "sources" go to websites' main pages and not an individual article. I also cannot verify that Cabalaza Music Magazine exists. Yael Kraus may be a real person making music, but she is not noteworthy for an English speaking audience. This page serves as nothing but promotion for the artist who is not internationally noteworthy Wikipedia:Notability (people).MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I removed the citations about which everybody here is complaining, even though it's possible that they were valid at some point - maybe the information only appeared in the print version of the magazine and may it was removed from the website at some point. In any case, these problematic sources weren't used to verify anything important, and there are other reliable sources for verifying the important information. This artist released two albums on major labels (by Israeli standards), as required by WP:BAND, and was covered in multiple reliable sources, which are already cited in the article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's an up and coming performer in Israel, and I can confirm the Hebrew sources. --Sreifa (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Up and coming" is almost code for "not yet notable", but in this case, the sources (having been verified) are probably sufficient to confer notability. If the article is kept, it must be completely rewritten, citing actual existing sources, rather than the bogus sources that were used in the original version. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the problematic links and now all the information in the article is based on reliable and verifiable sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (or someone can be BOLD and just merge it) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PacketProtector[edit]

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

Seems to lack significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Article created and maintained by a WP:SPA. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Merge with OpenWrt quick search finds refs [39]~~[40]~~ Widefox (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the find, but that's only one ref. The 2nd page is just some mashup web site that eventually redirects to the first (linux.com). FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, updated Widefox (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

changed opinion based on only 1 reference, plus some checking. Could easily merge instead of waiting for topic to be possibly notable. Widefox (talk) 19:40, 23 June 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! 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIF California State Meet alumni[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR – All this list does is list people who have once upon a time participated in a high school track meet. None of these athletes are connected in any other way other than having participated in the same track meet at different times (i.e. "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"). This list has no notable criteria for inclusion. Also, don't let the "known for" column confuse you – what they're known for has nothing to do with the justification of why this list should even exist. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, the criteria for inclusion appears to be participation in the meeting followed by later, notable success in athletics. The known for column outlines this later achievement (typically Olympic or world participation, or similar high level achievement), thus the reason for their inclusion. In a way, the list forms the contribution of the state of California to the sport of athletics. SFB 20:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Not true about the notable success in athletics. Most of these "alumni" became notable track athletes, but there are many listed who are known for other things (being an NFL player, being the father of Barry Bonds, a Heisman Trophy winner, an NBA player, etc). Hence, this whole list is just cruft for a high school track event that happened to have many notable persons participate in it, largely in part because California is a big state and has the ability to claim such athletes (of every meaning of the word, not just track/field). This list just puts together a loosely associated group of people. Please tell me how participation in a high school track and field event is a significant, important-to-their-interconnectedness point of relation among these athletes. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although "participants" might be a better choice than "alumni", I agree with SFB that the criteria for inclusion are relatively well defined and that the article does help highlight California's contribution to athletics (sport). Obviously California track & field will have more notable individuals than other sports in other states (e.g. volleyball in Rhode Island), but I do have concerns for the precedent that this might set: 50 states X ~20 sports with high school championship meets or tournaments = 1,000 articles. I'm wondering if there might be a better way to present this information within the parent article... maybe a subsection for various decades. Location (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What is well-defined? See my original reply above as to why there is no clear criteria for inclusion. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria: notable people who participated in the event. Location (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTCRUFT. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made your POV known. You asked for clarification on mine so I gave it to you. Location (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Defined as "list of the notable people", but includes some that may not be notable (at least WP:WTAF/redlink test fails). If it's designed to be "notable people", this list could be a category. tedder (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the creator of this article, that should be expected. I've obviously put a lot of work into this. I'm not set on the title, that followed from the section heading I put the original article CIF California State Meet. This list of notable people originally appeared in that section until it was wiped out by the nominator. As a response, I created this more explanatory article, which clearly shows well over 100 notable individuals who have participated in this meet. As this meet is the culmination of the NFHS official high school season, at this point in time this was the culmination of each of these individuals' high school careers. It takes almost a month long qualification process just to reach this meet. It certainly can't be categorized as merely "a" high school track meet as the nominator has tried to belittle the meet in several comments through this process. I'll note the nominator has attacked the core article, not through WP:AfD but by placing several, I'll call them defamatory, tags at the head.

Certainly there are a lot of top level Olympians in this list. I took interest in the subject by noting how many people had come through this event, who had achieved fame through other activities. To be specific, there is a famous baseball player, a basketball player, Olympic volleyball player, the World's Strongest Man, a WWF wrestler, an actor who achieved fame unrelated to his sports activities (plus several who did become entertainers or politicians after being athletes), numerous NFL players, 3 with Super Bowl rings and Hall of Fame credentials. There is nothing random about the selection of these individuals in this list. They had a common experience of being high school track stars, who managed to get to this highest meet of their high school season. I also found it interesting and informative that not all were predestined as super-stars. The fastest woman in the world, Florence Griffith-Joyner only finished 6th. World record holder in the long 400 Intermediate Hurdles Kevin Young was only 3rd in the short High Hurdles event, javelin world record setter (and equipment manufacturer) Bud Held was a pole vaulter. It may be trivial, but I think it ties a lot of information about the development of these athletes. Information that would not be commonly noted by merely scanning the results of this meet. As with any alumni list on WP, there is no claim that these individuals achieved their fame because of their participation in this meet, merely that they were part of (in this case) the event. However, some of them achieved their claim to notably status by records they set at this meet.

The same nominator called this WP:OR, true it is my own work to tie the information from sources together, because no other single source has done that previously. All the research is documented. As with the expectations of any encyclopedic WP article, this is an accumulation of information from numerous sources. The primary source is the most complete set of results of this meet available here. We could waste a lot of space putting in hundreds of references in to show that each of these individuals is who they say they are, with this element in their history. I do not see the nominator or any other individual challenging any of the facts here. Most of the individual specific sourcing is more appropriate in their individual articles than to clutter the references here. As a list, this serves better as a redirect to encourage people to learn more at each wikilinked article. That is what a wikipedia list is supposed to do.

The subject of conferred notability has been raised by this nominator. I have followed what are the standard practices regarding alumni; that they have achieved notability to WP standards. Most institutions that list their alumni categorize them because most are scattered over diverse fields, obviously most on this list are Olympians primarily, so that categorization wouldn't work. The decades idea might, but it will be lopsided towards more recent individuals because there is better documentation on notability for more contemporary individuals, thus more articles. The WP notability standards are a pretty good guide here in both directions. First of all, the criteria for being included on the list is for someone to have achieve the standard of WP notability. The handful of RED links are all individuals who have achieved the notability standard, even if the article for that individual has not yet been created. And the reason they have attained that status is included in the right hand column. I'm leaving space for articles I may have to write in the future. If I need to clip those to save the article as a whole, that is doable and they will be reinserted. Frankly I don't like to create stub, placeholder articles when more can be written.

Drifting further, in WP:NTRACK, one of the means of determining the notability of track and road racing events are deemed notable is by who has competed there . . . that it is a meeting of notable athletes. No other editor has challenged the notability of the event, though with the hostility of this one editor has shown and noting his aggressive repetitive responses here, that is not beyond imagination. By the way, Bobby Bonds was a significant baseball player in his own right, but it would take some knowledge of history to know this--something this editor apparently does not possess. I'd even ask, why is a future major league baseball star, long jumping in a championship track meet during the high school baseball season? It must be important. Without a list like this, it might be unnoticed. Linking this number of notable alumni certainly confirms the significance of the meet.

Regarding Tedder's comment that it should be a category, you and I both know that there is no isolation or selection between the two. Both are acceptable means of linking information here on Wikipedia. They can be used together, interchangeably or singularly depending on who chooses to do the volume of work. Trackinfo (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If categories and articles are the same to you, use a category. Categories stay up-to-date and don't become coatracks for inclusion issues. Otherwise, "I worked on it a long time" is a poor argument; a category can be linked from a summary style section of the CIF California State Meet article, which sounds entirely appropriate. tedder (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If you're going to accuse me placing "defamatory" tags on the article, which is in itself slander against me as an editor, you better provide diffs and explain how they were defamatory. Otherwise, remove the comment, as it adds nothing as to why this article should be kept, which is the issue raised. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's you saying that his writing was factually misleading, biased and unverifiable, when common sense would suggest that the information was none of those things. An audience of 16,000 is significant if you know the sport (Hayward Field, one of world's top track venues, does not even have that capacity). I'll let you off on the "best" thing – I imagine you didn't know that many groups make comprehensive statistical analyses of track meets to compare performance quality (see this for example). I think adding that tag was an editorial misjudgement on your part, as the difference between what is biased and what is unsourced material is quite clear. However, I do agree that this misjudgement has no bearing on discussion here. SFB 21:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm just coming back to cleaning up California high school pages. Each of these has alumni sections showing where people from the schools have gone in life. The quality of these alumni sections may vary. This one is exemplary as to what to do for alumni. It clearly shows the linkage to, in this case a major high school event, as opposed to just a specific school or category of schools. There are 5 red links I'd remove on principle as is done on most alumni sections. Or offer the original editor an opportunity to change those red links to blue, which he claims he could do. As with larger University alumni sections, many are on separate lists like this. I think that is a completely appropriate means to display this number of named individuals. If the word alumni bothers you, I'll throw out List of notable participants at the CIF California State Meet. Deleting an informative article like this should be out of the question. Sarcasto (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note, I have already created a couple of articles to relieve the red links. I'll also point out as a precedent that when the list of alumni is exceptionally long, it has gone to a separate article, rather than cluttering the main article as in: List of alumni of University High School (Los Angeles, California). However I would be happy to retain the information presented here as a merge to the original article--as it had been before the previously noted editor removed it. And regarding the slippery slope posed by Location; I guess it is possible for someone to create that mass of articles he suggested, but it would be hard to justify an article based on a few individuals who qualify for such a list. While the main article does list several other California athletes who did not appear at this meet, language that does fill that role, this article specifically covers notable individuals (not necessarily limited to those with athletic success) who have participated in this one meet, rather than that slippery slope of sports specific by state categorization. But then, my opinion is, if there is sufficient content to merit such a list, per state, per sport, if some editor wants to put in the work, it deserves an article. I was thinking of say NFL Footballl players from Pennyslvania and look what I found Lehigh Valley Conference#Current NFL players. In short, which I rarely am, this is a common type of list here on WP. Trackinfo (talk) 21:23, 29 June 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! 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into CIF California State Meet. The notability of the State Meet is not inherited by the fact that many of these athletes are now (or were) famous. This belongs back on the article in a form similar to Lehigh Valley Conference#Current NFL players as mentioned above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:05, 1 July 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 Irish language. Consensus is that this does not warrant a standalone article per WP:DICDEF. Sandstein 06:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gaeilgeoir[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:NOT#DICTIONARY Gnevin (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the article deleted if it is found unfit, via our guidelines. All I hoped for was that other editors more erudite than I would find better sources than I could accrue. It deserves it. Fergananim (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and use categories instead where relevant: rather than build an incomplete list, it would be appropriate to set up more categories within Category:Irish-language occupations, esp. for actors, given the precedents in Category:Yiddish-language occupations (although just one for actors would probably be enough). The page for the word itself should redirect to Irish language and be explained there. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Irish language (though without the list of famous speakers). I see no need to discuss Irish speakers separately from discussion of the language. As Fayenatic suggests, the function of the list can be accomplished with categories. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The title is a Gaelic word not an English one and so doesn't belong in the English language wikipedia. We have plenty of existing articles about the topic such as status of the Irish language and don't need this stub too. Warden (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish language. It is an Irish word but used in English in Ireland. Snappy (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more appropriate for a category rather than an article? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not suitable for a category either, such categories have been created and deleted twice before, here and here Snappy (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points made in those discussions. Delete. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dicdef. Szzuk (talk) 12:18, 30 June 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! 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Parts of this might be worth keeping as a List of Irish speakers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Irish language per Snappy, this word is used widely in Hiberno-English, it makes sense that it be redirected. Quasi human | Talk 16:25, 1 July 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.

<!-Relisted-->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masanobu Sato[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the general or the biographical notability guidelines. -- Lear's Fool 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Lear's Fool 05:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or any other standard that I can think of. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:55, 6 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible Connection[edit]

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

Company that does not meet the notability requirements according to WP:GNG. Only brief mentions in trade magazines without substantive content to develop a complete article. Warfieldian (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I am the creator of this article I oppose this motion. I cannot verify that it is the largest IT, retailer or provide any substantive content to the article because none exists on the internet. Nevertheless, it as an extremely popular retailer and holds a significant share of the market in South Africa. Does this not justify its inclusion on Wikipedia? I mean, if an article like this, can be included, then why not this one? --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please review the WP:GNG and you will readily understand why Mzoli's is notable and Incredible Connection is not. Warfieldian (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are only guidelines. The Sunday Times, which I assume you are referring to, is not a trade magazine and is a credible news source. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not to keen on an article for Incredible Connection, the biggest problem will be content. It is a medium size retailer with limited history, not a major event sponsor and have not done anything notable in its short history. There are far more important South African companies that deserve articles, Cadac [41] comes to mind. Not only has it gone global, but it is part of South African life, from townships to camping to a gas braai in Sandton. --NJR_ZA (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just improved the article - connecting it to its corporate parent, and to the fact they are a Dell retailer. How high do you want to raise the bar for companies based in South Africa to have a article in Wikipedia? My initial impression is that there's an abundance of coverage in South African sources for this electronics retailer. Nominator, if they are not among the largest brick and mortar electronics retailers in South Africa then who is? It is a bona-fide retail leader in a US$7.5 bln market.(report). The article needs improvement not deletion. patsw (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as the author of the article admits, 'I cannot verify that it is the largest IT, retailer or provide any substantive content to the article because none exists on the internet.' The issue is not how big the company is but is it notable enough that there is the availability of multiple, reliable secondary sources to create an article as per WP:N. Also, notability is not inherited from parent companies like Dell. The company's notability must stand on its own. I don't think there is sufficient notability for this company. Warfieldian (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems that I stand corrected. As patsw has shown, there are in fact sources that purport to show that it is a "bona-fide retail leader". I agree with patsw, the article in its current state, does not contain anything substantive as yet but has the potential to be improved. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Look at the sources referenced in the article and compare it to this guideline from WP:CORP: 'Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[3] except for the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it; advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization; corporate websites or other websites written, published, or controlled by the organization; patents, whether pending or granted;[4] any material written or published by the organization, directly or indirectly; other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.' If you removed the nonreliable, nonindependent sources, there would be no references for the article. Warfieldian (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dell's announcement is sourced independent of the subject. Techsmart is sourced independent of the subject. Bloomberg is sourced independent of the subject. News24 is sourced independent of the subject. Is there doubt among the Delete voters that this is really is an major electronics retailer in South Africa? How high do you want the bar to be to have a South Africa company get a page in Wikipedia? patsw (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am also trying to find more sources and have fleshed out patsw's contribution somewhat. Props to you, sir. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no genuinely independent third party coverage that I can see. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (1) Dell (2) Techsmart (3) Bloomberg (4) News24. How much coverage do you expect from a retail company of South Africa to have? patsw (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More sources for your consideration: Connection performs incredibly, Connection group sheds software unit ,this source reports that in 2002, Incredible Connection held 45% of the IT retail market in South Africa, surely that is noteworthy? Even a conservative estimate would put IC's market share at US$3.5 bln. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of important points here. (a) I said no genuinely independent third party coverage. Things that don't count include: a press release by a business partner of the company; stories apparently based by press releases buy the company; stories revolving around an announcement made by the CEO which provide no apparent journalistic reflection on the story; etc. (b) references on this page are irrelevant, only references on the page under consideration are considered. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, there's more!: The sources that I spoke of have now been incorporated into the article. Finance 24, which is a part of News24 has no affiliation with IC and we must therefore assume that those sources provide genuinely independent third part coverage of the company. To assume otherwise would be ridiculous. Hope this changes things somewhat. I think the question: how high do you want to raise the bar for a South African retail company?, bears repeating. I acknowledge that for the most part, Wikipedians are reasonable, sensible, and good natured people, and that I do err sometimes, but it irks me when a company like Allan Gray, a South African company which has billions of assets under management, is summararily deleted because of bureaucratic restrictions. I am sure the same holds true for other localities around the world which was given an article and then deleted. I think we would do well to take into cognisance the rule, "not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." Just because Paul Stephen Farmer, can stitch a few newspaper cuttings together and write a auto-biography, does not mean that he merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I welcome further discussion and hope that this will resolve this issue once and for all, or that at the very least, you propose something else that I can do to make this article worthy of a place here. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am at a loss to understand the persistence of pushing for deletion when in many cases, the remedy is article improvement and not deletion. To the point that other stuff exists, that is a weak argument for retaining an article. The strongest argument to make is that this article, Incredible Connection, now contains text and citations to satisfy WP:CORP. patsw (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There is little to recommend in arguing about WP:BIAS. In any case, I hope that the nominator and the deletors will reconsider after the improvements that we have made. I rest my case and leave it to them to decide what the fate of this article should be. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 02:36, 17 June 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, Sandstein 19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Sandstein gave a reason for the relisting. It is unnecessary.

To the point that Dell and Incredible Connection are not independent because they have a supplier/retailer relationship is ludicrous. Corporations do not become dependent when they engage in an arms-length transaction. Dell is a Kevin Bacon-style hub of technologies Six Degrees of Separation. Hitachi does not become dependent on Dell when it becomes a supplier to Dell.
No delete voter answered my repeated question How much coverage do you expect to find on the Internet for a South African electronics retailer? I think the bar was reached a long time ago in establishing that IC met the WP:CORP tests with several independently cited facts about in the article. The article needs improvement not deletion. patsw (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't respond because because I didn't think it was necessary. As for Dell, I already quoted from the WP:CORP policy, "except for the following: press releases, press kits, or similar works; self-published materials; any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it." The Dell citation in the article is a Press Release. All of the articles are brief mentions or company overviews that do not qualify as substantial coverage sufficient for notability. To answer the other question, I don't have any particular expectation for coverage of a South African electronics retailer but I know that if there is not sufficient coverage than it does not meet WP:GNG. Do we have separate notability standards for each country in the world? Warfieldian (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current sourcing in the article, to be quite blunt, is very poor. The only source I'd say is useful to establish some notability is the Finance24 item. Having said that, this chain of electronics stores appears to be notable. Unavailable for preview, this anippet view doesn't properly show the text from the Google Books search. Essentailly, Africa research bulletin: Economic, financial and technical series, Volume 40, Issues 1-12 has a snippet that states "Incredible Connection, South Africa's leading IT retailer with just about 40% of the local market, has just reported accelerating profit growth in the 15 months to August 2003.' This confirms that the chain is indeed South Africa's leading IT retailer, and holds 40% of the market share. This book lists the company as a "top store". I'd say that's enough to establish notability, and what's needed is more research to find sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just establishing Incredible Connection as a 'leading IT retailer' does not qualify the company for an article based on WP:CORP. An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. I could not find any alternative qualifications in this guideline that state each country's leading retailer in any given area is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. The sourcing is poor as the article stands and it is doubtful significant reliable secondary sources will be found. Warfieldian (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe that reliable sources about a leading electronics chain in South Africa won't be found? Not everything is published on the Internet. There is on item (Finance24) out of the currently messy sourcing that covers this electronics chain. That's one, and I don't doubt there's more. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A brief article from 6 years ago that describes the company's holdings and profitability hardly constitutes significant, in depth secondary source. If all of these secondary sources that are out there materialize than I think the company will be notable enough for an article, until then it should be deleted per the guidelines WP:CORP. Warfieldian (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Deleting the article means is a very poor way to develop a good article. Since additional sources are being requested, tagging it with {{refimprove}} would be the way to go. If you delete, there is nothing to build on. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Developing an article is appropriate if it meets basic notability guidelines. Since it is evident that the sourcing on the article is not adequate to meet WP:N. Perhaps, moving it to WP:AI would be more appropriate rather than deleting it so that, if there is interest and available reliable sources, the article can be improved and moved back in to main space. Warfieldian (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. I believe the subject of the article meets notability, and the poor referencing is an editting concern that is best addressed by tagging the article to note the issue and having it available in mainspace accessible to all editors. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's the disagreement in a nutshell. I don't agree that the subject meets the notability requirements, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. thanks for the interaction. Warfieldian (talk) 19:37, 28 June 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! 05:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone analyse the provided sources as their value is key to the outcome. Whpq comments they are not very good but then votes keep so a clear analysis will break the deadlock. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The existing sources in the article are:
1. Bloomberg - This is a directory listing and not a Bloomberg news item - not useful for notability
2. JD Group - Primary source - not useful for notability
3. Finance24 - Independent coverage of company earnings coverage - useful for notability
4. Finance24 - Independent coverage of business unit sell-off - useful for notability (dependent on an editor's interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH)
5. Dell press release - not a reliable source - not useful for notability
6. Techsmart article - Article is on website of a print magazine but it is unclear if the magazine is a reliable source - unclear if this usfule for ntoability
7. MyBroadband - Techsmart barely mentioned in article - not useful for notability
8. News24 - Independent coverage about a recycling effort from Incredible Connection - useful for notability -- Whpq (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, based on the above analysis, the current sourcing fails notability. #4, #5, #8 are the only ones considered useful and are somewhat trivial in their coverage. From WP:CORDEPTH, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." and "For notability purposes, sources must be completely unrelated to each other to be "multiple." All the articles that are considered useful are from the same source, 24.com. Warfieldian (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It all depends on what you consider significant. The Finance24 articles all feature Incredible Connections as the primary topic, and are not just mere mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- coverage in Finance24 alone is sufficient to establish notability because it supports the article's notability claim, to be the largest IT retailer. Maybe it really needs to be pointed out that the density of financial publications in sub-Saharan Africa is somewhat low. The wording of the article is problematic, though. It reads too much like an advertisement, particularly the "Products" section. The header of the next section, "Social responsibility", could as well read "Publicity stunt". Those two sections should in my opinion be removed but at least changed in their tone. --Pgallert (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have to look at the content of what reliable sources say as well as the number and size of such sources. In this case we have a reliable source that this is (or was) the largest computer retailer in a large country, so it is pretty clearly a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 2 July 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. This time, we'll use the salt shaker. Courcelles 05:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viaden Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP while Google turns up some hits not enough to pass and no news coverage found. Appears to be a parrent company of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viaden Gaming -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete As non-notable the second time around as the first. Judging by the author's talk page, it appears to be likely attempted promotion. ArcAngel (talk) ) 05:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generation of Youth for Christ[edit]

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

I would like to nominate this article for deletion as it does not fulfill any of the notability guidelines. This is further detailed by past editors under the talkpage section entitled "Protected." Thank you. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This IP has been blocked for abusive sockpuppeting. I have inquired as to protocol regarding this AFD nomination, and the blocking administrator has informed me that there is no need to restart the nomination. He also asked that any questions regarding striking of the comments made by this IP be referred to him at User_talk:Jclemens. L H M 09:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the sockmaster BelloWello has been banned from Wikipedia for being an all around ass.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly passes WP:N. Currently the article is sourced to Adventist Today and Spectrum. There's also this: [42]. The discussion in "Protected" is not admissable here. Some of those editors are long gone. I mean one of them, WikiManOne, a POV edit warrior with multiple blocks is banned. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but this could be done through proper sourcing and fixing. It's a relevant article about an important youth organization in the SDA denomination. With annual conferences of 6,000 plus it certain has the numbers to be considered influential. It can also be sourced to numerous articles from the SDA publications.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication (either within the article or from Google News/Books) of third-party coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would support merge to being a list-entry in Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries. Whilst bare/affiliated-source evidence that WP:ITEXISTS is insufficient for an independent article, it is generally acceptable for inclusion in a pre-existing list specifically on that (parent-)topic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more complicated case than it first appears. The movement itself seems to be of some significance in the SDA. However, as Hrafn notes above, there's nothing in the way of third party coverage. Yet, at the article talkpage, the point has been made that there are several articles within the scope of SDA that are sourced primarily to Adventist publications. Now, I know that fact is, in itself not an argument for keeping the article, but my recommendation here is not to keep it. Rather, I think I've found a suitable landing spot for a merge and redirect. So, because I think that the content of this article isn't without merit, and because the sources--while not truly third-party--are reliable, I recommend that the article be merged and redirected to Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries. A link to this article about GYFC is already there, so creating a brief sub-section should pose no real problems. L H M 16:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to make sense. Merge and redirect --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide third party sources both SDA and non-SDA.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per User:Lithistman. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not a vote. Do you have a rationale for your !vote? – Lionel ^(talk) 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is also not a war, which the tone of your posts makes it seem you think it is. A "per X" recommendation basically means, "X wrote exactly what I would have written had I arrived here first", and is a completely acceptable recommendation. L H M 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - A rationale has been provided. He concurs with the previous user's rationale. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that I think it should be merged with and redirect to Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries, and that I concur with User:Lithistman's reasoning above. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep formerly Merge and redirect~~ with Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries since the history of GYC would mostly likely be lost. Note that subsections are not included yet in Seventh-day Adventist independent ministries. That article needs some reformatting if we are going to merge GYC, with its historical story, into it. Changed DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) from DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close without prejudice on the grounds that the creator of the article was not given proper notice of this discussion. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is unnecessary, and would needlessly inhibit what is becoming the clear consensus. L H M 05:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The informational page clearly states that the notification is not required. Get a clue. Maybe read it better next time? 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your tone, at nearly every step of this process, has left a lot to be desired. While the notification isn't required, it is certainly a common courtesy, and would be rather easily remedied. Certainly, your snarky last two sentences were not appropriate. LHM 05:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I would have thought a regular user like Lionelt would actually know or read the policies before making frivolous motions. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you LHM, 50.72 has not been helpful. And IMO they are the snarkiest.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. The annual conference is notable enough for mention in another article, just not its own stand alone. As nominator, I would support merging it. 50.72.159.224 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

- When the article was nominated it was barely sourced. Thanks to Donald's hard work the article is fully referenced. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And few (any?) of the references are "independent" as WP:Notability requires. Your point is therefore irrelevant. As LHM points out above, there is no SDA exception to WP:Notability's requirement for independent sourcing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common sense would tell you to keep an article about an organization such as this, but of course common sense has no place in wiki discussions. Sdenny123 (talk) 06:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense says no such thing. And what WP requires for notability is more than this article can offer at this point. As Hrafn notes below, claiming that "common sense" requires one thing or another to happen is very offensive, and isn't a legitimate criterion for recommending "keep." You might as well just say "Keep because I think it should be kept." L H M 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*'Keep~~ Don't be too hard on wikipedia's elusive common sense. lol You will notice above that I favored merging. I think it would be difficult to merge the article and keep the work we have put into it.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. This isn't a legitimate criterion for recommending "keep." You might as well just say "Keep because I think it should be kept." L H M 20:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the information provided, yes by hard work, is relevant to the GYC topic. Keep because the article is about a noteworthy phenomenon and the article, while still in process, tells a noteworthy story. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) For my recommendation see below DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, cite Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and explain why doing so will improve Wikipedia in that instance.
— WP:NOCOMMON

An argument or reason is needed, not simply an invocation of "common sense". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take this to be his reason: "I think it would be difficult to merge the article and keep the work we have put into it"--Donald (– Lionel ^(talk) 06:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Loss of excessive WP:PRIMARY/affiliated source material in the merge [does not 'harm the encyclopaedia' and so] is hardly a good argument against merging, when the lack of third-party sourcing is under discussion as a reason for deleting it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would point out that DonaldRichardSands wasn't the only one invoking "common sense" and Sdenny123's comment was even more devoid of argument than Donald's was. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hrafn for providing the legal citations. I am pleased to finally find a kindred soul on Wikipedia. I was afraid someone who disagreed with my keep would rant on about my vote, so being intimidated by earlier editor's comments I avoided all argument and reason so I wouldn't be humiliated. I hope I haven't offended anyone who thinks differently than us. Sdenny123 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: 3rd party sources The sources being questioned I believe are Spectrum, Adventist Today, SDA-affiliated sources generally. These sources are WP:RS. That is not in dispute (I certainly hope that's not being challenged). But are these sources valid 3rd party sources for this article? The only way to make a determination is to post at WP:RSN. AfD is not the venue to evaluate sources. Until then these sources are considered WP:RS for this article in spite of opinions to the contrary. This means of course that the article passes WP:N with room to spare. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "third party" sources. The entire article is sourced only to publications by the SDA. This is fine if it's simply referencing something that's a part of a larger article (as the merge and redirect will do), but not for a stand-alone article. I would also encourage you to make certain you're not turning this into a battleground, upon which you are making a stand. Your message here reads that way to me. L H M 02:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a publication is published by SDA doesn't necessary mean that the pub has abrogated it's ethical responsibility to be neutral and impartial. We obviously disagree. That is why I hold the position that this is not the venue to evaluate sources: RSN is. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(This point I am adding here comes 5 days later than the discussion.) SDA sponsored means SDA financed/controlled; kind of like SDA funded. Adventist Today, Spectrum and GYC are independent of official SDA control. The two journals mentioned are often an annoyance, or thorn in the side, of the official leadership and organizational structure of the church. They tell both sides of the story. They take stands on issues that are opposed to the official church stand. Adventist controlled journals usually only tell one side of the story. Recently, they have begun to allude to the other side, but usually do not address it straight out. Thus, Adventist controlled journals are reliable, they do carefully check their stories, but not investigatory and certainly not independent. The exception to this could be the scholarly Ministry magazine. Historically there are even two kinds of 'self-supporting', or independent, organizations. One is operated like a business club (ASI) and the other operates almost like a church within a church. Wildwood (located in Georgia) and its 'off spring' come under this second category. At first, the church seemed threatened by Wildwood. Wildwood was ultra-conservative and uncompromising. It was a rural movement within the Adventist world. Now the two organization hold each other in a respectful manner. As a youth, I visited Oak Haven near Pullman, Michigan many times. Oak Haven was part of the Wildwood group. The Adventist world is somewhat complicated. The main problem with the GYC article is that the media outside the Adventist world have not noticed the impact GYC is having on Adventism. It is helping to reshape the North American focus of the church. I am open for correction if I am mistaken in my analysis. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are evaluating this article's notability, nothing more. If you want to change the notability requirements, you should do so at the appropriate page, which is not here. SDA-sponsored sources are not independent of the subject of the article, and thus--as Hrafn points out below--add nothing to the notability of this subject as pertains to this discussion. Those sources do, however, provide sufficient basis for inclusion of the material in a merge and redirect to the article into which the material is merged. L H M 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:Notability defines "Independent of the subject" as "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." It is clear that Generation of Youth for Christ is affiliated with the SDA, therefore SDA sources are not "independent of the subject", and so cannot add to notability. That does not necessarily mean that they are not reliable, just that they have a predisposition to give the subject greater, and more sympathetic, coverage -- so should not count towards notability, and should not be the sole source of significant coverage beyond that which is pure self-description coverage from the subject itself (for WP:NPOV reasons). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at how WP:GNG defines "Independent of the subject" (emph. mine):

Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability

I see no evidence that SDA news orgs, e.g. Adventist Today, have a "strong connection" to GYC. Until a "strong connection" is discussed and a determination made at WP:RSN, SDA news orgs are acceptable sources for purposes of notability. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The GYFC is under the direct purview of the SDA. So are those "news" sources. Until and unless reliable third-party sources can be found, SDA-funded magazines and such simply will not do. Have you had a chance to look at where Acquire the Fire (a far more expansive set of conferences) lands as an article? It's a redirect to the main organization, which is as it should be. I'm not arguing for deletion here, just a simple merge and redirect, since non-third party sources are fine for inclusion in a parent article. L H M 03:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both GYC and those "news sources" are separate from the official SDA body. For example Spectrum magazine is an independent magazine that is written to focus on SDA issues from an outside perspective. As such it's editorial oversight is very much focused on providing coverage of the official church which is different that what the official organizations may want printed. The history of Spectrum and the SDA church is well documented. In fact there is a report out from the official church detailing how Spectrum and it's parent organization Adventist Forums are an outside ministry which should bring itself in line with official church views. Spectrum is definitely not under the "purview" of the SDA church. Many of it's editors and authors are Seventh-day Adventists, but they do so under no official church position. Most of the authors in fact hold very few positions if any in their local conferences. As for Adventist Today, it is less critical than Spectrum but also provides an "honest" and alternative look at the SDA church. For example in it's Guiding Principles [43] it states it "is not a “house organ” which is what some readers call publications such as those published by the denomination. Adventist Today is not required to advance any particular theological point of view or endorse any specific organizational policy in the magazine, in the weekly ATUpdate, or on our web site. Adventist Today is an independent voice not beholden to any ecclesiastical, corporate or institutional sponsor." While the SDA church does have an official news organization (Adventist News Network) and magazine (Adventist Review) these other organizations and separate and independent. Finally neither of these have a "strong connection" to the subject GYC. In fact both of them have been rather critical at times of the movement/organization. GYC itself has not always been in perfect relations with the official church as this discussion shows [44], though that is now beginning to change, one reason for it being a very relevant article.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Adventist Today is an independent voice not beholden to any ecclesiastical, corporate or institutional sponsor." I think the previous (located by FVW) casts irrefutable doubt on the position that AT has a "strong connection" to GYC. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for an annual event having grown from a group of twelve to now involving thousands to be ignored by the public media. Further, it is possible that a group close to a thousand, annually enlisting hundreds of the public to formally study the bible, is not noteworthy because only Adventist sources report on them. If this is the case, I agree that GYC is not notable, at least by wikipedia standards. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) WP:BIGNUMBERs do not demonstrate notability. I would expect a great many large annual conferences occur without garnering much coverage and thus notability. (ii) I really don't see the relevance (or a source within the article for) "annually enlisting hundreds of the public to formally study the bible". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it has not been covered in reliable, third party sources, then it belongs as a part of a larger article, as I recommended above. It's nothing personal against the SDA, it's just Wikipedia's policy. L H M 08:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: in expansion of my previous comment I would note that most of the 'History' section (and thus much of the article) is sourced to an Adventist Review interview with the general vice president of GYC. This goes well beyond not being 'independent-as-defined-byWP:N' to not even remotely close to "third-party" by any reasonable definition. I would rather describe it as 'utterly and incestuously insider'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to provide information about GYC in journals at arms' length from the organization but not beyond the Adventist scope. I have looked for non-Adventist related third pary sources and can find nothing. There are over 500 Adventist-related Wikipedia articles, most of which have very few non-Adventist third party sourced information. I suggest that most institutional wikipedia articles, of any stripe, depend largely on institutional-related sources for their detailed facts. If this GYC article is deleted, a significant religious movement in America will not be included in Wikipedia. I will be disappointed that the valuable information especially regarding its beginnings, i.e a few young adults getting an idea that becomes a movement of thousands, will be lost. Also, Wikipedia cannot report on some things that are important. Most encyclopedias have similar problems. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of you that want to keep this article seem like very earnest folks. But the fact that there are other SDA-related articles that are sourced to non-third party references isn't an argument for keeping this article. And this isn't personal, or anything against your religion. For example, Acquire the Fire is a much larger-scoped event than GYFC, and yet look where the link to it points. There's a place for the information about GYFC. It's just not in a stand-alone article. L H M 09:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lithistman, your points are well-taken. I see no problem merging with a larger entity's article. However, I do find the history of how GYC started to be significant, notable information which ought not be lost. I do appreciate your careful analysis of matters. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Filling-in-the-gaps "institutional-related sources for their detailed facts" is okay as long as they don't predominate, cover areas of subjective opinion, or attempt to introduce subtopics for which no genuinely independent source establishes noteworthiness. Citing the whole article to such sources, and particularly most of the 'History' section to what their own VP said about themselves is not "arms' length" and not even close to acceptable practice. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article's 'History' section is too dependent on what one of the founders of GYC recounts. There is no way to obtain his account than from him. The 2:00 a.m. brain wave was only experienced by two people, him and the one who became the leader of GYC. Has the whole article been cited to such sources? Perhaps, but the article should be viewed as in process rather than completed. If I recall correctly, Wikipedia encourages editors to get involved in editing and to expect goodwill help along the way. The 'goodwill' is evident from some critical editors and apparently lacking in others. Is GYC at all notable? Does it need to be merged with a notable entity's article? Is the information collected from the leaders irrelevant? If not, what should be done with it? Is Wikipedia stronger if the GYC information disappears completely? What is the point of Wikipedia? Why does it allow a grassroots initiative? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to suggest that a "2:00 a.m. brain wave" belongs in an autobiography, or in a personal testament on The Oprah Winfrey Show (or similar), not in an encyclopaedia (paper or otherwise). An encyclopaedia is a place for impersonal facts and scholarly opinions, not personal epiphanies. "Wikipedia encourages editors to get involved in editing" an encyclopaedia -- if you're looking for a depository of personal testaments, then you're welcome to start 'Wikitestament'. "Is Wikipedia stronger if" it culls rampant self-description so that readers have a reasonable degree of trust that articles reflect objective third-party scholarship and opinion? YES! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonal facts only? I agree that objective facts are important. Scholarly opinions, as well. I disagree that a personal epiphany account on how an important movement got started is unacceptable for Wikipedia. If a 2:00 a.m. Eureka moment ends up creating something profound then that moment is important. I disagree that personal moments of "Eureka" have no place here at Wikipedia. In fact, the opposite can be demonstrated. Such epiphanies have been called by Wikipedia as the Eureka effect. Sudden flashes of insight are very important in life. Einstein's thinking on the theory of relativity was advanced partially by a Eureka moment. Sir Alec Jeffreys had a flash of insight at 9:05 am on Monday 10 September 1984 that led to the developing of his understanding of the scope of DNA. If Wikipedia captures a few of those important moments, those Eureka moments, then the encyclopedia will be better for it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would note that no mention of Einstein's 'eureka moment' is made in special relativity, the article directly analogous to this one. So why is it so earth-shatteringly important that such a moment gets mentioned here, in violation of Wikipedia policy? Are you really claiming that Kim's insight was more profound than Einstein's was? And "I disagree" that you have established that this is an "important movement", to anybody other than fellow conservative Adventists -- so take leave to dispute conclusions made on the basis of that claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's moment could be mentioned without violating Wikipedia policy. I don't consider Kim's Eureka moment to be of "earth shattering" importance. But it is important to the story of GYC. We will have to agree to disagree regarding what makes a movement important. I suggest that Kim's accomplishment is an important event in sociology, as well. It is important to Adventists, not just conservative ones. Adventism does have an impact, though minor, on America. It has an impact even here at Wikipedia, though minor. I disagree that the mention of a Eureka moment violates Wikipedia policy. Eureka moments impact the world. I am rather new to Wikipedia, but I have noticed that some Wikipedia editors interpret policy in a very narrow, legalistic manner. Others are broad-minded and generous. I have seen the same thing in matters of religion and faith. I am still hoping for a sense of goodwill as we discuss these matters. Goodwill is one of the endearing principles of the Wikipedia world. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have noticed that most editors on SDA topics appear to not give a damn about policy, objectivity, or the relationship between prominence and proportion -- they wander off onto lengthy tangents, on the basis of the flimsiest of sources, and at the drop of a hat. This all-to-frequently violates policy, both in spirit and in the widest-most-generous (short of simply ignoring it) interpretation of the letter. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I do care about policy, objectivity, and the relationship between prominence and proportion. I also care about goodwill. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"some Wikipedia editors interpret policy in a very narrow, legalistic manner" "I also care about goodwill." Some Wikipedia editors might experience a degree of cognitive dissonance from those two statements. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it showing a lack of goodwill to say that the interpretation of policy is narrow and legalistic? Does 'goodwill' mean non-critical? Wikipedia policies have been written with intelligence and balance. Hrafn, I do appreciate your understanding of WP policies and continue to learn from your comments directed my way. I remain concerned about the narrow interpretation of policy, not just on your part, but on the part of any editor. Even so, I must admit that a severe adherence to policy does help my thinking. So don't give up. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just becasue a news org interviews a subject doesn't mean it is "incestuously insider." We certainly wouldn't apply that standard to say the NY Times. One interview does not establish the "strong connection" required by WP:GNG. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a grassroots movement such as GYC (initially dismissed and marginalized) to rise to the level of having such a significant impact on the church (as to gain the support of the President of the world church, editors of the official church magazine, and to inspire young people around the world), the article meets the criteria of notability. However, the current version needs editing, improvement, and additional reliable sources. Many of these sources are available, but were obviously missed in the present article. We must keep the article, but work to improve it.--HopeAfrique (talk) 13:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the things you mention regarding the GYFC's impact on the church lend notability to the article. And other editors have been trying to find reliable third party sources, and there just isn't any significant amount of coverage on the topic. L H M 19:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it should be noted that this recommendation comes from an editor who has recently sockpuppeted as a single-purpose account in editing SDA-related articles. L H M 19:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the nominator of this AfD is a SPA and sock and the master has been indef blocked and community banned from Wikipedia.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the blocking admin for guidance on this, and it in no way affects the nomination. Additionally, your behavior at this AFD is degenerating quickly. Perhaps you should consider taking a break from commenting here. L H M 06:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of your last remark please. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"And the sockmaster BelloWello has been banned from Wikipedia for being an all around ass." --Lionelt L H M 23:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's continue our discussion on this AFD's talk page.

Delete: I'm sorry but this article just doesn't cut the mustard. Read WP:CORPDEPTH please. notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. And the sources should be reliable. Rather than spending so much time in discussions, let's just discuss if this coverage is significant or not, and it seems pacific to me that it isn't: All the sources are adventist ones (with the exception of "Spectrum", a blog-not reliable). My vote is final. Divide et Impera (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum is actually more than a blog. It is a reliable journal and has been seen as such in many other such discussions. While it does have a "blog" it also is in print form. It's also third party as it is independent of the SDA church both in funding and in focus.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin Some salient points to consider:

Since the nomination of the article, for all intents and purposes, the article has been rewritten and is fully referenced
Some voters voted prior to the article renovation and sourcing
The nominator is a sock of the banned BelloWello

GYC is covered in multiple reliable sources (please see [45])

Hanson, Andrew (January 24, 2011), "Reviewing the Review: GYC Edition", Spectrum Magazine, retrieved January 25, 2011
http://www.atoday.org/article.php?id=111 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) – Lionel ^(talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GYC is unique in several ways. Its story has tremendous social implications within any large company or charitable organization. It demonstrates the power of an idea and that a few people, young people, can make a difference in a multi-billion dollar organization. (SDA income for 2009 exceeded $50 billion.) Also, the financial information about GYC demonstrates how volunteerism makes a big difference on the bottom line of a charitable organization. Of the thirty organizations doing similar work to GYC, few if any can report 100% use of funds for their program objectives. This is because the whole group are volunteers. Of the thirty, GYC ranks seventh in total income. These things have not been reported on outside of Adventism except by those third party journals which focus almost entirely on Adventism. And those journals are strongly critical of GYC. The biggest problem is notability outside the church's circle. It seems that no one outside of Adventism knows of the GYC phenomenon. In North American Adventism, this movement is making a big impact especially on the youth. If the Adventist church is notable in American society, then GYC is also notable. Technically, there are plenty of citations which are not beholden to GYC. GYC is not controlled by the Adventist Church. It is a separate charitable institution. All the Adventist articles about GYC support it because of how the GYC organization helps the Church's youth. Of course, one can say that all those Adventist journals are part of a big family. Perhaps, but the Wikipedia policy on third party journals doesn't read like it is addressing such a diverse and complicated family. At some point, we will need to appeal to Wikipedia's administrators and get them to weigh in on the issue. If the article is deleted, life will go on. But, an important story will have been lost to Wikipedia. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could commenters please see WP:AFDFORMAT, which states:

You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line.

...

Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between <s> and </s> after the *, as in "▪ ~~Delete~~ Speedy keep".

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I think I now have only one recommendation on this page. Thanks for pointing this out and for your patience. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article is a fascinating look at the birth of a new spiritual "movement" within the Adventist Church. Wikipedia is better with the article than without it. The article was nominated out of sheer spite by a now banned editor, an Adventist himself who hates any Adventist more "conservative" than he; on that basis alone it should be kept (no article should be targeted for deletion just because of someone's agenda). It is difficult for a "movement" within a church to meet the strictest standards of notability because purely independent RSs just don't care; they only get interested when there is conflict and controversy. But that doesn't mean GYC is not notable. As Donald Sands says, you have to understand the different "currents" in the SDA to realize that an article in Spectrum magazine, for example, would be as critical and "objective" about the GYC as would an article in The New York Times. So, I recommend flexibility in applying the Notability standards here. The published financial statements also bolster the claim of notability and make the article more interesting. Keep for all the reasons given by Donald Sands. Keep! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:40, 8 July 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. Courcelles 05:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Century Babies[edit]

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

Delete: Not notable. Fails WP:V and WP:NOT#IINFO, as all unsourced and opinionated fancruft about a term that can be succinctly explained at the relevant characters' articles.

Thebladesofchaos (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the topic meets the general notability guideline and it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. All content is original research by synthesis at best and the article has no verifiability due to the complete lack of references. A quick search engine test does not show evidence of reliable secondary sources to presume that the topic is notable. Jfgslo (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much to my surprise, I actually found one reference that might conceivably contribute to notability for this topic. But that's still just one. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navio Forge[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable by the standards of WP:MUSIC. A cursory search for coverage in reliable secondary sources turned up nothing (just blogs, last.fm listings, and lyrics sites). Not surprising, as according to the article the band only ever played 2 shows and only had 1 release, which they put out themselves. IllaZilla (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If all it's going to say is "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles", then Mike Kirsch (numerous bands) and Aaron Arroyo (also in Fuel) take care of that. And the album was recorded by Billy Anderson. This only comes up because someone that doesn't know what they're talking about seems to still have a grudge. Smk42 (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential associations with notable persons do not in and of themselves equal notability. Note that the criteria state that a band "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine), it does not say that meeting just 1 of criteria automatically makes a band notable. There is no automatic notability; the threshold (per WP:N) is always that the topic have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, otherwise there is nothing verifiable to say about it. That does not appear to be the case for this band, as I searched for sources and came up empty. Every garage/bar band that a notable musician started out in does not automatically warrant an encyclopedia article. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smk42, please remember to assume good faith. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Awaien Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

XFD discussion should be reinstated - only source is youtube channel Reichsfürst (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the show name through Goodsearch and was able to find this. Not sure if it's reliable or not, and oddly enough, going through the Geo TV site itself, I couldn't find the program in their listings. Has it been canceled?--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirouline[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a non notable brand of biscuits. The sources are PRIMARY. There are no 3rd party sources that indicate why it is notable. Lipsabove33 (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable; see, for instance, this search. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CORP, as no independent, reliable sources have been found to establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the problem is that the majority of the Gnews sources are pay-for-access. I did find (and added to the article) a TV news website that posted its story on the Madison, Mississippi bakery where these are made as founded by the scion of a Belgian baking consortium. Doesn't getting featured on "Unwrapped" make a food notable? ;-) Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the food wears as much make-up as the host does. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think they're notable. My family buys that brand frequently. I think it's available at Target and Wal-Mart. I searched for a while and couldn't find much news coverage, but I'm sure it's out there if you search hard enough. I'm willing to bet you could find some stuff on them from Belgian sources, but I don't know anything about Belgian news. See http://pirouline.com/AboutUs.aspx for ideas.--Jp07 (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve Clearly meets general notability guideline. See long list of possible sources to comb through. Steven Walling 20:54, 2 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 01:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonstop (producer)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable sources to establish encyclopedic notability of a musician. Current claim to notability is by being a member of a production team that produced a track on Twista's album, Adrenaline Rush 2007. That's a fairly tenuous claim to notability, especially because notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how to respond to this, but he was the producer for the song which was slated to be twistas 3rd single, the production team were the ones who helped him place it. but he has also produced a single for Layzie Bone & Bow Wow, all of Lil Scrappy's next singles, and is working in the studio with everyone from trey songz, to bun b. only listed that song first as that was the one who gave him his step into the industryUser:Thearkatek —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless high-quality reliable sources about the producer can be…produced. Thearkatek, from your contribution history it looks like you might be a little new to Wikipedia; my sympathies, the rules & regs around here can be pretty confusing! In this case, in order for such an article to be included, its subject would have to meet one of two standards: either the notability standard for musicians, or the general notability guideline. More or less, there would have to be at least one feature article focusing on the artist in an independent and reliable source, and some other sources of nearly the same caliber (for instance, focusing on one of his projects). Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia are very much appreciated, but if Nonstop has not been covered in that kind of depth, Wikipedia's internal rules won't permit an article about him. You may want to save the work you've done here, in case future media coverage establishes his notability, and you want to start the article again. Hope this helps. -Pete (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:13, 1 July 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. Only because there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I was tempted to supervote a redirect close per WP:BLP but the article does have 2 sources in "external links". However, more sources and inline citations are needed so no prejudice against a quick (but not speedy) renomination if these issues aren't addressed. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Coste[edit]

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

The article's subject is only notable for being the mother of an illegitimate child of a prince... so essentially I'm nominating this on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. This is similar to Tamara Rotolo. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Isn't standard practice to redirect such titles to the important people to whom they're connected? Seems to me that redirecting to Albert II, Prince of Monaco is the best idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable per nom. Redirect to Alexandre Coste or Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Similar situation as Tamara Rotolo. — AjaxSmack 13:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albert II, Prince of Monaco on the above grounds.86.150.213.178 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coste has been the subject of extensive and in-depth news coverage. She is not notable merely as the mother of Albert II's son, but as the mistress he kept secret for five years, and with whom he resumed a relationship long enough to father a son after the couple had been ordered to part ways by the Sovereign of Monaco. Her attempts to get that son recognised by the princely court of Monaco, and even to meet with Prince Rainier III about the matter as he was on his deathbed constitute an indedependent tale which became a much-reported royal scandal and cover-up, and prompted the Monegasque court to develop what Albert's lawyer called a "judicial strategy" resulting in the acknowledgement of both her son and, soon afterward, Tamara Rotolo's daughter. Rotolo's relationship with Albert consisted of a couple of trysts while she was on vacation in Monte Carlo, and never received the news reportage of the Coste affair -- whereas Albert's relationship with Coste, romantic, sexual and financial, lasted for years -- literally until he introduced her to his father at an event, and he was commanded to stop seeing her. Nicole Coste falls, rather, into the category of historical royal mistresses -- too many of whom have their own articles on Wikipedia for that category to be dismissed as non-notable (e.g. Regina, Rosamund Clifford, Bessie Blount, Lucy Walter, Nell Gwyn, Isabelle de Ludres, Marie Émilie de Joly de Choin, Philippe, Chevalier de Lorraine, Amalie von Wallmoden, Anna Mons, Madame de Pompadour, Maria Naryshkina, Lola Montez, Marie Walewska, Alice Keppel, Roddy Llewellyn, Koo Stark, Carina Axelsson), even when less is known of their lives and relationship to the royal than is known of Nicole and Albert. Finally, minimisation of this relationship leaves Wikipedia open to the charge of racist collusion, since Albert and Coste were single and Rainier's objection to their relationship and the court's attempt to conceal Coste and her child were driven by the notion that she would be an unacceptable consort for Albert because she is black -- the first known black royal mistress (and baby mama) in Europe since Duke Alexander the Black of Florence's's mother. Their relationship is historically groundbreaking. Why are other Euro-royal mistresses stewn throughout Wikipedia, but Coste must be eliminated? FactStraight (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Interesting stuff. Too bad none of it's in the article. If it were (and referenced, of course), the situation here might be different. — AjaxSmack 19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The social relationships of people of power give us an eye and handle on the more subtle ways power and societal rules distort each other. In addition, it helps understand eras and how social morals and acceptances change. I feel that removing women who violate social standards, for whatever reason weakens our understanding of social forces. If the woman's race and skin color were indeed an issue, then it makes this article doubly important. My vote is for a little more documentation of the issues at hand, possibly via newspaper articles, where the facts are the speculations of why the situation fell out as it did, rather than knowing what actually happened. Kiersalmon (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This person is the subject of much media attention, and is notable for this alone. This is proven by a quick search. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for her relation with the prince.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For afd, it doesn't matter why someone passes our notability guidelines, but if they pass. WP:NOTINHERITED applies to those who do not pass WP:GNG, not for those who do like this person.--Oakshade (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - everyone above says she receives much media attention on her own, i.e. independent of her status as the prince's mistress, but no one is citing any sources. Can someone link me to at least three? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested in this discussion that she is notable independent of her relationship with the Prince and with his child. Rather, we have said that such relationships have made many, many royal mistresses notable enough for Wikipedia articles (see my earlier comment above, for a small sampling). Provided that being a royal mistress is notable enough to generate coverage of her in depth and in multiple reputable media, that is sufficient to justify this article. Demonstrably, it has generated extensive, in depth coverage. So why "yes" for them but not for Nicole Coste? FactStraight (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because some will be notable on their own, while the others haven't been nominated for deletion yet. See also other stuff exists. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:08, 8 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mister World[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This event doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. No references have been added. Doesn't appear to have received significant coverage from reliable sources. JRheic (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Some coverage, but it's lacking. Previous nomination of the article bring up this coverage from China about the 2010 ceremony there. There is also coverage of the most recent 2010 Irish winner by...you guessed it-- an Irish national newspaper. But it's more about the winner than about the award itself. The coverage here just isn't really substantial. I Jethrobot (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google News produces the necessary coverage, including an article that claims the 2007 broadcast was watched by 1.4 billion people. Seems notable to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very skeptical of that claim -- twice as many people as the FIFA World Cup Final? And was this program even broadcast in the United States, the third-most populous country? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:00, 1 July 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also skeptical of that claim. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this but I think it would be unwise to use Chinese state media as if it were a reliable source. - JRheic (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources that would clearly establish notability have not been provided yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 4 July 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. despite two relists we seem no further forward and it seems to me that this sits in the discretionary zone. Since even the keep votes accepts the sourcing is below par I'm going to delete but am happy to userfy if anyone wants to reuse the material elsewhere Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoetrope Live Electronica[edit]

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

not exactly a musical artist but fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews [46], nor could i find anything but directory listings in google. [47]. even less when I limited it to Australia only [48]. not to be confused with American band Zoetrope (band). LibStar (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this was one of the important outlets for Australian electronic & techno music - particularly Melbourne artists. I'm familiar with IF? Records and the majority of the bands/artists listed who played at these nights. it was at the Punters Club & this night also had ties with other well known Australian (Melb/Syd) collectives Clan Analogue and the well known Melbourne techno clubs like Teriyaki Anarki Saki. definitely of use to Australian electronic music researchers (note, in case COI: I'm working on an archive project outside of WP - mostly on Brisbane, but other parts of Aus are important for background). there's a couple of label profiles & interviews on AMO (Australian music online) as well as notice from my site (it's promo so couldn't be used here) via trove search. I thought there might be something on PANDORA (which Trove searches) as they like to archive Aus music sites but I could only find these two (I recall the label had a web crash at one stage). in any case, I think the existing references are RS and appropriate for this genre of music. Kathodonnell (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this might very well have been important for Australian electronic music at the time (and I didn't know the Melbourne indie scene back then, so I don't know), the fact remains that there don't seem to be enough sources on the events themselves (as opposed to label IF? Records, which is definitely notable). Thus, unfortunately the article in my view fails WP:V. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:11, 1 July 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.

Sorry to see this outcome, but thanks for trying so hard to preserve the entry, Kath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoetrope1990s (talk • contribs) 21:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of European supercentenarians. Courcelles 05:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss supercentenarians[edit]

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

(a) Nearly all of the sourced information on this page is duplicated in individual articles. (b) What few source documents are used rely entirely on a single website. In the nominator's view, the website relied upon is a work-in-progress and citation to it constitutes prohibited original research and synthesis. (In fairness, the World's Oldest People WikiProject has been unable to reach consensus about whether the website is a reliable source and the nominator's view is, numerically, a minority one.) (c) Of the six footnotes, three are from a document that has not been updated since 2007. (d) Most of the cells in the second table, Oldest Swiss person by canton, are empty. If Gertrude Stein saw this page, she'd likely conclude that, like the Oakland, California of her time, "[t]he trouble ... is that when you get there, there isn't any there there. David in DC (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —David in DC (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not against lists of supercentenarians specifically because reliable sources frequently publish them: if the editors of the National Geographic or the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung think lists of supercentenarians are notable enough to publish and update, and they do, then these lists are also notable for Wikipedia purposes. But sourcing concerns me in this list. The GRG is I'm sure a fine group of people but I'm not seeing any agreement that their work is considered reliable enough by the world in general for them to be considered a reliable source. Edit to add: this specific article also has a Snakes in Iceland problem: there are no supercentenarians living in Switzerland. Is a historical list notable? --NellieBly (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete, keep, merge, or userfy - regardless of result, the Snakes in Iceland reference is worth the price of admission. Thank you for the genuine belly laugh, NB. I concur with your point and admire the wit with which you've made it. David in DC (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert? If not, Userfy a particular section. I happened to be on Wikipedia today and saw this AfD on my talk page. I loved reading up on the Snakes in Iceland reference, NellieBly. I think what this article sorely needs is a revert back to this version from 14 Sep 2010 (including any in-between updates). It is quite apparent, for the "Oldest Swiss person by canton" section, that with only 4 out of 26 cantons populated in the list, that section does not currently meet the notability of having of that section to remain. It should be deleted "for the time being" (userfied, rather). That said, regardless of whether a country has a current supercentenarian or not, it should not be considered as a criteria for possible deletion based on this alone. I see that the 3 current references point to GRG (for validation only), but I would think that any Swiss media about a specific person can be used as a reference as well. Nobody is saying that GRG "can be the only reliable source" about a Swiss case, because this list includes verified and unverified cases. GRG has no "jurisdiction" of any unverified cases that appear on this article so there should be references for the unverified cases. Once the references are added, it will not appear like "the entire article is referencing to GRG". Regards, CalvinTy 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of a wider scheme of supercentenarians by country. So what if this is badly sourced? AfD is not for cleanup - go and fix it! This is a list on a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 06:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Preferably merge. There is enough well sourced info for lists by continent, but often not enough for lists by country. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Seems like a script could be written to auto-generate a list of notable Swiss supercentenarians based on dates of birth / death, that would be good to see. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the lists by continent. The problem with just fixing it, Lugnuts, is that 1. we're still in the process of cleaning out a gigantic walled garden, which is involving a lot of condensing and 2. there aren't a lot of sources for this kind of material. Except in large countries like the US and Germany, where there is considerably more coverage and more resources are dedicated to gerontology research, there isn't much to go on; Switzerland doesn't fall into that category. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:23, 17 June 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, Sandstein 05:39, 23 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The significant difference between Icelandic snakes and Swiss supercentenarians is that the former likely have never existed, while the latter have existed in the past and simply don't at the moment. No opinion about the rest of the issues with this article, but the fact that all Swiss supercentenarians have died shouldn't be a reason to object to the existence of this article. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've  the largely empty "by canton" chart. It makes the article suck less. But I think I see a consensus here to merge what's notable on this page into the European list. I also think that two relistings is enough. You can't force people to care. The people who do have provided the project with the benefit of their wisdom. David in DC (talk) 18:13, 7 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avadhanam[edit]

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

It seems to be a copyright vio because, some entire paragraphs have directly from the other source! roh. (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which other source?Curb Chain (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Directly Copied the lines from the source http://www.techautos.com/avasc/avasc2.html
Please do check References ,See aslo.. regards roh. (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. While this text is hard to follow in places, and searches are made difficult by the fact that "Avandhanam" is apparently a personal name as well, I was able to find at least one source to confirm the existence of the subject, whicb seems otherwise worthy of an article. Not seeing the claimed copyright violation either. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sole rationale advanced by the proposing editor is an alleged copyvio which she has not successfully demonstrated. Subject appears to be notable. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:56, 29 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an article that could be said to be poorly written by Western stylistic standards. And I readily concede that it could be improved stylistically and in its content. However, even with its current faults, this article enabled me to learn a little bit about a robust and intriguing literary tradition that I never before knew existed. It seems indisputable to me after reading this article and The Hindu reference that this topic is notable. I hope that an editor who understands the topic better will work to improve the article. Deletion is not the solution. The normal editorial process is what is needed here. Cullen328 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Rotolo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article's subject is only notable for being the mother of an illegitimate child of a prince... so essentially I'm nominating this on WP:NOTINHERITED grounds. This nomination is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicole Coste. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable per nom. Redirect to Jazmin Grace Grimaldi or Albert II, Prince of Monaco. Similar situation as Nicole Coste. — AjaxSmack 13:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albert II, Prince of Monaco.86.150.213.178 (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This person is the subject of much media attention, and is notable for this alone. This is proven by a quick search. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I don't even think you need to redirect this. See WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:NTEMP, WP:1E, WP:NOTSCANDAL. This woman had sex with a royal and had a child out of wedlock. There was a scandal, but it's settled now, with little fallout to the Prince. She is not notable b/c she had sex with a royal. She is not notable because of the scandal, which was one event, which is now settled. Notability is not temporary, but the previous arguments seem to speak otherwise. Should she be mentioned in the article? Yes. Should there even be a redirect? I say no, based on the above. Roodog2k (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT This article was previously deleted, and then recreated (this nom). I say this not to support my argument, rather, just as more information for others to decide for themselves. When deleted articles are recreated, they should be done so without prejudice. Roodog2k (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That was over 5 years ago. There has been much more written about her since. Also, she passes the general notability guidelines through her continued coverage. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Notibility is not temporary. WP:NTEMP This is only being covered because of the marriage of Prince Albert. Like I said, it was OK to recreate the article, but in 5 years, this is all we get: she's the mother of a child fathered by a monarch. Notibility is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. Strong delete. Roodog2k (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of third party media coverage in her own right Little Professor (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the current form per WP:BLP and WP:V. She may or may not be notable, but the current sourcing of the article is entirely inadequate for a BLP. The only sources provided are an article in the Daily Mail (a tabloid and as such not a reliable source for BLPs) and a screenshot of a primary source hosted on a random image webhost. Sandstein 06:16, 9 July 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 The Bad Girls Club (season 7). joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad girls club season 7: New Orleans[edit]

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

Relevant information can be found on The Bad Girls Club (season 7) article, merely a fansite and completely unsourced. AJona1992 (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia quality standards. The article is poorly written and sourced, anything mentioned there can simply be submitted to the main subject's article. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Bad Girls Club (season 7) which is an already existing article on season 7. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 28 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per Whpq, duplicate of an already existing article with no relevant content to merge, title appears to be a plausible redirect. Quasi human | Talk 23:20, 1 July 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. Sources presented presented have shown the article to fit the criteria of the general notability guideline, namely, significant coverage in reliable sources. Noting the one delete !vote on this AFD is actually from the nominator, hence the reason for myself closing this nomination. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Johnson (technologist)[edit]

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

No independent references in > a year. no claim to nobility. web search reveals no significant covreage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There isn't a lot of web coverage because he's old-school. Published a book (already in article, though the two other books on Amazon under the author name appear to be by somebody else), and is cited in at least two different InfoWorld (not a general purpose periodical, but influential at the time) articles, about the launch of AMD's 29K and early x86 CPUs, respectively. I will see if I can't beef it up a bit with the two links I provided. Edwin Herdman (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least one more try is worth it to verify some of the info. I did a quick lookup on IEEE and found a couple papers. It is difficult to make sure it is the same person with such a common name, but both the 29K and K5/K6 projects were fairly historical. Certainly the article needs to be reworded to be less than a resume blurb and more encyclopedic. W Nowicki (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I added the InfoWorlds, but also ran into a William Michael Johnson baseball player born in 1980, and a convicted murderer in Texas of that name among others. Will keep looking. W Nowicki (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can add that with one round of research I found 11 references, and there are probably more. His good quote about the x86 was repeated by several other sources. I was confused a bit because a Mark Johnson also worked with the same Stanford Professor about the same time on a related project. W Nowicki (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I, too, found the October 1995 InfoWorld article here where he responds to delays in the AMD K5 project. That's enough, but there are more in other issues of the same periodical. Binksternet (talk) 06:25, 26 June 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, MacMed^talk _stalk 02:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources appear to meet GNG, kudos to W Nowicki for adding sources and other improvements to the article.. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:01, 8 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA players from Canada[edit]

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

This list represents a rather arbitrary intersection of topics, and is exactly the sort of list noted at WP:OC#EGRS. Why are NBA players from Canada specifically such an important topic that one could create a stand-alone article about it, I am not sure. That such a list also exists outside of Wikipedia is not to me terribly compelling, in that one can find random lists outside of Wikipedia on many ephemeral and esoteric intersections as this. Do we need lists of every athelete in a professional sports league by their a) Religion b) Race c) Country of Birth d) model of car they drive e) whether or not they have tattoos f) any other random characteristic which they may have that isn't really related to their reason for being notable? Probably not. Jayron32 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the list is illogical — anyone who has watched Steve Nash over the course of his career knows that the "From Canada" angle has been mentioned and opined upon approximately 30,000 times. Inclusion criteria are easy to understand, the list is comprehensive, it is not overly long or overly short, it doubtlessly has a navigational function for NBA fans. I can see no problems with this. Carrite (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with this list is that it wasn't linked as a See Also on the Steve Nash page. Fixed. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 Comments; (1) the nomination uses exaggeration as an argument which doesn't belong in an AfD. (2) This list is largely a duplicate of what's at List of Canadian sports personalities#Basketball. ~~My feeling is that it's not necessary to have the List of NBA players separate from the sublist in Canadian sports personalities, so Delete.~~ As have pointed out after my original comment, the same content and more is also at List of foreign NBA players, and it makes sense to Redirect this article to that one. PK T(alk) 20:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rather this list is useful or not is not really a problem. The real problem is that it is redundant to List of foreign NBA players, which lists all foreign players. Why do we need this sublist when the same info is presented in the main list?—Chris!_c/t 22:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the above comment and agree that it is redundant to List of Canadian sports personalities#Basketball as well.—Chris!_c/t 22:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content fork of both List of Canadian sports personalities#Basketball and List of foreign NBA players#C. My biggest problem with this list is that it's a stub, unreferenced and lack of useful contents (no lead, no additional info other than player names and their origins). A reader reading sportsperson list would expect more info about the players' career, position, teams, etc. On the other hand, the List of foreign NBA players already covers all that information. I would reconsider my delete vote if anyone step up and improve this list. — MT (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the current name of the list is also a problem. Steve Nash is Canadian citizen, but he is not from Canada. So if Nash is listed, this list should be called List of Canadian NBA players.—Chris!_c/t 00:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "from" doesn't necessarily mean "born in". Nash did live in Canada for much of his life. Zagalejo^^^ 03:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this is kept, to follow other list of NBA players by country, we should rename it List of Canadian NBA players (see List of foreign NBA players#See also).— MT (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of foreign NBA players. Plausible search term. Zagalejo^^^ 03:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect The list is a duplicate sublist of List of foreign NBA players, which is sortable by country. I see no need to redirect as the current title is random and unlikely to be typed directly by users, not to mention above arguments that "from Canada" is ambiguous. Also the article is linked by only one article (excluding talk pages, deletion sorting pages, alert pages, and archives.) —Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 8 July 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. Courcelles 05:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder on a Horse Trail[edit]

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

Non-notable book published through a pay-to-publish company. No RS coverage; the CNN source is a poorly written "student log" by one of the students mentioned in this story, not an actual CNN piece. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and by "per nom" I believe that, in my opinion, the nominator has given a complete enough account of why this should be deleted that I cannot add any additional policy reasons why this should be deleted, but would had they omitted one, I would have added it in my own rationale behind my bolded delete. However since they have not, I endorse the deletion for the exact same reasons the nominator did, and I did not want to leave the nomination entirely uncommented on, since when that happens it gets relisted over and over. For these reasons, "per nom" is a perfectly valid reason to comment on this deletion, and does not represent me being lazy, nor does it represent a "vote" where "voting" is seen as an invalid reason for a closing admin to decide how he should handle this nomination. Rather, "per nom" is a good way to let the closing admin know that I have read the article; I have read the nominator's rationale, and I am adding myself to the people who want it deleted as a means of consensus-building which is outlined at WP:CONSENSUS. --Jayron32 02:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 2 July 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. Big Dom 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orbital Replacement Unit[edit]

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

Delete − This was a creator disputed WP:PROD. The article is just a list; nothing more, nothing less. It reads like the ingredience of the side of a bottle of shampoo. As an example, here's one of the entries: Latching End Effector (LEE) weight 415 lbs. at ELC-1 FRAM-1 (top side) x 3 units on ISS. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. The article should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTRECIPE. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a spare parts list for the space station. At most the intro paragraph should be turned into a wiktionary entry. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Kilmer-san (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and improve. Now big part looks like database dump Bulwersator (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 2 July 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. Courcelles 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Treme Talent (U.S. season 1)[edit]

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

There are no sources supplied that even indicate that this show does or will exist. There is nothing on Fox (the alleged broadcaster) about it. My Google search revealed nothing about the show. It appears to be a hoax. SQGibbon (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no sources present and none to be found. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:20, 7 July 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

X-Treme Talent[edit]

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

There are no sources supplied that even indicate that this show does or will exist. There is nothing on Fox (the alleged broadcaster) about it. My Google search revealed nothing about the show. It appears to be a hoax. SQGibbon (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no sources present and none to be found. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 21:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom Warburton1368 (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Judging by the page creator's edit history of false edits, this appears to be a complete hoax. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Butler (author)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. The article was proposed for deletion on 10 June, but since an earlier prod was removed this needs to be discussed. Jafeluv (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Jafeluv (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've found and added multiple independent sources. LadyofShalott 18:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:07, 1 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Millar[edit]

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

Autobiography/advertisement that arguably does not meet WP:N. Remarkable mismatch between what article says and what the footnoted third-party sources say. If kept, article should be moved to Jeff Millar (attorney) to distinguish from the much more notable Jeff Millar, who was a reporter for the Houston Chronicle from 1964-2000 and co-author of a successful comic strip, Tank McNamara. THF (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional and lacks any non local interest coverage about Millar. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Serinsky[edit]

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

I do not believe being considered as a member of a notable band (without actually joining that band) meets WP:MUSICBIO, even if mentioned on mtv.com. The other band this person was a member of is not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this person is notable. Dave Wiener is a signed musician, and guitarist for Steve Vai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.136.235 (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 1 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest Games Convention[edit]

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

Game convention of unclear notability. Article is unreferenced since 2006 and I am unable to find significant coverage in third party sources. Google search for "Conquest Games Convention"-wikipedia results in mostly Wikipedia scrapers and some bulletin board postings. Prod was contested. ... discospinster _talk 03:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. no significant reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 1 July 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. Courcelles 05:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FauxCon[edit]

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

Game convention of unclear notability. Article is unreferenced since 2006 and I am unable to find significant coverage in third party sources. Google search for "Fauxcon"-wikipedia results in a lot of directory listings and forum postings. Prod was contested. ... discospinster _talk 03:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 1 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Sleep (Jebediah song)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. a single song that never charted not received indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite having no backing from a major record label, the single recieved radio play (becoming the second most played alternative single on Australian radio in August 2004) and the video had airplay on a number of major music video shows. Dan arndt (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to WP:NSONGS. It has appeared on a nationally significant music chart (Triple J's Net 50), one of its performers was nominated for a significant award (2006 WAMi Award) where the song and its video was compiled by the award-giving body.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable and sufficiently covered in sources independent of the topic. Orderinchaos 10:14, 8 July 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. Courcelles 05:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hävetkää![edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. unreferenced for 7 years, although Finnish article reveals just 1 source. at best 2 gnews hits, google just reveals directory listings. allmusic site provides no review or rating. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sickest Warped Tour EP[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. nothing in gnews and google just reveals directory listings. could not find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Allmusic doesn't even bother to review or rate it. [49]. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no significant coverage for this EP in reliable sources; does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:32, 2 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Support Network[edit]

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

Organization of questionable notability. I cannot verify the San Francisco Examiner citation and the other cited sources do not seem WP:RS-appropriate — Scientizzle 11:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fairly clear case here. The organization in question has numerous reliable sources that can be located easily through google news, google scholar, or google books. In addition to that, there is at least one reliable source already incorporated in the article. Notability is easy to establish. Fact checking statements in the article should be easy for editors in the future. Looks like it has potential to be a good article in the long run. i kan reed (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously disagree that notability is "clear". I spent a fair amount of effort trying to find any mention of this organization in the San Francisco Examiner and urge you to try the same [50]. That the reference is only 1 page in the paper, and that the title cited is found only in Wikipedia and its mirrors suggests strongly that if the organization is mentioned at all it is only trivially so, or that the citation itself is critically inaccurate. I also don't think that the other two cited sources, from disabled-world.com (an apparent press release hosted on a website that may not meet WP:RS [51] and bulldogreporter.com, a subscription-required PR site of unknown credibility. In fact, given that the external links (those that aren't broken) all lead to press releases, the article fails WP:ORG for a lack of independent coverage.
As for "google news, google scholar, or google books" citations, everything I've evaluated looks like a press release or a cross-hit with mony of the other similarly-named organizations. If one narrows the search to try to hit only this organization[52][53], there is considerably less apparent coverage.
Perhaps I should have included a lot of this research in the nomination statement, but I did much of this a week ago. I'm open to evaluating better sources that I've not seen, but those found in the article don't meet the notability guidelines, hence the AfD. — Scientizzle 14:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is quite clear that a proper interrogation of bald google searches reveals insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article and this discussion do not contain verifiable references to the sort of coverage required by WP:GNG. Sandstein 06:07, 9 July 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pujya Mridul Krishna Shastri Ji[edit]

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

I have been unable to locate reliable source coverage at a significant level to establish notability through my search of google and bing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 1 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loredana Brigandì[edit]

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

Classical pianist who does not, as far as I can tell, meet the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. The brief smattering of coverage that can be found with Google includes a review in the New York Times of a CD of piano music performed by her; but the review is mostly about the composer rather than the pianist. Brigandi is also mentioned in computing magazines regarding an online dispute between her and her husband. The dispute has also spread to the Wikipedia page that is the subject of this AfD, but still does not appear to make her meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Her notability would be as a pianist, not as a participant in a marital dispute. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look and couldn't find independent assertion of notability either, leaning delete. Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes; in agreement. deletion recommended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.225.116 (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete small mentions but not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. no major awards or competitions won. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 1 July 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. The article has been improved since the nomination, and the subsequent "keep" opinions have remained unopposed. Sandstein 06:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geomerics[edit]

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

From the contested PROD: No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Article creator has an apparent WP:conflict of interest. Eeekster (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge product usage into relevant game articles Lack of notable references:

The EDGE article is a deadlink.
This link does not even mention the company or the engine.
There is no reference for the engine's use in Need For Speed: The Run.
Other references are computer graphics conferences proceedings in DICE and SIGGRAPH 2011. The DICE PDF mentions the product as a "want" and that it was used in Battlefield 3, and the SIGGRAPH basically describes what it used, not where it is used.

There is some evidence their product is used in some recent video games. This information could be merged into the relevant pages (e.g. Battlefield 3). Also, main creator of the article, Chrisjldoran is likely Dr. Chris Doran, the founder of Geometrics. That being said, I think the article as it stands follows NPOV guidelines and should not be an issue in this AoD discussion. I Jethrobot (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There has been an issue with Edge links. Here are the new urls: [54][55]. These announcements have no commentary from Edge though, making them primary sources only. Marasmusine (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisjldoran (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Some minor comments on the above points. Hope they are helpful:[reply]

The Edge link has now been corrected and points to the relevant article. Edge have moved their pages recently. There are quite a few articles on Geomerics on Edge. They can all be referenced if necessary, but equally they are easy to find by someone wanting to dig deeper.
This link was designed to point to the holding area for DICE documents, rather than the precise document itself. The reference clearly states that the source material is the talk 'Lighting you up in Battlefield 3'. This is available in multiple formats on the landing page and it seemed better to let the viewer chose the form they wanted.
The DICE reference clearly DOES state that Frostbite 2 uses Enlighten. The slide says that they wanted 'Real-time radiosity' and the way they got it was using Enlighten.
All Frostbite 2 titles use Enlighten, and that includes Need for Speed. But the publisher will not always highlight technology used in a title. That is the main interest of pages like this one. Future students interested in how games are made will be able to work out what technology was used in what game. Whether that is information worth capturing in Wikipedia is obviously for the community to reach a consensus on. A similar page is that dedicated to Havok.
I did deliberately chose a userid that identified me as the company founder. I thought that was more honest than inventing a generic id and hiding behind a different email address. I tried to satisfy all NPOV guidelines and have no problem with a Conflict of Interest note on the page.
Since the initial discussion I have added some more links. Its pretty easy to find stories on Geomerics written by neutral commentators, but the reference section on a Wikipedia page should be more than just a Google listing.

Keep: Software has been obviously cited by third party and referenced in article. Article is a stub, but should not be marked for deletion. I have not seen any arguments made so far that the article violates wiki policy. Also, those that are making comments here should sign there entries and comments using four tildas. Even though founder of company created article, the article appears to maintain a Neutral POV and does not violoate WP:NPV MichaelJPierce (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper: I have gone through the article and contributed and edited the article to maintain Neutrality. The original article creator is no longer the major contributor.MichaelJPierce (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Geomerics' technology, a real-world application of geometric algebra, is genuinely interesting. But it's not just a technology company; its lead personnel are very much industry people focussed on business and product. It's taken a fair amount of time for the code to get through the development pipeline and into live games, but that does now appear to have happened. Jheald (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: we cover quite a range of software in this sort of area in Category:Global illumination software and Category:Rendering systems. It would seem sense to cover Enlighten too; and the sources cited do appear to pass WP:NOTABILITY. Jheald (talk) 14:57, 6 July 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 standard for inclusion is sourcing and very few of the keep votes even address this so they have very little weight in the close. The delete side show they have considered the sources and that they are not good enough and that hasn't been refuted so the consensus is delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sword of Moonlight: King's Field Making Tool[edit]

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

The article fails to indicate why the subject is notable, and I suspect the game fails WP:GNG. The article also fails to cite any outside sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Inks.LWC (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For the record, I don't think there is any debate here. Seems like a formality. Not sure how things work myself, but my intent in this post is to preclude any possibility for actual deletion. Thank you Wikipedia for being so awesome --Truth Glass (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)— Truth Glass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage about this RPG making software to establish notability. There's forum chatter about it but those aren't reliable sources. RPG Gamer and Gamespot noted that the game was going to be released. But that's not substantial coverage. What is needed are multiple reviews in reliable sources, and I was unable to find any. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Right - It's a Japanese product. Here is the Gamefaqs break down [56]. It seems to confirm that the product was released. I'd appreciate if Wikipedians who do not regularly import video games etc not weigh in on the matter. If you seriously want to find coverage, websearch it with relevant Japanese language terms. Not withstanding Japanese coverage of stuff online tends to be more volatile and Japanese websites were pretty sparse around the turn of the century. That said there's plenty of user discussion in English to be found. A lot more than most video game products enjoy because we're not talking about a passive user experience here.

@any other detractors, please see the arguments in the article discussion page before posting. --12.213.80.54 (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The discussion at the article talk page provides no indication that this article meets our inclusion guidelines, nor does the existence of an entry for it at GameFAQs establish notability either. If you have evidence of notability in the form of coverage in reliable sources, please bring them forward. -- Whpq (talk) 09:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a waste of time - I realize things are supposed to be notable. But by association, if a musical artist is world famous, and they release a somewhat experimental song or album, or maybe do something outside their normal capacity as an artist, like design a synthesizer. Even if that work does not make headlines, and its just a footnote to most of the world population who don't care about the artist's entire body of work, it's still notable within the context of that notable person, because people want to know a totality of information, albeit not in complete detail when in Encyclopedia form.

In this case we have a very famous corporation, one of the top few most popular game studios in Japan, having released (more than a decade ago) a very unique product that lets people make their versions of a game which a number of people will assert is the best video game ever to be created so far in human history. Sure it's in Japanese, but that's a minor stepping block in this day and age. Sure it's more than a decade old, so finding brick and mortar sources is going to be next to impossible. But anyway here is the best and last argument I can find[57] image[58], what we have is a collection of From Software products on an official website. The product in question is the biggest box in the photograph. It's hard to deny the product exists and is not notable to people seeking information. Consider a person who just enjoyed King's Field, and comes to Wikipedia to find information. A single mini paragraph on the main KF page saying there is software for making your own KF games and nothing more is just going to lead to frustration. Who would not want to read more about that without having to go outside of Wikipedia for basic information? There are hundreds of classic PlayStation games on the Japanese PlayStation Network, all of them are better than the current gen PlayStation games for the most part, but 99% are less notable than Sword of Moonlight. What's on display here is a policy of ignorance when taken to the extreme. Good day gentlemen --67.54.192.52 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, your initial argument is incorrect, because notability is not inherited on Wikipedia articles. Read that before you say that we are ignoring policy. You can dismiss the process all you want, but in the end, all articles on Wikipedia need to first, be verifiable. Second, games need to be notable. Providing images and release information of the game may prove the game exists, but it's not usage to inform us that it is notable. To provide evidence of notability, you should check here. Notable games require reviews or some kind of reception, or perhaps evidence from reliable, third-party sources that it has made an impact in the gaming industry. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability says - It seems to me like you're reading Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED#Notability_is_inherited backwards. It says, "(three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)", which are all media, as is a video game. From books:

The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.[6]

This logic seems to apply in this case. I'm pretty impartial here, and I am not interested in struggling with anything or quibbling over technicalities. This software will be unequivocally notable at some point and it will look bad for Wikipedia's gatekeepers when that happens if some basically antisocial people were successful in keeping its measly article out of Wikipedia, which on the whole is a project I respect more than almost everything on the internet. There are definitely a lot more people interested in this article than in the many notable but entirely irrelevant to most of the population articles. If you want to justify things in terms of storage or maintenance or whatever. There's definitely not an argument for "too much information" here.

PS: Not saying you're "ignoring policy", just that you must be abusing it or misunderstanding it, because you're conclusion is clearly ludicrous. --Truth Glass (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

This software will be unequivocally notable at some point and it will look bad for Wikipedia's gatekeepers when that happens if some basically antisocial people were successful in keeping its measly article out of Wikipedia -- This was unnecessary and there is never a reason to start calling people names in these disucssions. Your reasoning is a stretch and I disagree with it. We are talking about a business, a company. Not an author. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball telling us whether a particular game will be "unequivocally notable" at some point, we don't keep articles because other crap exists and we don't keep articles because they are subjectively important. We can't go guessing whether something will be popular just because it came from a company that has been successful at creating games, it doesn't matter what other "irrelevant stuff" is on Wikipedia because it's not relevant to the current discussion, and it's insufficient for notability if you think it's more important than other things. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point was to convince people to try to do something more productive with their life than start an unhealthy negative argument here for no one's sake. It's already notable enough in and of itself. Just saying, this is a pointless battle even if you succeed, and your motivations here are dubious at best. By your standards very many video game pages would need to be culled. Is that what you spend your time doing when you're not trying to get in the way of new ones? Policy guidelines are very informative but they don't trump good sense. This is wiki perversion--72.173.160.58 (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I tried to make a good faith effort to look for third-party, independent sources to find evidence of notability. I'm not some maniac trying to destroy this page, honest. I can even read Japanese, so I did a search on Japanese websites (which makes sense since that's where its popularity would be) This is what I came up with:

This is a review on Gamespot, but it's a review by a player
This is another review on a place called GameTZ. This would be a usable source, though it looks like a game-trading community so it seems more like user-generated content.
Some pre-release coverage at RPGamer. This info is on the page for another release by From Software. This would be a usable source, though the fact that it's on an article about another game isn't great.
some release dates from a PCGaming website, but no reviews or otherwise substantial
I wasn't able to find any links to news from the website's own news section
this patch release from a Japanese website
this tutorial website on how to start playing the game

I tried looking at Famitsu and Japanese websites that look at PC games and turned up with zilch. I hope this demonstrates that I've made a good faith effort to look for sources, and I've only found one, and it isn't exactly ideal. One usable source and the fact that the company might be notable for other games isn't enough to change my arguments. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective objectivity?? - The lack of edit sections is leading me to grow tired of participation. I think you're fetishizing the unofficial Wikipedia guidelines pages here. The subject is by all conceivable axioms objectively important in terms of its informational relevance. What you're seeking is subjective evidence for objective importance. You're spending a lot of effort doing so as well. I'm sure there were some Japanese publications that included an article and advertisement or two back in 2000. If you want to fly to Japan and hunt those down, feel free to expend more energy. The fact that someone was willing to create the page and you can't find a positive argument for deletion, proves its importance. You can't actually go out and measure the importance of things per person or Wikipedia user, therefore you must assume importance in these cases, unless you want to argue that somehow there is limited real-estate for articles on Wikipedia. I don't think that's the criteria. I think you just want a magazine article or something, which would suffice for most games I think. I don't see a need for a double standard. --72.173.160.58 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you didn't even make an effort to look for sources to back up any of your claims, so until you do, you don't have any leeway to be talking about a double-standard for your article. You are assuming bad faith and are using very different criteria for "notability" than what Wikipedia guidelines call for. I try to help and you throw it back in my face. You're not going to be a very effective editor by making these kinds of responses. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming bad faith. Your quest just seems really weird (from any down to earth pov) so I'm trying to help you see that since you're the only qualified person (as far as I am concerned) standing in the way of this article at this point :)

PS: Not trying to be an effective editor. Just trying to get some shit done. Editors can edit their hearts out, which is awesome as long as things are constructive and not ideologically motivated --12.213.80.36 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some release dates from a PCGaming website, but no reviews or otherwise substantial - This link from above^ goes to a 2009 webpage. It mentions two PSP games, KING'S FIELD ADDITIONAL I & II, which is really not relevant to the discussion here. I don't think most people in the US even realized Sword of Moonlight (the software in question) existed for a number of years after its release. So it's not as if people were collecting webpage articles about it in anticipation of needing to create a Wikipedia page one day. I was graduating highschool that year so I had other things on my mind. FYI: KING'S FIELD II has always been my top game of all time (and I am not alone here) but I became more interested in Sword of Moonlight because I think it represents a revolutionary new way to make games, and reboot gaming in general... with a little open source wizardry it may totally shake up the world gaming scene. Not that that's relevant here. Still it's an almost totally anti establishment phenomenon, so no surprise, no establishment sources. Later there will be debates about whether or not Sword of Moonlight games qualify as real games... --99.197.224.57 (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Again Keep~~ - Please explain to me why any video game or software sold in mainstream retail outlets, never mind those which garner considerable fandom, are not notable enough to deserve a page on Wikipedia? I mean if you demand establishment recognition of something, I can't think of anything more establishment than that. Point being is information is information. If people want to fill it out let them. That should be basic policy. Even if a game was so bad nobody played with it, people should be able to figure that out as well without having to find out first hand. In this case the product is central to the identity of the company that produced it. It's like if Nintendo made software for making Mario games. And the business model could never have worked out, so it's also a unique humanitarian gesture. Virtually unprecedented... maybe even so, in video game history --Truth Glass (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

Redirect to From Software. Article does not meet our general notability guideline of significant coverage from reliable sources, or provide secondary source for verification. Redirect per WP:PRODUCT and cover there any basic information provided by the primary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If this article is in violation of WP:Product it would mean any publisher with individual pages for their video games would also be in violation. Looking at the links I see that From Software is a major publisher of video games. If their other products have individual entries, such as the Armored Core (including individual entries for each installment), than what is the difference here? Under WP:Product we read "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." From Software is a very well known publisher in the industry with critically acclaimed games. Reading the article, it's poorly written with improper grammar and uses none neutral phrases WP:NPV. My major fault to the article is it's use of resources from the company's Japanese webpage. The English wikipedia pages really need English sources so that information may be verified. Also, there is no REFLIST for the reference on the page. Other than terrible construction I cannot see a reason for deletion. MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that applying PRODUCT to this article means redirecting all video game articles is utter nonsense, since many game articles do provide citations to signifcant coverage and are therefore independently notable. I also don't understand the remainder of your paragraph. Are you arguing that we shouldn't redirect to From Software because the From Software article is poorly written? Also, language should not be a barrier to our verification (WP:BIAS). Marasmusine (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article was created only a few days ago. No one is going to invest time cleaning it up (as best they individually can) until the self appointed Mad Max hooligans are put to bay. Why write up a big article and cross reference it when people will argue it's irrelevancy / call for deletion? That said I appreciate the defense here and hope it helps silence detractors -- who probably have better things to be doing. As for referencing English pages, From Software does not have an English counterpart. Their software is localized by many different publishers which I'm not really familiar with because they are all either minor entities or mega conglomerates. Sword of Moonlight could never have been a financial success in Japan, so it's no surprise it was not brought over to the states. There was no way for it to make money for From Software. Still it seems like a very special project. And of course there are no shortage of English websites created by enthusiasts on behalf of Sword of Moonlight because it's a game making suite geared towards non video game sector professionals (the gaming public in general)--67.54.192.52 (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: This article was created on the same day as the article in question. We are discussing a brand new page which people are not going to invest in until it's allowed to exist. It's not an old page that was come upon and queued up for deletion--72.173.160.58 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Famitsu - I noticed this[59] article cited above is sourced to Famitsu in Japan, which is the #1 video game periodical as far as I know. I don't know if that's enough to qualify for "official" notability or what. Seems like a dubious criteria to me, but whatever floats your collective boats. --67.54.192.52 (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDITED: The RPG Gamer website article is not bad, and half the page is given to the topic here, though it's misleading at places. Unfortunately it's not dated like so many publications, though I guess it must be from around the same time as those games were being release. I assume the Famitsu source is to a magazine rather than a web article, but even if there was the Famitsu article online somewhere or the magazine number could be discovered, I don't see how that would be worked into the Wikipedia article if that is a must for some reason. I mean we are talking about something if people don't believe the veracity of the claims, they can just go out and find a copy of the software and see for themselves --67.54.192.38 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up existing sections to the best of my ability for now - And added candy everywhere, and requested the materialization of a boxart image. --12.213.80.36 (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a good and popular piece of software is not enough to warrant an article. Per WP:V#Notability, we need substantial coverage in reliable published third party sources, and such coverage is not in evidence judging by the article and this discussion. Sandstein 06:00, 9 July 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. Courcelles 05:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Sulub Mohamed[edit]

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

completed pending nomination - Nabla (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is little more than a resume with no refernces and little content

Delete. Terribly written article, the references it cites aren't what I would call 110% notable. But just to be certain, I searched online and I found zero results. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable article for English Wikipedia. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete resume of someone of little notabilityRafikiSykes (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. So are government ministers of African countries not notable? Here's another source confirming a pass of WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. Government minister of a de facto independent state in Africa, coverage is slim for anything to do with Somaliland, but there are some relevant hits on a search for "Saeed Sulub", and lots of material in Somali for his name, "Siciid Sulub Maxamed". Warofdreams talk 12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's to keep? Someone should at least make an effort to write an article. There are no bones to pick at. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:51, 6 July 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. — Cirt (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Amazing Spider-Man comics[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete This amounts to an index of the issues of a single comic book title across multiple volumes. While the title character, the publication, and some of the story arcs are notable in their own right, that does not extend to an index of 600+ issues. J Greb (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All points listed under index does not show article is in violation. This falls in line with other wiki pages showing list of episodes for television programming when the list becomes extremely unwieldy to be listed on the main page. Comic listing is neat and can be cited. The page may need revision, but deletion does not appear to be the best or correct option.MichaelJPierce (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite an episode list for a soap opera? Since that's the closest you are going to get to finding a show with anything near this many entries. - J Greb (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing where each one of his villains first appeared, those villains all notable enough to have their own article, is notable. Every Spider-Man comic or story arc gets news coverage these days. Dream Focus 01:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both sides have made good points, so for right now I have to agree with both sides and not really "vote" for either side. However, I would point out that the summaries of more recent issues have gotten excessively long and need to be shortened to the length of the earlier issues to be in line with list articles about television show episodes. Spidey104 06:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things...

@Dream Focus:
- Listing foes first appearances can and sgould be handle on List of Spider-Man enemies. A partial list, as not all those characters originated in The Amazing Spider-Man, in and of itself is not notable and is INDISCRIMINATE|indiscriminate.
- Current coverage of the title does not imply notability to older issues. Coverage of other titles is irrelevant.
- Listing issues involved in story arcs, self contained or cross over, is appropriate in the articles on those notable stories. That notability does not extend to all issues. And presenting sections of crossover is as indiscriminate as the partial villain's first appearances list.
@Spidey104: There is a definate skew towards the recent and to plot dumping. If the premise is held that this type of article mirrors episode lists, and based on the criteria used for those articles this lacks secondary sources establishing notability for the list and any real world context, then i cap on the summary is needed. I'd say a good cap would be ~250 characters or 150-200 words.

- J Greb (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it's clear that the recent sections of the article need to be edited to remove plot dumping (and I'd be for something closer to a 20-30 word cap on plots), this article is clearly in the vein of episode lists rather than directories. I personally don't see a problem with a list of 600+ issues listed as long as it's succinct, accurate and complete; it's not like every issue is given it's own separate page (unlike episodes of, say, Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Lost). NYArtsnWords (talk) 03:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or all 486 episodes of The Simpsons having their own articles. Spidey104 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 05:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber Music Charleston[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reasoning was (and still is) I can find no reliable sources outside of the local area, so this group fails WP:ORG. Article contains no independent significant coverage in reliable sources (only links to other such organizations, which isn't coverage) and I was not able to find any to establish the notability of this organization. ArcAngel (talk) ) 00:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Page has been improved with references to articles related to Chamber Music Charleston in the Charlotte Observer, Charleston City Paper, wdav.org (classical radio station in Davidson, NC), etc. If this is the correct direction, we can add other references to print and online media in and outside of Charleston, SC. We appreciate any recommendations that can be made to allow this page to remain in Wikipedia. Thank you.Buttercat09 (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup: the topic appears to have garnered "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", but appears to consist currently of mostly lists (with ugly one-cite-per-list-member sourcing) of collaborating organisations, performances, associated orchestras, and titles of "activities". Such material is neither particularly easy to read, nor particularly informative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although mostly local coverage, this non-profit organization does get coverage for its various events. Dream Focus 20:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This organization has received verifiable and independent criticism and coverage from both local and respected national media. The organization is active both in Charleston and outside the area and, from links referenced in the article, appears to be a growing and fiscally healthy arts organization at a time when even historically successful organizations within the same area are struggling.Sweetgrass2011 (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC) — Sweetgrass2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Coverage is entirely local -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the majority of the coverage this organization has received is from independent local sources, it is undeniable that the cited awards received from recognized organizations in California and Berlin, as well as news articles from Charlotte, NC and Florence, SC fall well beyond the "local" definition. What constitutes "notable" may be debated. Even as a new user to Wikipedia I think there is some confusion between "notable" and "sensational." The past several years have undeniably been enormous struggles for performing arts nonprofits and there has been much more visibility in the press for sensationalistic bankruptcies, labor struggles, and deaths than organizations which have gone about their business with elegance and fiscal responsibility. Does Wikipedia's definition of "notable" wish to highlight primarily the organizations which receive significant coverage via one-time catastrophic events or the more realistic press received for modest and ongoing contributions to our society?Sweetgrass2011 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Now with good inline citations, and demonstrated notability. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:27, 7 July 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.