Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 July 20 July >

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. causa sui (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fly_(programming_language)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Fly_(programming_language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

At its simplest, the wikipedia page has more information than the user's webpage. Furthermore, the only pertinent link on the entire page goes to the user's personal webserver (no URL, just an IP). This, combined with no visible work on the language itself suggests a real lack of notability. No amount of improvement to the wiki-page will suffice when there is a lack of information in existence. Gundato (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only Citation/reference for the language that isn't broken is NOT actually related to the language in the article. Moreover, The only page related to the work itself is the author's home server. Also, I'm inclined to think that the language doesn't actually exist considering I can find no reference code or compiler. There doesn't seem to be anything at all. I also feel the syntax bears a striking resemblance to cool (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_(programming_language) which is a language used to teach CS students about compilers. Given this, my guess is that the language is more or less the authors first experience creating a language and he created the wiki article to go along with that (the author did create the article if you check the history). In general, there is a complete lack of notability. snaphat (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, that's a whole lot of guesswork, all of it wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.181 (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny that you should mention Cool, since Cool's wikipedia entry only contains references to material produces by the language project, nothing third party. Why isn't that removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.181 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you feel an article should not be on Wikipedia, either improve it, or nominate it (Believe it or not, but I did do a thorough search in an attempt to find any way to have this article be considered notable. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, there appears to be no work done on this project, only a single person on the project itself, and no references that can be used to mark this as notable). Also, there are only a finite number of editors on Wikipedia. And the number of editors are considerably smaller than the number of people who wish to make a wikipedia article for every web page they like. As such, Wiki made very concrete rules regarding notability and the like. You look at the rules to see if an article is notable, not its neighbors. Either way, please try to be civil. Gundato (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In regard to COOL: The 1996 paper published to ACM SIGPLAN Notices is referenced by 26 other scholarly works. Many of those would qualify as 3rd party references on Wikipedia. Moreover, the publication (and many others citing the particular work) are published to ACM special interest groups which are highly regarded as top of the line conferences/journals in the field. Simply because the wiki article itself is lacking references, does not make the language un-notable. Feel free to add references if you wish. snaphat (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: I just removed all unrelated citations/references. They look to be an attempt to simply make the article look notable. snaphat (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the author of the language (and the wikipedia entry). I can assure you the Fly language is real enough :) It will be featured in the LLVM release notes for 3.0. The "home server" is not a home server, there's just no domain for it. Updated wikipedia page, so that the google code project page is linked instead. The cited papers are very much relevant, but should be external links I suppose, instead of references (?). The "striking resemblance" to Cool is no more striking than C#'s resemblance to Java. All modern OO languages share similar syntax. That said, Fly isn't even close to Cool semantically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are still generic references that don't have anything specific to do with your language. As Andy said, notability depends on 3rd party sources. To be a source, it should actually reference your work. If the LLVM release notes do mention it, that will count as one source. I am not familiar with Wiki's policies, but as it stands, zero (third party) sources is definitely not enough. I understand that you are excited to work on your own project, but if everyone with a website and a passing knowledge of Wiki's mark-up made pages for their work, Wiki would be a LOT bigger than it currently is. That is why notability is an issue. Gundato (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence, I am advocating making them external links, since they're very much relevant. "My" project is an open source project, using a free license, just like [Pure], for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is great. But the fact of the matter is, you still don't have any third-party sources. That is the big issue for notability, as Andy mentioned. The issue isn't that you don't have enough citations. It is that not enough people cited you. Whether or not you (or myself) agree, Wiki's policy for notability is "Is this cited by a bunch of third party sources?". That is the issue. Not "Does this cite a bunch of third party sources?". And as far as Pure goes, that probably also should be deleted (it seems to have no third party references), but I'll let a different person nominate that. Gundato (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I know what notability means. The language is discussed at various mailing lists, irc, etc. And I'm happy to provide source code for the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.213.71 (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I actually don't think you do know what Wikipedia's definition of notability is. WP:N is a good start. Discussion on mailing lists and IRC are nice, but can you actually cite them? I am sure you can understand why the honor system probably wouldn't work in this case. Furthermore, are these independent sources as in Wikipedia:Independent_sources? Or are they posts on mailing lists from the creator of the language (this includes those that are responses to the creator as well)? And the source code won't be a third-party reference by virtue of having been written by the creator of the project (I would hope). This isn't a question of whether or not work exists. This appearing to be just another unstarted project on a sourceforge/google-projects site isn't the issue here. It is the lack of notability. And again, that is Wikipedia's definition of notability. Gundato (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N entirely. LiteralKa (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete currently fails WP:RS and name makes it very hard to find references using google etc. Author appears unable or unwilling to supply independent WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not unwilling. There simply aren't any yet.
  • Delete I agree my article doesn't meet notability guidelines. There will soon be third party citations, though. Will it be possible to restore the page if it gets deleted now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you have an account and ask for it, the article can be userified, i.e. removed from the main namespace and copied to the user namespace where you can work on it. I suggest that doign this would be a good way to resolve this impass. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paper on the way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.14.125.220 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The above IP is the same IP as fly language's home page mentioned by the OP of the AfD (it was changed to the googlecode page a few edits ago). It is actually a range owned by a hosting company called eboundhost.com. I checked this out a few days ago after the author mentioned that the IP wasn't a residential/home server. snaphat (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability depends on 3rd party references. A citation for the authors' own paper(s). won't help the article meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. snaphat (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Correct, posted from the Fly projects server (formerly fly.openwing.org - still searchable). While not the language author, I work on the project in various ways, mostly documentation. I suppose the GIT and wiki will be opened to a lot of other people too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.214.12 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note My take as project member... there's a lot of stuff going on, and there will be citations shortly. I agree that the page can be removed, but what's the point if there soon will be citable material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.9.212.120 (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, please encourage all users on your project to register accounts. As it stands, the simple fact that your project web-page lists a single user and all of these are IPs that are, by and large, associated with your own (and have no other edits) suggests Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry. And either way, by definition they are all meatpuppets. Regardless, if you get a publication, great (I am not sure if a publication written by the creator counts for notability, I'll let someone else figure that out), but that will be a ways out. You have had approximately 2 years to achieve some degree of notability with this, and you have failed. So, as was suggested, move this to your user-space (and attempt a restore once you can achieve notability). But the article itself is a pretty clear case for deletion in its current state. Gundato (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify' to the account that created the page. The creator appears to be in agreement (see above). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not-notable. I'll doubt the paper that is on its way would pass our standards for reliable sources (i.e. having been published in a peer-review journal), but if that turns out to be the case this can be taken to WP:DRV later. Wikipedia is not a webhost, so don't userify. —Ruud 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the article creator, I absolutely don't care if it's deleted or userified as long as it's possible to reintroduce the article with notable references, once that's in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As Ruud has pointed out, Wikipedia is not a web host. The article has existed for over 2 years without any coverage in reliable sources, and quite frankly, I don't see that one published paper in the future will do the trick. I don't see that userfication as a good outcome in this instance. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment As I pointed out, I don't care, as long as the article can be reintroduced with notable references. I wonder how many times it must be repeated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, if at some point in the future there exists multiple independent sources discussing Fly in a non-trival fashion you can request the article to be undeleted (but note the adjectives, they are important). —Ruud 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article is clearly about a DIY project. Even if the language is fully realized at some point, it still would not be noteworthy without acceptance and use by the general public. --Djohns21 (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What's the point discussing this anymore? Even the article owner want the page removed - I've got assurances that the page can be reintroduced with notable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flylanguage (talk • contribs) 11:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One suggestion: If you are truly okay with this being deleted, change your votes to delete to speed up the process. As long as this discussion is open, people will comment and discuss it. If there is a unanimous decision to delete (and, while you don't own anything on wiki, having the only person who is opposed to deletion change his mind will help), it will likely speed up the process. Gundato (talk) 12:34, 26 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 15:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Darkside Vol. 2

[edit]
The Darkside Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Upcoming release with no sources and nothing of significance found. Seems more like speculation at this point. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 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, Courcelles 23:42, 19 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. This result does not preclude merging or redirecting, for which there was no clear consensus. However, the clear consensus is not to delete. causa sui (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scuffler

[edit]
Scuffler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A scuffler is a kind of horse drawn hoe [1] [2], for which use I can find a dozen references. Never heard of this term for a bread cake , and cannot find any reliable sources refering to it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Verifiable or not, Wikipedia isn't the place for dictionary definitions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. For a start here is a reliable source which mentions it. Doing a search for the term, and omitting key phrases from our article to defeat people who stole it with no credit, finds plenty of references to it. Some are more reliable than others, but the BL mentioning it clinches it for me as I hope/assume that they do not do their research on Wikipedia. The "dictionary definition" argument is fair enough, but surely it just means that it is a stub which should be expanded if possible, not an article that needs deleting immediately. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or Merge if no descriptive WP:RS can be found. I'm quite happy to concede that all the menus etc - which a careful search will find - don't necessarily constitute encyclopaedic evidence. So if research (which I'm not willing to undertake, I have to add) doesn't produce anything or isn't done then fine. If it's merged then the history is still there and if a bread expert (!) wants to rescue it with good refs sometime in the future, then great. The only outcome that I think would certainly be undesirable would be to delete it - I really cannot see a credible argument for this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DBaK. NtheP (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not in Oxford English Dictionary in this sense.PamD (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it depends whether the "Scuffler" is a distinctive type of bread-roll, or just a distinctive word for a bread-roll. The BL ref only verifies the latter. Can someone find a WP:RS for the existence of a distinctive type of bread-roll called a Scuffler? If so, then keep. PamD (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need reliable sources which feature it, not reliable sources which mention it's existence. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes maybe, but there's a bit of goalpost-shifting going on here. The original nom said they couldn't find an RS referring to it. I found one with almost no searching at all. I haven't got some passionate desire to keep this article but I did think it was quite poor that this claim could be made on what must have been almost no research. I was more impressed with the editor who changed their !vote once they had seen that there was at least one RS which mentioned its existence. The current nom is greatly weakened by its initial inaccuracy - it would be much stronger if it was put together clearly and correctly. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bread roll#Various forms. Having looked at the bread rolls article, this is the obvious home for descriptions of local versions of bread roll. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:52, 24 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) 23:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo of Aramaic Tongues / Le Royaume Maudit

[edit]
Hobo of Aramaic Tongues / Le Royaume Maudit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no independent notability shown for this limited edition split ep. no charting or awards. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 5 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) 00:56, 12 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:30, 19 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 (CSD G-7: Author blanked) by Athaenara (talk · contribs)

The E.T.T.

[edit]
The E.T.T. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article on an alleged Disney Channel series. A Google and IMDb search on "The ETT" and "The E.T.T.", as well as on the actors purported to be starring in this series, turned up nothing to corroborate the existence of this series. At worst a hoax, at best a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Prod removed without comment. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:41, 19 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theophilus London

[edit]
Theophilus London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 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 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Landau Eugene Murphy

[edit]
Landau Eugene Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer of limited notability outside the current season of America's Got Talent - no significant claims outside the show. Tried redirecting to America's Got Talent (season 6), but an editor constantly reverted, so going this route to gain a wider consensus for the redirect. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with redirect to main page as per ALL the others - We generally only have articles for Hosts - Judges - Winners - Runners-upMoxy (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless / until they're independently notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 24 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mac D'Alessandro

[edit]
Mac D'Alessandro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)As[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Frick

[edit]
Vaughn Frick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BIO as secondary coverage is non-existent; in fact, the page reads like the subject himself wrote it; and in the edit history, the subject himself wonders why a page is being made for him and adds details from his resume without references. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 21 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 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Hall (footballer born 1981)

[edit]
Danny Hall (footballer born 1981) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this player meets either WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The appearance for Coventry City attributed to him on Soccerbase should have been attributed to Marcus Hall, as per [3] and [4] Jcarls1 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Randle McMurphy

[edit]
Randle McMurphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Character biography presents no additional plot/fictional biography information or criteria proving notability that isn't already covered in the plot sections of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film).

In other media section lists actors portraying the character in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (play) and trivial mentions about two songs. Actors portraying the character on stage can be merged into the article about the stage adaptation. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 12 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, Courcelles 20:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we all like the citation of sources here at AfD HERE'S AN ARTICLE by the chairman of the English Dept. of Boise State University which delves into character analysis of Ratched and McMurphy. These are, in short, iconic characters of modern American fiction who have trickled from the high culture of Kesey's work to popular culture. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 25 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. Courcelles 22:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Gotta Know

[edit]
I Gotta Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a joke? How on earth does this pass WP:NSONGS or even WP:GNG. no info here at all... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And where would 'Elvis Presely' be a notability criteria under WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG? Heck even Michael Jackson is not considered a notability criteria. NSONGS specificially says independent articles should only be created where there is detailed information from reliable third party sources. Here there is None. It has purely been created for the purpose of filling in gaps in a list/template. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, if you are to build an encyclopedia based on rules. But the proof in the notability generally is already existent by conducting a google book search. Not to mention that Elvis is the King of popular music so should be inherently notable. I believe most Elvis songs to be notable, just like the Beatles song are generally all notable. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has been expanded and references have been added so that I believe that notability has now been established. While researching it, I ran across a different song of the same name, and wrote an article I Gotta Know (Wanda Jackson song). At first, I thought it was the same song because Wanda Jackson was closely associated with Elvis Presley, but I listened to both songs, and they are clearly different songs. Now, Wanda Jackson is closely associated with Elvis Costello, so it is best to be careful about such things. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent Job Cullen.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I'm calling for SNOW. One might say that, ahem, the first stub version was, well, you know, a bit meager, but a small helping of WP:BEFORE would be advisable. In other words, this wasn't a very good nomination. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 21 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. causa sui (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Hear A Sweet Voice Calling

[edit]
I Hear A Sweet Voice Calling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a joke? How on earth does this pass WP:NSONGS or even WP:GNG. no info here at all... — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "How on earth does this pass WP:NSONGS or even WP:GNG.?" This is wiki pedia. Articles can suddenly dramatically have content within minutes. If we spent a bit researching our stubs before taking everything at face value me might build a better and more productive encyclopedia. Yes, should have been started with more info and sources but somebody had to start them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 21 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. causa sui (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lewontin's Fallacy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lewontin's Fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a long and convoluted history, perhaps unsurprising given that it relates to several controversial subjects, but it seems to me that one fundamental question about the article has never been satisfactorily answered: does an article about a single paper written as a response to another meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Clearly there are some single papers that might merit an article: Watson and Crick's Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid is an obvious example. However, in relation to this paper, the evidence that it has had much real effect on the debates regarding 'racial categories' seems sparse. The debate has moved on since Lewontin's work, and Edward's response, and neither position can be considered to represent the current consensus (in as much as any consensus exists). To give a single paper in an ongoing debate an article of its own seems to be applying undue weight - and as has been acknowledged on the article talk page it is inherently liable to breach WP:NPOV (as the present title self-evidently does, thought to be fair to those supporting the present article, this has been acknowledged, and alternate suggestions have been offered). One could respond that the solution to this would be to find counterarguments to Edwards, but this will inevitably lead back to the context of the general debate, of which Lewontin's work, and Edward's response was but a small part. No doubt some of the existing content would be suitable for merger into related articles, though I suspect that the topic is already adequately discussed in most cases, but for the rest, I suggest that deletion is the best way forward - Wikipedia does not need an article on a not particularly noteworthy single episode of an ongoing debate - particularly one which by its very subject is inherently skewed from NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The paper seems to have had significant impact as the issue is referred to as Lewontin's Fallacy in numerous books about genetics and race - see the search links above. Warden (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, Google books returned 68 results. Google Scolar gave 34. Whether this could be described as 'numerous' is I suppose a matter for debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (but where?) It seems logical that a paper giving a polemic and critical treatment of another paper is best treated together with the larger issue at stake than on it's own. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the results of Google searches, Edwards' article is clearly notable, and the term "Lewontin's Fallacy" is widely used to refer to the argument expounded therein; see e.g.  • Armand Marie Leroi (March 14, 2005), "A Family Tree in Every Gene", The New York Times  • Chetan Batt (2010), "The spirit lives on: races and disciplines", in John Solomos and Patricia Hill Collins (ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Race and Ethnic Studies, SAGE Publications, p. 115, ISBN 978-0-7619-4220-7  • Jonathan Marks (2010), "Ten facts about human variation", in Michael P. Muehlenbein (ed.), Human Evolutionary Biology, Cambridge University Press, p. 270, ISBN 978-0-521-70510-3 • Jonathan Michael Kaplan (January 17, 2011), "'Race': what biology can tell us about a social construct", Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, John Wiley, doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0005857. And so on.  --Lambiam 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually "Lewontin's Fallacy" does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in the Leroi NYT article, and Edwards is only mentioned once. So the topic may be covered, but the Edwards article is not. Do any of the other articles you mentioned specifically discuss the Edwards article? Guettarda (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      There can be little doubt that Leroi's article presents (and agrees with) Edwards' argument as put forward in the latter's article in BioEssays, but indeed, instead of calling the alleged weakness in Lewontin's argument his fallacy, it calls it "His error". The other references I gave refer to it specifically as "Lewontin's Fallacy".  --Lambiam 22:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change in which the Fallacy is proposed has 2700 cites on Google Scholar plus much further discussion so it seems to be of sufficient interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Isn't that an argument for having an article about Lewontin's book, rather than Edward's response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be good to have material about both and the nature of the issue, which the present article does a fairly good job of. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The 'issue' is ongoing, and yes it needs proper coverage in Wikipedia - though this is difficult, given the controversial nature of the debate, and the fact that much of it isn't just about abstract 'science', but also about the politics of particular societies (notably the US, where this debate seems to get the most interest) - but is this particular episode that notable? And should we use a snapshot of a particular past debate as a starting point for an article on the subject? I think not. Articles should be about topics, not single events in an ongoing debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand the matter, Lewontin put up a half-baked questionable mathematical argument to advance a view with significant ideological and cultural consequences, and a real statistician showed that the mathematics he used was wrong because it ignored correlations. The incident is a paradigm of bodgy science being exposed by correct science in an area where the stakes are high (also think climate science). For this reason at least, the issue is important enough for its own article. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Surely if this was the case, we should be able to write a reliably sourced article on the topic the distribution of genetic diversity within and between populations, rather than a very poorly sourced article about a single article by Edwards? By the way, is it really appropriate to call Lewontin's work "half-baked"? Surely there are BLP implications about making such bald, unattributed accusations of professional incompetence about a living person. Guettarda (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have redacted, but there seems to be no argument among the mathematicians. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
We already have Race and genetics, though that article is a dog's breakfast in my opinion... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree there. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I have no idea why you mention Race and genetics; that article deals only briefly with the subject of the nominated article. Meanwhile a neutral title such as I propose would remove all of your objections to the article. 1) You say the article is about a single paper: Although the present title references a single paper, in fact the present article is about both Lewontin’s and Edwards’ theories. A title like I propose recognizes that fact. 2) You say the article does not cover work since Edwards, but a title like I propose expands the subject to include any current consensus. 3) You say the article is inherently POV: The present title is POV, but a neutral title is possible. —teb728 t c 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled. In what way is an academic paper by a Cambridge scientist not a "properly recognized encyclopedic topic"? Is there some policy reason for this claim, or is it just WP:IDONTLIKEIT? 212.183.140.45 (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC): trolling by ipsock of community/ArbCom banned editor Mikemikev[reply]
The topic - the question as to whether 'race' can be correlated with genetic diversity - is clearly encyclopaedic. As far as I'm aware, nobody has suggested otherwise. The question is whether this particular episode in the debate meets Wikipedia notability requirements, and is better treated as a separate article than as part of the general debate. Given that the debate has moved on, and that the article is inherently prone to breach WP:NPOV, I suggested that it isn't. And no, there is no automatic 'notability' attached to scientific papers. This one has probably attracted more attention than many, but that doesn't mean we need to treat it as notable in its own right: indeed, it is only 'notable' at all in that it is a part of the broader debate. We don't have an article on Lewontin's original argument, and we don't have individual articles on other more recent work - why (other than a catchy title) should this be treated differently? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. It's difficult to figure out how to evaluate single articles in the literature, but I think the closest guideline would be WP:NBOOK.
1. The book has been the subject[ of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. - of the seven cited references, the only one that discusses the Edwards paper at any length is Sesardic, who says

To think otherwise is to commit a statistical mistake that has recently been labeled ‘‘Lewontin’s fallacy’’ (see Edwards 2003). An argument that is due to Lewontin and that has been uncritically accepted by almost all philosophers is that racial classification is of virtually no genetic or biological significance just because the genetic differences between the races on a number of arbitrarily selected loci are typically found to be swamped by the corresponding within-race differences. But as Edwards has shown, Lewontin completely ignored the aggregation effect of these inter-group differences in allele frequencies on different loci, which could (and arguably does) support a racial taxonomy—without a need for a very big average variation between the races on a locus-by-locus basis. Even with Lewontin’s condition satisfied (i.e., the within-group variation being much larger than the between-group variation), a clear group structure can still emerge on the basis of these aggregate properties of populations. It should be emphasized that Lewontin’s fallacy was exposed long before Edwards’ article in 2003. An especially clear explanation is given in Mitton (1977) and (1978), the articles that somehow missed the attention of most scholars, including Edwards himself (personal communication). [Emphasis added]

I have italicised the bits where Sesardic talks about the paper. The rest of it is a discussion of Lewontin and what's wrong with his argument, an idea which, he points out, pre-dates the Edwards paper. The Edwards article has been fairly widely cited, certainly, but citations of the article are not the same as coverage of the article.
2. The book has won a major literary award. - Change that to "scientific award", and we still have nothing.
3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. - change that to "field of scientific inquiry" and we still have nothing. Sure, it is fairly well cited (52 cites on ISI Web of Science) but that's not supported by secondary sources.
4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country - not as far as I can tell.
5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. - not the case; anyway, this probably wouldn't translate well to a single article.
The other major problem that the article has is that it is almost entirely WP:SYNTH. Most of the references come from sources that do not actually discuss the Edwards article, but rather, Lewontin's. That's not to say that the Edwards article doesn't have useful information, but our article shouldn't exist. Guettarda (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources provided so far show "a significant amount of discussion within the academic field" or definite "notability". That seems to be unsourced personal opinion. Mathsci (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the paper is cited so much is the discussion of it. And how do these sources not provide notability? They are significant discussion about the paper. It is not personal opinion when there are sources that are discussing it fairly extensively, especially when it is discussed in college textbooks. SilverserenC 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. You have provided no sources so far which discuss it "fairly extensively." Citations are no evidence of that. The article is an unnecessary fork. Mathsci (talk) 21:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, hello? The sources right above that I linked. Are you just ignoring them or what? SilverserenC 21:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not sources about the topic, but only give it passing mention. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously saying that in The SAGE Handbook, four whole paragraphs, indeed an entire section titled "Race and Mathematics" is a passing mention? You guys are really stretching it here. You must want this deleted really badly. SilverserenC 22:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That particular reference describes Lewontin's argument as "celebrated"; they mention the assumptions of independence underlying Edwards' claims and point out evidence supporting Lewontin's argument. The book by Dawkins is a popular book written for a general audience. Lewontin's original argument is given more coverage in scholarly texts, even undergraduate texts on psychology, yet has no separate article. The argument about citations would justify a wikipedia article on an unlimited number of academic papers. Usually academic papers, even those of much greater merit, are discussed in articles on a suitably wider subject, as I think should be the case here. This paper is distinguished by a catchy and provocative title. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The non-existence of an article on Lewontin's paper is not valid in relation to this paper. That just means that no one has made an article on it yet and, since it does seem to be so celebrated, it likely deserves one. The title of the article is the title that the paper is commonly given. It being "catchy" is unimportant, the title is what it is. It is the correct title. As for your academic papers argument, you are refuted by the existence of Category:Academic journal articles. SilverserenC 22:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite valid. The main topic of most of the references you give is clearly "Lewontin's argument" which should be an article that included both the argument as well as supporting and opposing arguments. The current article is a POV fork (albeit not forked fromanother article but clearly created as a part of a POV agenda) that attemts to make the "fallacy" argument look more prominent than it is in the sources, by focusing on the counter argument rather than on the supporting arguments. Keeping this article separate is misleading to readers and damaging to wikipedia's credibility - the enitre topic has to be treated together.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keeping this article separate is misleading to readers and damaging to wikipedia's credibility" Wait, what? Why would this article focus on the supporting arguments of Lewontin's argument when it is about the counter-argument within the Lewontin's Fallacy paper? This article is focusing on Edwards' paper, as it should and as it is discussed. It should give some info about Lewontin's argument for background so it is known what is being countered with this paper, but the article certainly shouldn't be focused on Lewontin's argument and not Edwards' counter-argument. SilverserenC 22:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence seems to have one negation too many, but which one should be struck?.  --Lambiam 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the discussion results in the article being kept, with as topic the argument contra Lewontin as given in Edwards' paper, then, in keeping our NPOV policy, it ought to also present the critical reception of that argument as found in reliable sources. It may be the case that the present version is lacking in that respect, but that is repairable and not by itself a ground for deletion.  --Lambiam 12:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing for deletion but for merging to another article where the entire topic and not just the Lewontin critical perspective can be described. Naming the article "Lewontin's fallacy" assumes that it is in fact a fallacy, a topic which is still topic of academic discussion, a more neutral title encompassing all views is necessary er NPOV, this could be achieved throguh a move or a merge with one of the already existing articles on cosely related topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...And it then follows logically that any responses to the 'critical reception' should also be included, to maintain NPOV. Ultimately, we'd have to include everything of significance in the debate from the time of Edwards' paper - except that Edwards apparently wasn't the first to point out the (supposed) 'fallacy' in any case. No, if we are to maintain NPOV about a debate that pre-dates both Lewontin and Edwards, and has moved on since either contribution, the only rational course is to discuss these particular contributions in the context of the wider debate - in a general article about the subject. Why keep an article that presents endless issues regarding NPOV when the entire subject can be better covered with a broader article? Are we more interested in having articles with catchy titles than articles that actually discuss the subject matter properly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edwards has no beef with the results of Lewontin (not Lewontwin) up to the conclusion, where the latter "translates" a statistical outcome, essentially a mathematical statement about a sample, into common human language, and assigns a non-mathematical interpretation to it. So, as far as the debate about Edwards contra Lewontin is concerned, it is about a quite specific and narrow point, and there is no need to drag all of the historical, emotionally charged debate about the concept of race into it. Somehow I also think that we do not need to report on all contributions to this quite specific debate, as long as all significant views are fairly represented.  --Lambiam 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks pretty likely that the article is not notable - no academic sources discuss the article as opposed to citing it - but that the fallacy is - numerous sources discussing it, including of course Edwards. Is there a valid vote for "Keep but only as an article about the fallacy itself"? 195.10.225.68 (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what you mean by 'the fallacy itself'? Lewontin wrote about a subject, Edwards wrote an article labelling Lewontin's argument as 'a fallacy'. Others have since argued over whether it is Lewontin or Edwards who was more correct, though neither position reflects current knowledge. We certainly can't have an article that uncritically supports Edwards position that Lewontin's argument was 'a fallacy' and maintain NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Current mainstream POV is that Dick knocked out a fallacy, as attested by several textbooks. Dicky Fallacy (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Mikemikev[reply]
BTW you know it's 'Lewontin' not 'Lewontwin'. I know knowing the subject is not a requirement, but really? Dicky Fallacy (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — confirmed sockpuppet of banned user Mikemikev[reply]
Ah, I see our pet troll has found a spelling mistake. Does this invalidate the AfD? Nope, I think not. I will however slap myself vigorously with a wet trout for my incompetence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename or merge into Race (classification of humans) or an appropriate other article. I don't know whether Lewontin's paper as such is notable, but judging by the article and this discussion, the issue it addresses is, namely, whether "race is an valid taxonomic construct", and the scientific debate around it. That issue merits coverage at an appropriate level of detail, either in an already-existing appropriate article (the main "Race" article is perhaps a bit long already) or in this dedicated subarticle. If it is retained, however, a more neutral title should probably be sought, because the current title implies a judgment about the merits of Lewontin's position (i.e., that it is fallacious, as Edwards asserts).  Sandstein  17:29, 19 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! 19:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly per Silverseren. WP:GNG is more than satisfied: the issue and the argument are clearly notable, as shown by being discussed and referenced in various books and sources. Using WP:NBOOK as a guideline is ridicolous, given that scientific papers are absolutely not books and not to be judged as such. Mathsci seems to argue that we should have another article about the original Lewontin article, but then WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion (if anything, it is a good argument to write that article). Now, it could possibly be that it has to be renamed, or content refocused (for example including better both sides of the debate to achieve NPOV), but these are content issues and as such they are not grounds for deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 16:01, 24 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. Concerns about sourcing and possible renaming do exist, however. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident Irish Republican Campaign 1998 - Present

[edit]
Dissident Irish Republican Campaign 1998 - Present (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete work of unsourced original research. No sources that refer to the periodic dissident violence from various quarters as a unified "campaign". Only exists in the head of its creator, I'm afraid. JonChappleTalk 19:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - from what I know of recent Northern Irish history, (enough), this article reads as factually correct. It is written from a neutral point of view and with what would seem a considerable degree of authority. The fact that it lacks referencing almost throughout is a considerable weakness but it's a young article - let it breathe. MarkDask 12:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this article stays, it needs urgent attention with the referencing. Normally I'm happy to let uncited articles hang around, but when it's such a sensitive and still divisive subject, we don't really want the article to be open to any allegations of bias of fabrication. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real and notable events; numerous sources can be found --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as far as I can tell, factually correct and definitely notable. However, calling it a 'campaign' without sourcing seems to constitue original research. Perhaps renaming is in order? Maethordaer (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems very likely to me that sources exist for this topic. I've tagged the article to the effect that they need to be added. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:37, 24 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.   -- Lear's Fool 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Populated place

[edit]
Populated place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub is nothing more than a definition used for the United States Geological Survey database purposes. It is most certainly not the only possible definition, is not notable by itself, and is a borderline dictdef. Re-writing this stub from scratch is not impossible, but in six years no one ever tried to, and it certainly isn't worth keeping in its present state.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 18:46 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the expression "populated place" is used on WP, including on a couple of categories on this article, having an article explaining what it is is probably useful. "Not a dictionary" is often ignored in cases like this. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanations of terminology Wikipedia uses do not belong in the article space, though. At the very least, this definition should be moved to WP space (which effectively means deletion), and even then consensus needs to be established that the USGN definition is the one Wikipedia standardizes on (which I am not so sure is the case). And what other cases where the "not a dictionary" guideline is intentionally ignored do you mean?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 20:12 (UTC)
  • Comment I wish I could simply argue that the term is useful, since I use it in the articles I write about places, to contrast it with a "locale" which is pretty much just a name attached to a piece of nowhere, but it's not a good AfD argument. I did add a bit showing that the term is used generally in the field of cartography. I'm looking for more information about the various uses of the term, but much of what I found is in obscure GIS works and they're a bit too scholarly for my brain to handle today. I think there is more information out there, though if it still ends up being merely a dicdef then deletion might make sense. Some dicdefs, however, can actually address many aspects of a term beyond its definition. Note that six years of not being expanded is not usually considered a valid reason for deletion. Valfontis (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Heavily used in WP, see Category:Populated places and the article gives a nice overview about the contents of that category. Additionally the term is a feature class defined by the USGS a scientific agency. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term forms an important distinction in the areas of Cartography, GIS, Census, Planning, ..., and a whole bunch of other areas I can't even think of right now. Although its a bit limited at the moment to the American definitions of what constitute a populated place, it should be possible to broaden it to a world view fairly easily. Haruth (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Used throughout this English language WP. Pointy deletion based dislike of the usage of the term regarding Russia. Result of special pleading to make Russia an exception. Hmains (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see good faith is just overflowing with this one!</sarcasm> Anyway, as Valfontis above rightfully pointed out, being useful is not a valid keep reason. If this article can be expanded to show notability of the term and properly sourced, fine. Otherwise, all we have is a stub about a field definition in a database used by a US government agency (and after the most recent expansion—a synthesized hodgepodge of barely related factoids). How's that a keep?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)
    Background at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19#Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not really background; that's where I noticed that the "populated place" article is disturbingly substandard to the point of being a dictdef and asked why. If we only keep it around because it is "useful", that's wrong.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 14:49 (UTC)
  • Keep, article is not so warm now but just does fog the mirror. If the term were not used authoritatively off-wiki, it should be a dead letter, but alas WP hasn't invented this term. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:09, 25 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. causa sui (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Hampel

[edit]
Lars Hampel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An American football player from Germany playing in the German Football League (GFL). According to WP:NSPORTS, "Players who play in minor or semi-professional leagues (such as af2) are not presumed notable unless they meet another criterion". At the List of leagues of American and Canadian football, the GFL is listed under minor and semi-professional leagues. For more info on the GFL, I found this Sports Illustrated article. He is mentioned in news articles, but the articles are about the team. The only thing that might be notable is he played in the 2011 IFAF World Cup. The United States national American football team first competed in 2007 and the could not have any professional football players. I'm not sure about the 2011 team. Bgwhite (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This year's tournament did feature a couple professional players, a couple players from Mexico played in the IFL and a good portion of Canada have CFL experience, including some who were cut in this season's training camp. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:17, 26 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. causa sui (talk) 03:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonnie Marbles

[edit]
Jonnie Marbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. One event. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 17:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much a textbook example of a passing mention. Cullen328 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too early to delete it, you can't say that he's only notable for one event and that said event is a passing one when it hasn't even been 24 hours since the event in question occurred. There are several cases where a person comes into the spotlight and stays in it, or where a notable event caused by them draws attention to lesser known ones. This guy was plastered all over international media, this isn't just a bio on someone from an obscure local newspaper. 174.114.87.236 (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact is that he wasn't at all notable 24 hours ago, and so shouldn't have a Wikipedia biography based on a single event, especially something that was really just a stunt. If this jumpstarts his career as a comedian (or whatever), and he gets ongoing coverage, the article can be recreated at that time. See WP:TOOSOON Cullen328 (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can’t justify deletion by saying that an event is passing when it hasn’t even passed yet. News happens, that he wasn’t notable 24 hours ago doesn’t change that he’s now notable. Now that the article is created only time can show whether it warrants deletion.174.114.87.236 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. I apologise. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He hasn't done anything except one pieing, and as a person isn't notable enough to have his own article. (IP because I have no Wikipedia account.) 86.182.169.180 (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone in the future stumbles upon a mention of Jonnie Marbles in a book or in a magazine article it might be very helpful to find out what the author was referring to. If, on the other hand, all mentions of his name disappear, one will be kept wondering what was being alluded to. Oclupak (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate for two weeks before releasing to article space without prejudice to a new AfD.  Claims that this topic fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEEVENT, or WP:BLP1E are WP:CRYSTAL.  Likewise, the keep !votes are premature.  A reason for incubating for two weeks is to allow time for the weekly news magazines to weigh in.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 25 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 will be using the salt shaker. Courcelles 22:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Grey

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Veronica Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about a self-published author of questionable notability. Many of the provided references either don't mention the subject or don't back up the claims made. Movie roles listed on IMDB are mostly background extra work. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT the page (maybe speedy delete per G4?) The page has been previously deleted twice. Here is the description of the previous page in the 2nd nomination:
Article is, in its previous form, little more than a promotional vehicle for a non-notable person who has appeared in a pilot and had a number of uncredited appearances. The only information that can be somewhat reliably gleaned comes from the IMDB, and it indicates non-notability. That she is a "modern day muse" and a "a trusted authority in the field of anti-aging and self help" (from that previous version) are unverified claims. I foresee some rebuttal that may be long on text but short on references; I urge contributors here to focus on the BLP mandate of providing reliable sources.
There appears to be more unsourced claims made in this article, and so because the article was not substantially improved after two previous deletions, this may be a candidate for speedy deletion. I'll wait to tag the page until consensus on this proposal is reached. If not speedy deletion, the page is a terrific failure to provide verifiability for a BLP. Finally, that ridiculous surfing picture on the page ought to read: Veronica ready to get deleted for the third time! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. Her roles in acting are not major and in fact mostly uncredited. Her books are self published with no indication of significant coverage or critical review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Rewrite the page and address the issues??? Is there anyway to re write or reword the article that can make it suitable for wikipedia? Also, two of the books are NOT self published and were published by others. She has been in several films, and her philantrhopy is significant as there are very few other people pursuing her kind of "self help" genre. Also... Many great people started out as being self published - Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, it's similar to independent film where Joe Favreau started out before directing Iron Man 2 and Cowboys and Aliens. - JTHockey08 7/22
    • Reply - The fundamental issue is one of notability. This requires coverage in independent reliable sources, and no amount of rewriting or editting of the article can address the lack of available sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply All of the sources listed are now independent. And the majority of novels referenced were externally published, and there are links to prove this. Veronica is notable in the literature industry, and despite her limited roles, she has been in several independent films in a leading or main supporting role. Her "limited" roles include supporting or extra roles on several prominent, A-list Hollywood films. Her literature is unlike any other artists ever. -JTHockey08contribs) 23:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - The sources are either insignificant or not reliable. I see no real improvement in the sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Her literature is unlike any other artists ever. Just saying her literature is really great is not really a good reason to keep this article, unless you can find third-party independent sources that describe it as such. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Well... there are independent third party sources praising her work - Spiritually Raw, and reviews from third party publisher websites. We are trying to get more third party sources supporting our case for notabilaity. Please give us some time. She is an entrepenuer and helps to manage some bands. Why is it so terrible to let her have a biography? We will do anything to make it a "non advertisement" and we are trying hard to make the notability issue solved. She is a writer and annst actress... there are some other less notable people on Wikipedia... -JTHockey08 — JTHockey08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Well... there are independent third party sources praising her work - Spiritually Raw, and reviews from third party publisher websites.
Spiritually Raw is a forum, and contains user-submitted content. Because it is user submitted, we can't really confirm whether it's independent. The publisher is also not independent as they have a financial interest in the book's sales.
Please give us some time.
Although there are no official deadlines on Wikipedia, we should delete, merge, or keep articles on topics based on their potential notability and verification, not just how they look now. The current article has issues, but more importantly, it has also been up for two deletion nominations already and deleted each time for pretty much the same reasons we are discussing now. The potential for Grey to meet the notability guidelines for authors or in general is not favorable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is an entrepenuer and helps to manage some bands. Why is it so terrible to let her have a biography?
It's not "terrible," it just doesn't follow the policies for notability that we try to support on Wikipedia. Also, being a certain type of person doesn't make someone notable automatically.
We will do anything to make it a "non advertisement" and we are trying hard to make the notability issue solved.
Again, there doesn't appear to be WP:POTENTIAL for this individual. However, if you find sources, please tell us about them here. Deletion discussions like this one usually last for a week, so you don't need to rush. I've removed my recommendation to speedily delete this page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She is a writer and annst actress...
She doesn't appear to fulfill WP:AUTHOR as I discussed already. As for being an actress, the current article doesn't have listed as acting in any TV shows or films. Only that she has been present at awards ceremonies (not receiving any) and comedy / running charity events.
there are some other less notable people on Wikipedia...
Whatever else is on Wikipedia is also user-generated content and sets no precedent for this current article. Please read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to understand why justifying an article with other articles on Wikipedia generally doesn't work in deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:01, 24 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.   -- Lear's Fool 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rubberecycle

[edit]
Rubberecycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks like it has a long list of references at first glance, but if you check them individually, a few are to indiscriminate business directories, a few are links to general EPA information on rubber, and (with one exception) the rest are press releases or reprints of press releases. The one exception is a link to a LA times article called 'Health concerns over Obamas' swing set mulch.' However, that article does mention that there are health concerns with the rubber mulch installed at the White House, but the Times does not mention the Rubberecycle by name or include any discussion of the company - it is purely about rubber mulch in general. As such, this company doesn't have 'significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources' and fails WP:CORP. MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:30, 19 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. causa sui (talk) 03:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Sorola

[edit]
Gus Sorola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no third party sources. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even buy "appeared in popular web videos and podcasts" as a claim to notability, but I'm sure there are others who disagree. Hairhorn (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on Red vs. Blue, but I do know it is a video series in its 9th season, some of its content was included with the release of Halo 3, DVDs of the seasons are sold at Game Stop, and they had a film in the Sundance Film Festival. It's not a traditional TV series to be sure, but to categorize Red vs. Blue as simply a "popular web video" doesn't seem objectively accurate to me. In my opinion, a notability claim here has a lot to do with this voice actor's prominence and role in the series, a question which I am not qualified to answer. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If he's notable, the coverage will be there. I see a lot of mentions, but little else. Hairhorn (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I very much agree. As I mentioned earlier, I did some work trying to uncover additional coverage of him and I could not find anything significant. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that makes this individual notable. And blogs are not considered reliable third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are tradionally seen as unreliable sources but in this case these sources provide sufficient notability in spite of their "blog" status. Many reliable sources such as CNN and The Guardian publish blog-like articles and yet their reliability is not questioned. This article easily meets the bare minimum threshold for notability. He is one of the chief founders of Rooster Teeth and continues to act, write, and participate in its on-going business ventures. WikifanBe nice 08:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the refs and the point about Penny Arcade only establish notability for Rooster Teeth, as far as I can tell. I don't see the individual notability. The fact that a reliable paper might have an attached blog does not magically make blogs a reliable source.Hairhorn (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources explicitly refer to Sorola, not simply Rooster Teeth. IMO the threshold for notability has been proven. WikifanBe nice 16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the issue is coverage in reliable, third party sources, which appear to be absent; thus the AFD nomination. Hairhorn (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue is verifiability. Gus Sorola is a notable figure and founder of Rooster Teeth, a leading machinima company. I've provided several sources that you dubiously dismissed as "blogs" though some were clearly not as defined by wikipedia policy. WikifanBe nice 20:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? The primary issue, as it says in the nomination, is notability, which the references you suggest don't seem to establish. Being attached to a successful company is not a good claim to individual notability. Hairhorn (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has also acted in over 20 Rooster Teeth shorts that have received millions of views both on youtube and the official website. Not sure how relevant that is here though. WikifanBe nice 07:03, 13 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:28, 19 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. There's no consensus to delete an article about a film that, if maybe a bit obscure, has apparently been the subject of some coverage in its country of origin.  Sandstein  05:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hymenée

[edit]
Hymenée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence anywhere of notability. I can find almost nothing about this play, except that it existed. The article gives no sources, unless we count an external link to IMDb. Apart from the fact that IMDb is not a reliable source, the entry gives nothing more than bare details (such as cast list and date of production) which would not establish notability even if it were in a reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The article originally said "drama", but I see it has been changed to "drama film". However, that makes no difference to whether it should be deleted or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fr:Émile Cousinet has a biographical source about the works of its creator : Mamolar, Françoise (june 2008). Éditions Bonne-Anse (ed.). Citizen Couzinet, Hollywood-sur-Gironde (in French). Vaux-sur-Mer. ISBN 978-2-916470-03-0. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |lire en ligne= (help)
  • Comment Hello, I take part to the French WP Cinema project. I am not aware of the notability/acceptance policy on this WP, but the film sure does exist. According to this site which indexes all cinema magazines in France, the movie appears in two occasions: one critical review in 1947 upon its release in one of the major magazines of the time (l'Ecran français), and in the complete movie directory covering 1945-1947 releases. So the movie is fairly unknown, and Cousinet (or Couzinet) is well known to have made unknown films (!!) and of rather lower quality, a kind of French Ed Wood (but maybe not that bad either). We do not have a page on this movie on the fr.WP yet, but my approach is to cover as many films as possible, and for sure all French productions (around 10,000 talkies). Regarding IMDb, according to my 15 year experience with it, its questionable reliability is not at stake here, and the related entry looks perfectly alright. So up to the en.WP to decide whether to delete this film or not, but I will definitely manage to have it under the fr.WP -- Vincent alias Fourvin 11:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The existence of the film is not questioned.
  2. You say "the movie is fairly unknown", which suggests a lack of notability.
  3. You say "my approach is to cover as many films as possible, and for sure all French productions (around 10,000 talkies)". However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information on just anything, and requires notability for inclusion. Just being a film does not guarantee notability.
  4. IMDb is not reliable, as anyone can edit contribute information to it. The fact that a Wikipedia editor thinks that the "entry looks perfectly alright" does not alter that. However, in my opinion a bigger drawback to using IMDb as evidence of notability is that it is indiscriminate, and includes entries on virtually anything at all connected with films or the film industry. That means that the existence of an IMDb entry is no indication at all of notability, even if the entry is totally accurate. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify User:JamesBWatson's point #4: No... not just "anyone" can edit IMDB. While it is true that anyone might submit information for their consideration, IMDB is edited only by their own database editors, with a claimed 70% of their staff dedicated to vetting information after submission.[10]. Their "unreliability" is seen in their not disclosing just what their vetting processes might be, so that we at Wikipedia might for ourselves determine their editorial oversight or fact-checking policy for its efectiveness. So while yes, much of what they offer is considered unrelaible, and while even they admit to not being perfect,[11] certain portions of their database are genrally accepted as reliable and there have been conversation in which these portions have been discussed (see failed proposal Wikipedia:Citing IMDb and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb). It has generally been accepted that the older the film, the more likely it is that the information concerning cast/crew/title has been so many times repeatedly vetted that it has the greatest chance of being accurate. While we do not give credence to IMDB trivia or user blogs, we do give credence to information that is attibuted to the WGA or other organizations where IMDB's information can be verified. Of course, and as JamesBWatson points out, this naturally results in our citing to that attributed source itself, rather than to IMDB. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is all true. It was careless of me to say "anyone can edit it", which is not really what I meant. However, I still think that the indiscriminate inclusion of almost anything is a more important drawback of IMDb than its questionable reliability. Information in IMDb is probably usually true, but inclusion is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: Simply being listed on IMDB imparts no notability. But as I stated above, the information contained therein can often lead to the sources we do accept... which is why while it may be "useful" enough for consideration as an EL to encourage our looking further, it is not as a citation. If someone says to me "It's on IMDB!", I will reply, "Nice. It screened someplace. Now use that information to find the better sources we require." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points, but on the other hand, since I have never seen a clear-cut definition of what is notable in WP and what is an actual encyclopedic material (caractère encyclopédique in French) , it is left to a part of subjective judgement. And the fact that a collection of items is complete and undescriminate does not bar it to appear in WP. Most of the Bristish PMs are unknown to 95% of fr.WP visitors, i.e. unnotable in my understanding, but I would expect to find them there. Same for the French movies on a encyclopedia in French! Now when it comes to the en.WP, I do not prejudice the decision, even though, with more than three million pages, you can expect to find a kind of coverage completeness on some popular domains such as movies -- Vincent alias Fourvin 15:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that you're looking for Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (films). In short, the article might lack significant coverage, since there's only one source at the time of this writing. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these references, I am not familiar with en.WP (yet? :o), and I will review them. But, in my opinion, it seems we are confronting yet another fuzzy concept with significant coverage! This is also another reason why I am keen on relying on exhaustive (and reasonable) collections with official recognitions (all French films must be delivered an official certificate known as visa d'exploitation) -- Vincent alias Fourvin 21:34, 14 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To summarize my position, there is no reason to delete this article: it is a "small" and "unnotable" movie indeed, but it is a registered French one (made after 1944, it has to be officially registered with the French Cinema Authority - CNC); it is accounted for by R. Chirat's directory of French films, which is THE reference index; its two major actors (Gaby Morlay and Maurice Escande), are notable; a poster can be found here. This may appear unsufficient and unnotable enough, but I do not subscribe to throw an actually existing movie in oblivion, as fas as en.WP is concerned. This is not what I expect from an encyclopedia. -- Vincent alias Fourvin 22:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has one good published source. I would suspect there is more on this film available in French. The article is weak now, but it has the potential to grow. No reason to kill this article that has been began well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fourvin's mention of French publications mentioning this film would suggest we should keep this article. For something to be notable it does not have to have been mentioned before in Egnlsih, any language can be used to support notablity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 27 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. After being moved and partially rewritten as Architects of the United States Forest Service, consensus has shifted towards keeping the article. The history contains a lot of problematic edit-warring between the two main participants in this discussion; this is worrying.  Sandstein  05:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Forest Service Architecture Group

[edit]
United States Forest Service Architecture Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: Article was moved during AFD discussion from "United States Forest Service Architecture Group" to "Architects of the United States Forest Service". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doncram (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 July 2011

Largely original research on a topic whose notability -- and even existence -- is dubious. The "group" that is the subject of this article seems to have been 5 people who once worked for the Forest Service's Pacific Northwest Region. The sources cited do not confirm that this group actually was a formal organization nor what its actual name was, much less indicate when it existed, what its mission was, where in the Pacific Northwest it had its office, etc. Sources consist of entries in a database attributing various properties to this "group" and one document that mentions the "group" twice, once as "Architecture Group" and once as "Architectural Group," and that names its 5 members. As discussed on the article talk page, efforts to find additional information have been unsuccessful. I think that a list of National Register listings attributed to US Forest Service personnel would be a worthwhile basis for a list article (and, indeed, when I saw this new article I tried to convert it to a list, but I got reverted), but the creator of this article is adamant that the "Architecture Group" is a notable topic for an article, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: Orlady has long tangled with me. Note Orlady agrees that there is a valid topic here. As discussed at Talk, I reversed Orlady's undiscussed move of article to "List of buildings and structures attributed to the United States Forest Service and its Architecture Group", which seemed like not the right title. An article about an architectural firm or design group can include a list of works; a rename can better be discussed in a Requested Move at the Talk page. I consider this AFD to be in bad faith. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To address one complaint, the Northwest Regional architect group was started in 1934, per this, part of larger online book about USFS Architecture. --doncram 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source says "In 1934, Regional Engineer Jim Frankland set up an architectural section headed by Tim Turner." That's hardly the same thing as the official formation of a USFS Architecture Group. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source also cites "The History of engineering in the Forest Service: (a compilation of history and memoirs, 1905-1989)", which seems to discuss Turner's department of 10 people. (I just figured out the full title from Google Books). That book is not available on line. I'm asking that we don't rush to delete until we've collectively done the research. —hike395 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources available are the National Register's NRIS database, and NRHP nomination documents such as offline one cited in Unity Ranger Station by editor Orygun, and such as online "Depression-Era Buildings" of OR and WA tr document. These are reliable sources already providing adequate documentation of existence of group. There will be more available too. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "More available" now includes an entire online book about USFS architecture, which would allow for development of this article to be about USFS level with subsections about regional variations, or which would support separate articles on regional groups and their works. --doncram 18:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow sorting out of a possible rename/reorganization at Talk page of article, where that was going on already.

The Northwest region architecture group, aka USDA Forest Svce. is identified in about 25 National Register NRIS database listings as the architect of record, reflecting collective design responsibility, as in architectural firms when an individual architect cannot be identified. This is echoed in other online sources derived from NRIS, which show up in Google searches. Also, one document, the "Depression-Era Buildings" of OR and WA document, provides characterization of design work of this one group as opposed to that of other Forest Service regional offices. As was being discussed at Talk page. There is adequate documentation of at least the Northwest Regional architecture group to establish its notability on its own, and to include list of its works, like for other architectural firm articles. It remains open whether one combined article should cover that group and also cover other groups, such as Region 2's group. Deletion of the article would remove useful history and development already, in article and Talk page; rename can be discussed there. --doncram 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The issue here is not whether the general topic of Forest Service architecture is significant or notable. You have made clear on the article talk page that this is an article about the USFS Architecture Group, not an article about USFS architecture. However, there is no solid evidence for the existence of such a group. There's even a nice online book about USFS Architecture, including a page about Tim Turner and a page about Linn Forrest (two of the architects who you say were in this supposed Architecture Group), but no indication that the USFS ever had an organization called "Architecture Group." (These appear to simply be architects who worked for the agency in different offices and capacities.) There is no evidence that the topic of this article existed. --Orlady (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care for Orlady's characterization here. There is a valid topic, or several of them. The exact name to use for an article about just the Northwest region's architecture group and its works is not obvious yet, and it is also not obvious yet whether there should be one combined article about all the USFS architecture and its regional variations, or separate articles. To assert that there is no topic seems silly. The AFD seems silly. --doncram 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I agree that there are serious notability issues with the article, but there's valuable material here that I don't think should be deleted (as per the advice of WP:FAILN). Let's try and work on the article longer: if after reorganizing, merging, or renaming the article, it still fails WP:N, then we can come back to AfD. —hike395 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is the valuable information that you think should be kept?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The material that you moved to the talk page: like Orlady, I think it can be transformed or merged into reasonable standalone list article(s) —hike395 (talk) 03:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I said it could be a list, but Doncram reverted my edits when I converted it to a list article; his comments on the talk page indicate that he is determined to prove that his proposed article topic about the "Architecture Group" is notable. At any rate, that list was a database dump from NRIS; it shouldn't be real hard to recreate it in the future, if desired. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with Orlady's characterization. Again, I reversed Orlady's move of the article to a title starting with "List of...", because it was undiscussed and because I think the particular name he/she chose is a bad one. An article can contain a list without having "List of..." type title. --doncram 15:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I consider that some of the most worrisome information, actually. When Doncram pulls a list from the database, all he's going by is the name -- he has no idea what the association with the name actually is. See John Ross, referred to below, for a particularly nasty instance of this going wrong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Going off-topic, this AFD is about Keep or Delete. But, the material to be kept or restored includes information so far developed about architects and style of the Northwest regional architect group and a list of its works that survive and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And edit history to be kept is all the edit history, including the identification of there being a notable topic (or several) here. And Talk page discussion. --doncram 18:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering that some of the items on that list aren't even credited to the Forest Service, never mind the Forest Service Architecture Group, I don't find that a compelling argument. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "some"? Given your comment, i look now at the removed list and see 2 items that possibly don't belong because they don't have "Forest Service" in the attribution name given: Sedona Ranger Station, Brewer Rd. S. of Hart Rd. Sedona AZ (USDA/USFS Standard Plans), NRHP-listed[1] and Shirley Field, Off US 80 Tallulah LA (USDA Delta Laboratory), NRHP-listed[1]. But the first one is a Ranger Station, so I suspect it does in fact belong, when information comes available. I appreciate your sharp eye, but the presence of one or two redlink items that eventually might get removed does not justify deletion of the article, and it does not undermine the value of having that specific list kept in edit history and talk page discussion. I think when I started this that i did a pretty exhaustive search of the 2009 version of NRIS database, finding overlapping and separate "USDA" hits as well as "Forest Service" ones, thereby ensuring a more complete list for consideration. --doncram 18:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right. You have no idea whether the items in that list actually relate to the subject of the article, you just pulled in everything you could.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wrong. I originally had a damn good idea that the architectural group or groups of the US Forest Service were worth a Wikipedia article, based on variations being among the most frequently credited architects of NRHP-listed places. Which turns out to be spot-on. I did not then know how exactly the USFS architectural work was split up into units or how its organization might have changed over time. I still don't know whether or not the "USDA Delta Laboratory" item was designed by a different group or whether one of these architectural groups did that one item. So sue me. Your sharp eye identifying outliers to question is truly appreciated by me, but wholesale deletion of article and wholesale removal of all of a large list, for sake of one or two questions, seems not helpful. --doncram 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • You shouldn't be starting articles before you have assembled enough information about the topic(s) to write coherent declarative sentences about the topic that you can back up with references to reliable sources. Why does this remind me of that article you started about an architect who did important work in both Grand Forks and Davenport, but turned out to be two completely different people? --Orlady (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a history of the architecture of the Forest Service which lists some of the architects involved. I haven't read through that entire document, though. I'm not sure if the architecture group is notable within a general context outside of the existing Forest Service articles. It seems to me that unless there was a cohesiveness of design and a sense that all of these architects worked together, the architecture group isn't notable as a standalone article. Compare this group to Office of the Supervising Architect, which supervised the design of a number of buildings of similar functions and design elements. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've skimmed parts of that online book. The Forest Service definitely has employed a number of architects in its history, but (as I noted above) that book does not indicate that there ever was an organization called the "Architecture Group." Most of the architects appear to have worked in Region offices. It appears that the first architect was hired in one of the Region offices in the 1920s. During the CCC years, some of the regions had several architectural professionals on staff. Apparently only one architect ever worked in the agency Washington headquarters, but he created a lot of standard plans used around the country. None of this indicates the existence of the organization described in this article. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cited reference makes it clear that one "Architecture Group" or "Architectural Group" (possibly the same as an "Architecture Group" or "Architectural Section") existed for the Pacific Northwest region, but as Hike395 pointed out, that doesn't necessarily constitute "significant coverage" under WP:GNG. It's not clear whether these were officially constituted or ad hoc groups; furthermore, some online searching suggests that other Forest Service regions also had "architectural sections," so "United States Forest Service Architecture Group" may be as ambiguous as saying "State Department of Transportation". Creating pages that conflate multiple entities through carelessness is not a good thing.
Right now, this is pretty much a textbook violation of WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." It isn't clear what the scope of the article should be, what location it should exist at, or how it should be adequately balanced. There is no point in writing this article, or any article, until those questions can be answered. Given that the information in the article is basically derivative of the linked NRIS document and could easily be re-created from it, I think it's safe to delete. Choess (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename. This is misinformation. There simply is no such organization as the United States Forest Service Architecture Group. This appears to be about one small section within one region. I will try to edit the article to make that clear. Station1 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**At this point, the article does not seem worth keeping. I recommend delete and restarting a new article. Something like Cascadian architecture style? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hike395 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 July 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have been reworking the article towards it being renamed to Architects of the United States Forest Service, with subsections Region 6, to which USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group redirects, and subsection Region 2 to which USDA Forest Service, Region 2 redirects. Orlady, perhaps not understanding, has seen fit to re-redirect the Region 6 item, which i then reverted. There are about 25 places specifically attributed to the Region 6 group by explicit name USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group. Go ahead, google that exact phrase, and you will see a lot of hits. It is, in practice, an alternative name of the Region 6 group, and it should redirect to the section of this combined article, or to a separate article on the Region 6 group if multiple articles are to be split out. --doncram 03:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Orlady fully understood your intent and was thoroughly convinced that you were wrong. "Svce." is a common abbreviation for "service," not a special blessed code word created by the Gods of the NRIS database to signify "Region 6." And the chance that anyone searching for USFS Region 2 would be expecting to find an architecture article is vanishingly slim; I retargeted that one to point to the "Regions" subsection of the USFS article. --Orlady (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per that and its nasty-toned edit summary, i stand corrected. Orlady was not accidentally being unreasonable, she was deliberately being so. There are in fact about 25 National Register places, covered in Wikipedia and in many other sources using National Register info, that refer to the Region 2 architect group by that exact name. There are no different uses of that exact name. Way to be obtuse about development of wikipedia, to prevent link from working properly to bring people to the relevant point. More evidence of silliness of the AFD in general. --doncram 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, SarekOfVulcan. Yes other editors are indeed welcome to edit, as the tag indicates and was meant by me. Elkman, the article is developing somewhat and I think it now establishes that there was "cohesiveness of design and a sense that all of these architects worked together", your condition stated above for whether an article on this topic is acceptable to you. Your !vote Keep would be appreciated. --doncram 19:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support move Article has come back: this would be useful to our readers if renamed instead of deleted —hike395 (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to avoid semantic difficulties with the name. It's clear to me that the U.S. Forest Service built a huge lot of interesting things over a relatively long period of time. Quite a few of those things seem likely to have featured in various media (travel and tourism media in particular) as well as the architecture trade press. That's notable. Pick a topic name that reflects that notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cbl62, Hike395, and Stuartyeates. I prefer the name to include "Architects", as in Architects of the U.S. Forest Service or Architects of the United States Forest Service, supporting focus in the article upon the individuals and groups of architects working together. That way it serves need in related articles to link to this article on the architects, where they mention the USDA Forest Service Architecture Group or variations as being the designer of a given place. --doncram 18:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on moving I am semi-boldly moving the article now, to support making DYK nomination at the title Architects of the United States Forest Service. The DYK will not be accepted until this AFD is closed, I presume, but I want to put in the nomination now. This move does not preclude a further move to a different title later, if a different consensus emerges in this AFD, but I would hope the DYK could be achieved first. --doncram 19:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Architecture of the U.S. Forest Service (or Buildings of the US Forest Service or similar title) - In focusing on the architects the article overly relies on "Inherited notability" - ie the idea that: If the buildings are notable, the architects must be notable as well. This idea has long been rejected at Wikipedia. What is needed are sources that discuss "the group". This is addressed at WP:GNG which says: Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. We appear to have sources on the buildings and their architecture, and perhaps some sources on some of the individual architects, but none on the architects as a group. Blueboar (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Architecture" would be an appropriate title and scope for an article, but "Architects" is not. Much of the Forest Service's architecture, particularly in the early years, was not designed by architects (for example, much was designed by draftsmen or the builders themselves) and, particularly in recent times, it was not designed by Forest Service personnel (this is clear, for example, from the report on LEED contracting that Doncram has been eager to include in the Further reading section). Furthermore, most of the individual architects who did work for the Forest Service were fairly anonymous civil-service employees, but their architecture is well documented. I note that my initial involvement with this article was an effort to repurpose it with a focus on the buildings rather than the alleged organization, and came to AfD after the article's creator insisted on an article about the organization. This AfD was started after seeing Doncram's reaction to my following comment on the talk page:
You have created an article about a small government organization that probably never existed under the name you have given it here, and about which you have only the slightest amount of information. I'm trying to decide between (1) moving this page to your user space, (2) taking it to AfD, or (3) simply slapping notability and original research templates on the article. You could, however, prevent any and all of these outcomes by voluntarily moving the page to your user space until you have obtained and documented some solid information on which to base an encyclopedic article on whatever topic turns out to be appropriate.
Doncram's reply (in part, that he resented my "butting in" and that "there is merit in starting an article about an architectural group of the U.S. government that is notable, just as there is for notable private architectural firms, and sooner is basically better than later") led me to start this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - another possibility would be to merge the information into National Forest Service (appropriate since presumably each of these people were employees of that agency). Or (perhaps even better) to split the information up... merging the bio information on the architects to the NFS article, and the information about the buildings to an article specifically about NFS buildings. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested merger into United States Forest Service would not be a wise idea. Buildings (historic or otherwise) are peripheral to the USFS mission, and detailed content about matters such as the architectural styles of 1930s ranger stations would overwhelm the article about the agency. --Orlady (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orlady: please don't merge this with United States Forest Service. There is far too much detail here. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE would work best: a paragraph in the main article, with a {{main}} pointing here. —hike395 (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
United States Forest Service is approaching the point where it's already had to have section promoted to their own ages (i.e. History of the United States Forest Service); merging substantial content in won't help.Stuartyeates (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents on naming. As noted above, I think either "Architects of ..." or "Architecture of ..." would be acceptable. I do lean slightly in favor of "Architecture of ... " This would cover the topic most broadly and allow for the fullest treatment of the topic. If the article becomes too big, then a split could be done at that time. Cbl62 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps I am not looking in the right places, but I don't think the concept of "Architects of the United States Forest Service" exist outside of Wikipedia. I feel like we have, out of purely good intentions, invented an organization that simply does not exist. Moving forward, the buildings may be noteworthy enough to establish pages for some of the individual architects, but the article really must be deleted. The problem with a rename, move or merger is that the article is not about a thing. It is about an artificial category that we created. Djohns21 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to an opinion, but what about 25 works of architecture that are credited to U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group, meaning the Pacific Northwest Region 6 group of architects, for which there are many references? This article as now written is about that group and other architects of the Forest Service, with a number of sources. It seems like a good article to have, in part to link to from pages about the places designed by these groups, as these are like private architectural firms that have collective credit for various works not attributable to specific individual architects. --doncram 03:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's original research to claim that that particular title always refers to those particular architects. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much my exact point. Go to google and search for U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group in quotes. I got 0 results. When I did it with United States Forest Service Architecture Group, I got only wikipedia and mirror sites. We keep capitalizing it like it is a proper noun. There is not, and never has been any organization, government agency, or club, refereed to as the U.S. Forest Service Architecture Group. As to the Pacific Northwest Region 6, it certainly exists, and architects surely work there. However, if you read the sources you will notice they use the phrase Region 6 as a location, as in I live in Region 6, not a group. If there is a need for an article about the architecture itself, we should write that. This article not only allows the individual architects to inherit noteworthiness from the buildings, it then puts them as the focus of the article.
To SarekOfVulcan and to Djohns21. Google searching on exactly ' "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" -wikipedia ' currently yields 77 hits, most from www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com and other sites that are not mirrors of wikipedia, but rather are using information from the National Register's public domain NRIS database. Every instance relates to the 25 OR and WA places that were listed for their architecture designed by the architecture group of Region 6 and credited with exactly "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" in the National Register as their architect. Consistent with the MPS/TR document explaining that they were joint works of architects of Region 6.
SarekOfVulcan asserts it is Original Research to say that the phrase "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" applies to the Region 6 group. What other group does it refer to???
Djohns21 asserts there is no such group. Seriously, what about all the references identifying it and explaining about the group, when it was formed, who were its members, and so on???
I think the term "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" was coined, but by the National Register, not by wikipedia editors. There could be a wikipedia article on that group alone, i.e. the Region 6 group, as there are enough sources for that, but I prefer to cover it in a larger article covering the other groups and individual architects of the Forest Service. It is proper in the wikipedia article to mention the term and explain what it refers to (the Region 6 group) and where in proper noun form it seems to have been derived from (by its usage in the National Register listings). It is proper in wikipedia to have a redirect from "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" and variations to the Region 6 section of this article.
Come on people, please get it together and stop with the contradictory claims. --doncram 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll "get it together" to respond to your ridiculous assertions.
"Svce." is a common abbreviation for "Service." Abbreviations often are used in database because they are short -- and database structures often require or reward brevity. The need for brevity in database entries is one of many reasons why you should not be attempting to craft entire articles solely on the basis of database entries.
You acknowledge that those 77 Google hits on "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" are 77 hits on sites that use the NRIS database output -- that's 77 hits on that one source, not 77 separate sources. Additionally, the fact that a particular text string appears multiple times in a database is not sufficient to make that text string a notable topic.
I can't detect any basis, other than some creative synthesis on your part, for the theory that the string "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" uniquely refers to an organization in Forest Service Region 6. Synthesis is original research.
You seem to be asking those of us who question the existence of the "Forest Service Architecture Group" to prove our theory that it did not (or does not) exist. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you want Wikipedia to host an article about this group, it is up to you to convincingly demonstrate (through reliable sources) not only that your topic exists (or existed), but that it is notable. As I stated earlier on this page, the statement "In 1934, Regional Engineer Jim Frankland set up an architectural section headed by Tim Turner" falls far short of documenting the official formation of a USFS Architecture Group, much less the establishment of "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" as an official organization in Forest Service Region 6. Your other sources include a document that mentions this "group" twice, once as "Architecture Group" and once as "Architectural Group," and one architect's description of working with other architects in the region, including a statement that "our design team received awards..." The documentation does not convincingly demonstrate that this "group" ever existed, and it definitely does not indicate notability for the group. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also a note on the sources. Sources 3 and 4 attribute the buildings to the Civilian Conservation Corps which already has a thorough and well sourced article. If the buildings were built by the CCC, then this article should be severely reduced and merged to give credit where credit is due.––Djohns21 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the OR, WA, and AZ ranger stations in this article were designed by architects of the USDA Forest Service for building by the Civilian Conservation Corps. That is not an argument against there being an article on the architects and architectural groups of the U.S. Forest Service. --doncram 11:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Listing as the architets of record in NRHP listings seems to be about as airtight a confirmation of a coherent group as is possible. If it is felt that the content is better served through its inclusion in a broader article on Forest Service architecture, then I would also support a merge, but definitely not a delete. VIWS talk
Vanisaac, are you aware that the "listing as architects of record" that is relied upon in this article consists only of the entries in a particular field of an electronic database -- and that this database field can include architects and builders? The actual individual National Register nomination documents that I have looked at (examples: https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000820_text, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000837_text, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/86000843_text) do not contain any indication of an architect of record. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The National Register database lists the architect as "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" for several buildings in the Depression-Era Buildings TR in Oregon and Washington. "USDA Forest Service" is listed as the architect for several buildings in the Depression-Era USDA Forest Service Administrative Complexes in Arizona MPS. "USDA Forest Service, Region 2" is listed as the architect for the buildings in Depression-Era USDA Forest Service Administrative Complexes on Medicine Bow NF MPS. There are other multiple property submissions that list "U.S. Forest Service" or some variation, as well as a number of individual properties not part of multiple property submissions. The three documents Orlady cited are part of the Oregon and Washington MPS. I'm going to look at the MPS to see if those actually list an architect. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clear evidence there was some organization of architectures with the US Forest Service organized in 1934 that created buildings that were included in the national register. The exact name of the arfticle is another question, but having an article on this is clearly worthwhile.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 27 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 Mergers and acquisitions. Irony! causa sui (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acqui-hire

[edit]
Acqui-hire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a neologism. There are some sources that use the word, and some that give a short definition, but none linked that are about the word per se. I couldn't find any on Google News or Google Books either. This should be deleted per WP:NEO. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article is about Acqui-hire the trend and not about Acqui-hire the neologism. For instance Acqhire, Acquhire and Manquisition all redirect to Acqui-hire therefore the article is about the trend and not about the neologism. And if the article was about the neologism then we would have had separate articles for each of the terms Acqhire, Acquhire and Manquisition.

Only the title of the article is a neologism. But the article itself is not about the neologism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.49.242 (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it turns out that the trend called Acqui-hire is quite notable, because it has been mentioned prominently by major sources such as the New York Times, Huffington Post, GigaOM and TechCrunch.

This link describes the term and its history in quite detail: http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/2435/

That link is one among the External Links to the Article and was probably not noticed by the person who nominated this article for deletion.

The article should not be deleted because it describes the trend called by the name Acqui-hire (or by other names such as Acqhire, Acquhire or Manquisition) and not the neologism called Acqui-hire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.206.170 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I did miss that link. Thanks for sharing it. I notice that the link pretty much admits that the term does not have wide usage yet, though. The real problem here is that having the article title as "acqui-hire" is definitely going against WP:NEO. If the trend of "acqui-hiring" passes the Wikipedia notability test, then the article title should be a phrase in plain English. It might be possible to move this article to such a phrase, or maybe it might be more sensible to merge it with another article. I shall have another look at the possibilities tomorrow. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, it is true that the title of the article is a neologism and therefore it violates WP:NEO. I suggest that we rename the article title to a more familiar English phrase such as Talent Acquisition.

Secondly, whether or not the article should be deleted or merged is not an issue here, because the trend of "acqui-hiring" is quite notable as has been claimed by the anon IP above and it would definitely pass the notability test.

The only issue here is that the title of the article is a neologism and therefore the title should be renamed to a more familiar and self explanatory phrase in English. One option is Talent Acquisition, but if anybody can find a better phrase, it would be welcome. Prachursharma (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I had another look at the article, and the vast majority seems to be about the term "acqui-hire" itself. There is some commentary on mergers of Facebook and Google, which could possibly be merged into mergers and acquisitions, but that article is fairly long and there is already some material in it about "acqui-hiring". So, in the balance, I still think deletion would be a better choice (although I would also support a redirect). — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Teeth-grindingly ugly neologism that describes a subject that could easily be covered in a couple sentences in mergers and acquisitions, as it is already. The current article seems to be less about the underlying concept (acquisitions made to acquire key people rather than ongoing business) and more an effort to catalogue when the word has appeared in print. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 13 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:11, 19 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 Clojure. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Hickey

[edit]
Rich Hickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not established. Artem Karimov (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hickey is the creator of Clojure. This is undisputed and alone makes him notable. He is one of the key pillars of the Clojure's community for over 4 years now. Clojure rose to fame due to his video lectures on blip.tv which are still popular today. He was interviewed several times and presented several keynote lectures. Some can be found here. Do not delete! 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability is not inheritable (WP:NOTINHERITED). Clojure may be notable but its creator may be not.
  • There are no independent reliable secondary sources. His keynotes or videos may be very popular but they do not add to notability unless they get reported in the media. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are not notable themselves. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue Code Quarterly is notable; it is a magazine with an editor, not somebody's blog. That said, it is kind of new. 66.194.235.133 (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine with editor? Good. But merely saying "it is notable" is not enough. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Clojure and adds little to Hickey's notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview with RH. At least half of it is about his opinions. And it has a giant picture of Hickey in the lead. And the journal, which is quite reputable, mentions: "An in-depth look at the new language from the man himself." Which totally hints to anyone who still is not quite sure of RH's notability that he's the man. I think this should put this to rest. We're not dealing here with some obscure person. Artem, why are you so strongly in favor of deleting this entry based on technicalities? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god! The article has a photo in the lead! You know what, I also have a giant photo in Facebook. Still, common sense suggests that the man is not covered in RS and therefore there is nothing to post in Wikipedia, anonymous. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Linux Journal is a reputable source. The guy really is notable. Let's at the very least agree to keep the article for the time being. What do you say? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merry-go-round. Again, there was no coverage of Hickey himself. Hickey cannot inherit Clojure's notability. As for "this guy really is notable" I suggest that you read which arguments to avoid at AfD. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CREATIVE provides for just that sort of inheritance. (I copied the criteria several sections down.) The relevant point is the provision for situations where "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Clojure has been the subject of several independent books. The question then is, is Clojure "significant or well known"? You can argue that it's not; just don't keep pretending that there are no qualification or exceptions to WP:INHERITED. Blowfish (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MSDN Channel 9 is more of a blog (primary source) and therefore does not count towards notability. And no, by our standards other keynote speakers do not really add any weight to Hickey. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are mere mentions which do not help establish notability. And Hickey cannot inherit notability from Kernighan in our case. Artem Karimov (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines do allow notability for creative works such as books, films, music, and the such. Clojure is a creative work. This case should not be any different for the same logic other types of creative work bestow notability. This article was nominated for deletion twice in the past and it was decided against it. 46.116.139.61 (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again fallacy. Clojure's notability cannot be inherited. Artem Karimov (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not and how is it any different from other cases of creative work? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No different. No coverage of person = no article. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why Julian Assange and Jimmy Wales are notable? Why a reputable online programming media infoQ doesn't count as notable media? What's the difference between blogs, TVs, magazines, radio, podcasts and newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eugenejen (talk • contribs) 20:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I consider that a legitimate opinion or a joke? WP:OTHERSTUFF. Plus if you cannot differentiate between primary and secondary, reliable and unreliable, notable and unnotable sources then you should probably not be editing Wikipedia. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a legitimate question. If notability is not inheritable, then Jimmy Wales and Julian Assange should not be considered because they are notable due to Wikipedia and Wikileak. So notability is in fact inheritable but it seems like notability depends on how influential the media is. Influence is a quantitative concept, therefore I asked the question about what is the difference between those type of media. If MSDN, InfoQ are considered not notable media outlet, then what about Usenet? Consider Erik Naggum, he was a very prominent figure in Usenet in 90's, but outside Usenet and computer programmers, he is not wellknown. But if someone starts to propose deletion of Erik Naggum's page, I bet the resistance will be very high due to he was in fact an important figure in Usenet history. Eugenejen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.194.211 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting people isn't helpful. Blowfish (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rhethoric (i.e. pointless) questions are neither. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But the one doesn't justify the other. Blowfish (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See article here along with the previous mention of Channel9 here. His appearance on Channel9, it should be noted, is not a blog, but rather an interview as is clear here. Also, I believe that Mr. Hickey meets several of the guidelines in WP:BIO. Thus, I would recommend keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.27.114 (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Channel9 is a mix of forum, blog and wiki. Neither of these formats are acceptable as a reliable source. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific section of Channel9 is actually produced and created by a technographer at Microsoft - see here for reference to Charles Torre, and then here for a link to his personal Twitter here, where he describes himself as "Technographer at Microsoft (Channel 9)". This proves that the show "Going Deep" is an official production, and thus suitable for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.27.114 (talk) 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Though creative works were mentioned above, I think it might be useful to point towards WP:CREATIVE, since it gives pretty specific criteria. To whit:

  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
  5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics

I would guess that 1, 2 are arguable, 3 is likely true in that the programming language has gained some traction, 4 fails except perhaps part c, and 5 doesn't really apply, since I don't believe Hickey is an academic. Blowfish (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may fit into 3 but does this not contradict general notability guidelines? 3 implies the fact that Hickey may not be really covered anywhere but still gain notability. Artem Karimov (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an interesting point that you just made. I would suggest that the most specific guideline should be the important one (and therefore WP:CREATIVE). At the same time, we may run into a situation where the guidlines under WP:CREATIVE are met, but there are no sources of very good quality to use as material for the article. So in that case you might be correct. Blowfish (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So none of the sources offered are legit? Not even the Linux Journal or MSDN one? 46.116.139.61 (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well they are a bit marginal. The linux journal one seems reasonable, the others I'm not so sure about. I think a case can be made for Hickey's notability, not a slam dunk case by any means, but a reasonable one. Sourcing is trickier. And on balance, I'm not really sure whether this should be a keep or a delete. Blowfish (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's err on the safe side and Keep it for a while longer. 46.116.139.61 (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this seems to be going no where. If anyone could fetch some more experienced editors to chime in, that would be great. Blowfish (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CREATIVE #2, and #3. User:Artem Karimov's understanding is WP:RS is incorrect. Reliable sources do not have to be "notable" themselves. There is not a list somewhere of "approved" reliable sources of "notability". Any source that meets the requirement of WP:RS is a reliable source. Many of the links provided by the IPs are infact reliable sources. Blogs, for instance, can be a reliable source if they are written by a professional or expert in the field.--v/r - TP 00:30, 18 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clojure. If he is truely notable then links to WP:RS will naturally accumulate there and we can reverse the decision. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clojure. No real notability apart from his work on Clojure. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost said merge, but I decided this was wrong. Why? Well, I found this page while searching for info on the guy because he wrote Clojure. I feel it is perfectly valid to include people in an encyclopedia who did only one notable thing. Indeed, probably many of the people listed in print encyclopedias for science and maths are most known for one particular achievement. Computing in particular is littered with such personalities: it's the nature of the beast. prat (talk) 14:33, 25 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! 07:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Baptiste Maugé

[edit]
Jean Baptiste Maugé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as it exists doesn't really make a claim to notability and gives no information about him. So I looked for more information online, but all I found, aside from Wiki, was Genealogy pages and occasional references to modern people with similar names D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, at least for now. Note that we have Category:Convicted book thieves and an article Bibliomania. Obsessive book thieves can be notable, as rare book librarians know all too well. In this case, the reliable sources are likely to be in French, which I don't read. If a French speaking editor is unable to find any reliable sources, I will change my recommendation. Cullen328 (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 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, T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 19 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! 07:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Bryukhankov

[edit]
Andrey Bryukhankov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Russian triathlete. He as placed high at some competitions. (Note: between 40-60 usually are in a junior competition) He was not ranked in the U23 (junior) junior world rankings at the end of 2010. He currently ranks 457 in the current 2010-2011 world point total. Currently 227 in the Men European cup standings. He is NOT on the national team according to the Official page of the Russian Triathlon Federation.Bgwhite (talk) 07:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


There are clear criteria for the relevance of an article in WIKIPEDIA. Unfortunately, Bgwhite does not refer to any of these criteria. He (or she) thinks that Bryukhankov junior is not good enough. Well, this is an interesting opinion, isn't it, but completely irrelevant for the relevance criteria. Bryukhankov IS relevant for several reasons, according to the WIKIPEDIA criteria! He is a member of the Russian National Team, he is an elite sportsman taking part in ITU events, he is one fo the foreign guest stars in the French Club Championship Series, which is noit completely irrelevant, and he won medals at Russian elite Championships. It is true that he is young and most top positions were in the junior category, but people grow older, Bgwhite, and automatically grow into the elite category, in which Andrey Bryukhankov has good cards, as it were. The ITU U23 ranking is not the only criterion. Martinp1 (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just two remarks concerning the ITU rankings quoted by Bgwhite. There is no such thing called "U23 (junior) junior world rankings" at all. What Bgwhite refers to is the U23 ranking, which by definition does not include juniors at all. The European Cup list is also irrelevant and misleading because many of the best triathletes of the world do not take part in the European Cup at all and do not show in this list at all, some top triathletes take part in one or two of the European Cup triathletes and have no good position in this ranking either. The female winner of the European Cup last year jokingly said, when ITU perople congratulated, that she was too bad for the World Championship Series or the World Cup. To cut a long story short: the lists Bgwhite quotes are irrelevant because for instance all Ironman triathletes would be missing in ITU lists as well, so should we delete all bioraphies of Ironman winners? Let's follow the WIKIPEDIA rules and according to them Andrey Bryukhankov definitely IS relevant. Martinp1 (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He is NOT on the national team according to the Official page of the Russian Triathlon Federation. True, the European Cup is below the World cup which is why I also gave the World cup total, of which he is ranked 457. Here is the Wikipedia criteria for a triathlete to be presumed noble. As Bryukhankov has not had a podium finish at the ITU Triathlon World Championships, not been to the Olympics, not competed in a Ironman, and not competed in a XTERRA, he is not presumed notable. Wikipedia goes by what a person has done and not the potential of doing. Bryukhankov has only three competitions at the elite level and only in the European Cup, which as you say is lower competition. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is the notability guidelines for triathlon athletes. How do he meet notability guidelines?
  • Here he is on the ITU website. On the right you'll see his latest results. All of those competitions are ITU sanctioned. He placed first in Alanya last year, meeting #2 of the notability guidelines for triathlons. Also, he is listed on the Russian team on the website you linked to. A reserve is still a member of the team, and Bryukhankov shows to be an active representative of that team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftonj1993 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what I am seeing. If you scroll down you should see his name listed under Men(reserve...). I think we are on the same website, but I am unsure why we are seeing different things. As for the championship, I did make a mistake in that. I referenced a competition, not a championship, but it does not have to be a world championship. The guidelines ask for an ITU sanctioned championship, so his 2nd place in the European championships 2010 should fall under that category.--Aftonj1993 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a mistake and apologize: I hought the "relevance criteria" used in the German WIKIPEDIA more or less reflect the "notability criteria" of the English WIKIPEDIA, this is, however, not the case. So I have to change my argumentation slightly, but the result is the same. Andrey Bryukhankov IS definitely a member of the National team (check the Russian list, not the abridged English version!!), but as it seems, this is not a valid notability criterion. BUT: he takes part in ITU races and this seems to be a notability criterion because he also achieved podium positions. According to the "notability criteria", it does not matter that some of these ITU competitions belong to the junior category. To cut a long story short: according to the notabilkity criteria, he IS notable. Martinp1 (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case Bryukhankov junior had not met the specific triathlon notability criteria, in any case he would easily fulfill the (vague) general notability criteria. It is easy to find dozens of articels on him, e.g.: http://93.190.42.170/index.php?id=41761. Just type his name in Cyrillic and you will find ample news coverage. If one deleted all triathletes who have not yet won a medal at an ITU sanctioned championship (does "championship" include Continental Cup triathlons? does it consider the World Championship Series (!) as a whole or are the individual triathlons in Sydney, London, etc. enough...??!!), one should delete many articles, this would not be a great advantage, would it? Martinp1 (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One day after deletion was requested, the viewers statisrtics rose up to 260 hits! And a Swedish version of the article appeared. Great. I think I should ask Bgwhite to insist on the deletion of all of my articles. Martinp1 (talk) 18:30, 7 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, causa sui (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange, indeed. Bryukhankov formally fulfills the triathlon notability criteria (3 podiums), he definitely fulfills the general notability criteria, he is a promising young triathlete and a member of the Russian National Team and has several national and international titles. Still, the closer does not accept that the notability criterion is fulfilled. Very strange... Martinp1 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC) It is really strange, because the Andrey Bryukhankov article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force and by the sports and games work group. I really wonder why BGwhite is such an important user that all the notability criteria, all the arguments etc. are considered less important than BGwhite's opinion according to which Bryukhankov is not good enough for Wikipedia. Shouldn't one apply the Wikipedia rules?Martinp1 (talk) 20:05, 12 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:53, 19 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaagaz Ke Phool (upcoming film)

[edit]
Kaagaz Ke Phool (upcoming film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence film has premiered or has ever been in production. BOVINEBOY2008 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 21 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 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Tucker

[edit]
Seth Tucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. A brief list of links to publications does not help: to establish notability we need in-depth discussion of the subject's work, and the article doesn't supply any secondary references. I can't find any either, using "seth tucker" and "seth brady tucker". To the defenders: please look at WP:AUTHOR and explain how subject meets those guidelines. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Ghantakarna Mahavir

[edit]
Lord Ghantakarna Mahavir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources provided, looks to be original research done by someone with a COI. Cannot find sources. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 19:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:43, 19 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. v/r - TP 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projects and Development India Limited

[edit]
Projects and Development India Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. No assertion of notability. The article was (still is) mostly a copy/paste from the company's own website. Biker Biker (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 15:41, 19 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis Fighting: MMA Global Invasion

[edit]
Nemesis Fighting: MMA Global Invasion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the only sources I could not find from gnews [12] is MMA which is not third party. pretty much the same for google. No evidence of significant third party coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Also having notable participants or being televised does not mean keep either. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This needs to be added to mixed martial arts discussion page as well.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 15:36, 4 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) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found plenty of coverage at usatoday.com and virtually every mma site. The event seems to be a textbook example of what can go wrong (everything did). I wish these events got general coverage for something other than not paying the fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 16:36, 11 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:36, 19 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 The Smashing Pumpkins discography. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998

[edit]
The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 5 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) 00:00, 11 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I wasn't feeling especially hopeful after reading this on the article page:
This release was allegedly limited to a pressing of 1,000 copies.
I was unable to find any reviews. But, I found a website stating that its release was limited to radio stations. Also found a website featuring a very heavy analysis of the cover's specific artwork. According to WP:NALBUMS the fact that Smashing Pumpkins is a notable band AND independent coverage of the album merits keeping the article. Also, they have too many albums to merge into their main article. For it to become a Keep, reviews or some other substantial independent sources about the album must be sought. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 19 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. If we don't have reliable sourcing for the town being named after ghim then that make the claim OR and not suitable for a merge so the policy based argument is the deletion one. Spartaz Humbug! 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith, the Miller

[edit]
John Smith, the Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mis-titled article about a person not subject to significant personal coverage in multiple reliable sources ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 08:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 4 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) 00:08, 10 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:32, 19 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_Panics#Discography per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Girl (EP)

[edit]
Factory Girl (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:00, 5 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) 00:07, 10 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:32, 19 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 a clear consensus against deletion. The consensus to keep versus merge or redirect is less clear, but as none of these options would result in the deletion of the article, I'm closing this as keep; further discussion on the desirability of a merge or redirect can take place on the article's talk page if desired. 28bytes (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland

[edit]
Alan Parsons in a Winter Wonderland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep How is it not notable? On what basis does it fail notability? I have to say keep until I can know how the nom thinks it fails any notability guidelines.Roodog2k (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to be bold and suggest "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:32, 17 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, T. Canens (talk) 15:27, 19 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Magik Entertainment

[edit]
Media Magik Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable post-production company. Obvious puff piece. IP commenter on talk page suggests that the company may be a fraud. Google concurs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 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 a7 - unpublished author, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robin P. Nolet

[edit]
Robin P. Nolet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author Wandering Courier (talk) 14:54, 19 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of British Turkish Academics

[edit]
Association of British Turkish Academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:16, 21 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. Courcelles 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse Ratched

[edit]
Nurse Ratched (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AfDs related to this article:

WP:PLOT; character biography presents no additional plot/fictional biography information or criteria proving notability that isn't already covered in the plot sections of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (novel) or One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film). Sottolacqua (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Not only has the character spawned significant critical commentary with regard to the novel, the play, and the movie, but she has become a common metaphorical figure in artistic, social and political discussion. Here's just a sample of Gnews cites from 2010 which refer to the character without mentioning the underlying work. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18][19]. Article could certainly use expansion in terms of the available critical commentary, but that's certainly not a reason to delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although, I believe the novel makes repeated reference to the character's bosom, which is described as quite large. Fortunately this was kept out of the film. Louise Fletcher is a fine actress, but... you know... Anyway, so long as the article makes no mention of this aspect of her anatomy, I see no reason to delete. If this were an actual person, of course, that would be another matter. Dekkappai (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the other hand, "Consensus" says we delete Randle McMurphy. This is a proud day for Wikipedia. Removing this fanboy cruft is sure to help raise our reputation as a forum for reasonable discussion. Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per consensus on Randle McMurphy‎, which is now a redirect. I might have voted Delete here originally, but I was afraid it would be an obvious "Pointy" disruption. Some things are beyond satire, however, and Wikipedia is one of them. Dekkappai (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no consensus on Randle McMurphy‎, it's an ongoing deletion debate and citing the fact that there's an on-going deletion debate on that page seems a strange argument for a delete vote here. Also, that page is not a redirect, it is a standing article. I'm a little baffled. Carrite (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Randle McMurphy AFD was originally closed as "delete", and the page was converted to a redirect. I objected to the outcome, and the closing admin graciously restored the article and relisted the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I might step out of character: That these two articles were even seriously nominated for deletion is evidence to me of an absurdly huge problem with the WP system, which is the reason I left, coming back now & then just to moon the inmates. As Big Nurse-- er, Big Bad Wolfowitz-- points out, McMurphy was actually deleted earlier today, per "consensus". Had it not (by chance, I guess) come to the attention of Wolfowitz, it would still be a redirect now. This sort of thing used to drive me crazy. But now I'm gone. Just call me Chief. Dekkappai (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm gonna give a quick opinion without digging: Nurse Ratched has become part of popular culture and a dedicated page on the character is appropriate. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a little something-something for those who like their sourcing: HERE'S AN ARTICLE by the chairman of the English Dept. of Boise State University which delves into character analysis of Nurse Ratched and the good Mr. McMurphy. These are, in short, iconic characters of modern American fiction who have trickled from the high culture of Kesey's work to popular culture. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 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. Apart from the author Garry Denke, nobody supports keeping this article.  Sandstein  05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll Trench

[edit]
Scroll Trench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have no reason to believe this exists under this name. There may be a trench that meets some of the description (ignoring the geology) but it does not appear to be significant and certainly not discussed in reliable sources under either name. It is however widely publicised on the web by the article's creator, see for instance [www.voy.com/92635/471.html this forum post]]. I know the creator of the article (see also their last edit just before mine) well from off-Wiki as an extremely prolific poster whose edits are (trying to be polite here) basically fantasies. This old version of his talk page provides an example of his style. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Scroll (Arc) Trench of Stonehenge (UK) duly Filed and Recorded in Deed Records and Official Public Records of Archer, Baylor, Hampshire, Wiltshire, (etc) County courthouses (Just to name a few); Therefore any such re-Publication of said Scroll (Arc) Trench of Stonehenge (UK) hereinat Wikipedia not required. Thank you. Garry Denke 01:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garry Denke (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than Doctor Garry Denke's (1622-1699) eastern 8 ft (2.4m) vertical Core-cutting of it (Scroll Trench: 1656), and Colonel William Hawley's (1851–1941) western 9 ft (2.7m) horizontal Cross-section of it (Scroll Trench: 1923), no other Physical evidence of it exists; Therefore the Wikipedia article unnecessary. Maps: [20] Sections: [21] Thank you. 76.184.189.94 (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe so, I believe it's a delete !vote from a different IP user, possibly a SPA. -- 202.124.72.158 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Office of Works, now Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Secretary): Jeremy Hunt; National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty (Board of Trustees): Simon Jenkins, Sir Laurie Magnus Bt, Patrick Casement, Sir Crispin Davis, Richard Farrant, Sir Edward Greenwell, Charles Gurassa, Nichola Johnson, Sir Mark Jones, Adrian Phillips, Michael Quicke, Mary Villiers; Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England (Chair): Baroness Kay Andrews; (Commissioners): Lynda Addison, Maria Adebowale, Joyce Bridges, Manish Chande, Sir Barry Cunliffe, David Fursdon, Ronald Hutton, Jane Kennedy, John Walker, Elizabeth Williamson; (Chief Executive): Simon Thurley; (Executive Directors): Mark Pemberton, Edward Impey, Deborah Lamb, Keith Harrison; not interested in obtaining a satisfactory examination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.189.94 (talk) 13:10, 22 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. CSD G12. Actually it's a close paraphrase. I'll close this as G12 so there's no prejudice against creating a new sourced article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SAPPAK

[edit]
SAPPAK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Copied from Website www.sappk.org Tashif (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 21 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. As an aside, this closer also has an EN of 4. joe deckertalk to me 16:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anar Ahkmedov

[edit]
Anar Ahkmedov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Mathematician. Received PhD in 2006. Is an Assistant Professor at the University of Minnesota. Google scholar comes up with 14 publications (minus the duplicates). Fails WP:PROF. Note: The article has his last name spelled wrong. Last name should be aKHmedov. Bgwhite (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I second the above. I have an Erdos number of 4 and I'm a nobody. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Erdos number is used in determining whether an integer's mathematical properties are interesting or not; see WP:1729. Voyager640 (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:1729 is just an essay, with no policy/guideline standing, unlike WP:PROF, which is a guideline. Second, even taken on its own terms, WP:1729 is entirely irrelevant to notability of individuals, as WP:1729 deals with issues of notability (or "interest") of numbers, not people. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1729 is a joke page. See Interesting number paradox for another joke. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Ah yes, good point! I should have tried to read that page itself, not just its header. Nsk92 (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. WP:Prof makes it clear that there is no case at all for Erdos 1. Notability has to be established according to agreed policy. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. It seems pretty ironclad. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:53, 26 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 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hugunin

[edit]
Marc Hugunin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not assert notability with independent sources, which I failed to find with a quick Google. There is also potentially a conflict of interest as the creator is a co-author of a book along with the subject. wctaiwan (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 19 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 Emory University#Student organizations. Spartaz Humbug! 07:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WMRE (Emory)

[edit]
WMRE (Emory) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local college amateur affair. No independent sources. No evidence that there is any coverage of it outside its own college. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 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.  Sandstein  05:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Levine (photographer)

[edit]
David Levine (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 19 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 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Moore (actress)

[edit]
Jessica Moore (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Disputed prod several years ago due to article being less than 24 hours old at the time. Actress had less than a dozen total appearances in film, and only one article about her that I can find. Not sure that one passes WP:RS either. Nothing with significant coverage found via Gbooks, Gnews etc. Doubtful that any exists. Fails WP:GNG, and additional criteria of WP:BIO. NOTE: This is the 80s Italian actress, not the current porn actress. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm in support of more porn stars on Wikipedia but this person isn't notable enough to have an article for herself.--Silent Bob (talk) 10:16, 20 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rustington F.C.

[edit]
Rustington F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article recreated after deletion by prod and still no sources. Fails WP:FOOTY guideline of eligibility to play in the FA Cup and the FA Vase is not the same at all.No reliable secondary sources have been found to establish notability. The club is not even in the top league for the county. Charles (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can but it can't? You can't have it both ways. Clearly the club is not eligible.--Charles (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can't play in the Cup because of certain conditions related to its ground, but it plays at a level at which clubs without this problem are eligible (the club could actually play in the cup if they really wanted by moving their home matches to another stadium like Durham City do (as they have a plastic pitch which is not allowed by competition rules)). Anyway, as noted in the two links to AfDs above (one of which subsquently links to many others), playing at this level has previously also been used to prove notability regardless of FA Cup playing. Number 57 22:01, 19 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 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Burning 2004

[edit]
K-1 Burning 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only sources listed are primary, and insufficient coverage in third-party sources. I am just shocked there are this many articles. Everytime I come onto AfD, I see about three or four new ones of these. I did a quick search for K-1 Burning 2004:
  • This newspaper article, half about the event, half about how the servicemen going to the event were happy about seeing it. I'm genuinely surprised it exists, and it's actually a halfway decent source for the event.
  • This page (translated from Korean) appears to an interview with an individual fighter, where the the fighter's injuries during the fight are mentioned in relation to a question about what fight was the "most difficult and best."
All that said, there's only one non-primary source here, and it's just not going to cut it. If there are more independent sources that provide significant coverage (which I was unable to find), I'll consider changing my vote. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 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 this is OR by SYNTH and therefore falls to deletion. Spartaz Humbug! 07:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
    Dominant group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This article is an amalgam of information contained in other, dedicated articles Robin S (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I added this page to today's AfD log, because I forgot to do so at the time. Robin S (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep I am the article’s creator and a substantial contributor. The article contains information from 20 authors regarding aspects of a 'Dominant group'. By reference number the authors information is found on the following Wikipedia pages:

    1. Knowles - only 'Dominant group',

    2. Bourdieu - Culture, Archaeology of religion and ritual, Sociology of education, Structure and agency, and 'Dominant group',

    3. Spain - Kinmel Hall and 'Dominant group',

    4. Moore - only 'Dominant group',

    5. Hardiman - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

    6. Blumenfeld - Christian privilege and 'Dominant group',

    7. Lieberson - only 'Dominant group',

    8. May - only 'Dominant group',

    10. Reskin - only 'Dominant group',

    11. Moro - only 'Dominant group',

    12. Rosenberg - Rosalind Rosenberg and 'Dominant group',

    13. Rothman - only 'Dominant group',

    14. Young - Spatial justice, Iris Marion Young, Political freedom, Christian privilege, GIS and environmental governance, and 'Dominant group',

    15. Johnston - Human geography, Imperialism, Outline of anarchism, Anarchism, Karl Marx, Libertarianism, Individualism, and 'Dominant group',

    16. Gilmartin - Tropical geography, Imperialism, and 'Dominant group',

    17. Ås - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

    18. Andrén - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

    19. - Master suppression techniques and 'Dominant group',

    20. Benton - Evolutionary history of life, Paleontology, Extinction event, and 'Dominant group',

    21. Van Valkenberg - Evolutionary history of life, Extinction event, Life, Cat gap, and 'Dominant group'.

    • At least ten of these authors are discussing dominant groups, which meets the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Further, seven of these authors' information is unique to 'Dominant group'. The last three sections bring in a broader view of the concept. Author 1. Knowles provides a definition of the term. No one article on Wikipedia specifically focuses on the concept of a 'Dominant group'. Marshallsumter (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My principal argument against disambiguation is that the concept of a 'dominant group' such as defined by author 1. Knowles has been modified somewhat and applied to areas outside Sociology, yet the concept is basically the same whether by simple numbers of organisms, biomass, power, or whatever. There are dominant groups in other species and between species.
    • With respect to synthesis or original research WP:SYN states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Smerdis of Tlön is essentially correct that any synthesis perceived by the reader comes from the authors themselves.
    • As to merging, each of the subtopic articles either only mention a 'dominant group' a few times such as in Minority group (four times); Marginalization and Extinction event (twice); The Establishment, Romantic racism, Imperialism, Master suppression techniques (only once); Discrimination, Hegemony and Dominance (ecology) (not mentioned); or are articles in need of extensive revision such as Dominant minority, Elite, and Oppression. Each of these actually focuses on the article topic not necessarily on 'Dominant group' per se.
    • Concerning revision, the initial author content of twenty has been raised to forty-seven, hopefully adding clarity as well as content. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is about 'dominant group', not about Cultural dominance/Cultural imperialism which is an article which has multiple issues. I've added a sentence within the introduction, "This numerical majority can be numbers of individuals, numbers of species, surface area, biomass, or maximum intensity, among many other applications of the concept." which should help clarify this point. Marshallsumter (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Your article doesn't address the definition of a dominant group either. You have synthesized information from many different fields using examples from these fields of dominance.Curb Chain (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Smerge lots of useful sources, but the information would be better incorporated in some of the other linked articles. At present, this is a bit SYNTHy. Yunshui (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep I think this is a terribly-written article. It reads like a term paper, and is difficult to determine context unless your familiar with the subject matter. The problem is that it is an amagalm of information with not a lot tying everything together, but I can see how it could be useful if significantly improved. Just because an article needs significant improvement, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Roodog2k (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguate. "Dominant group" is a highly plausible search term, but there are lots of things the searcher might be looking for. No objection to the smerge proposed by Yunshui, which isn't an incompatible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I haven't looked extensively at the history, so I don't know if this has been edit extensively during the nomination, but it doesn't seem unsalvageable to me. It is rather vague in spots and contains synthesis, but most of the synthesizing seems to have been done by the sources rather than here. Move to Dominant group (sociology) if it is decided to make this a disambiguation page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep reasonable article topic. The material is to a certain degree related to other topics also and could be used there as well, but this quite specifically is acceptable in its own right. A little too much of an an essay in tone, rather than a summery, but still acceptable. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The article and its links are mish-mash of several topics, including social dominance and ecological prevalence, which have nothing to do with each other. One editor has been linking this article from articles about such disparate topics as reptile evolution, soil geology, and ethnography. The "topic" covered in the article is Cultural dominance along with a variety of other meanings of dominant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This is a place specific article masquerading as a general article. I was unsure of this until I got to the religion section. The specific mention of "non-Christian" as the marginalized population shows a total failure to consider reality. This would imply that there are no dominate religious groups that are other than Christian, which considering power stuctures in most Muslim countries, India and Israel, Sri Lanka is just hogwash. Beyond this, considering power stuctures in some other countries, it is a sub-group within Christianity that is in question. We cover this topic with adequate articles on the history and politics of various countries and do not need this article trying to synthesize these complexed facts and doing so while ignoring the vast array of reality. I might try to edit the article but the underlying assumptions about the methods and means of discrimination are questionable. Besides this the various statements should be supported with sources and they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The whole article is riddled with assumptions that may or may not be correct. Statements like "minority groups do not discriminate" are hard to support as other than POV, and the article seems to assume a static understanding of the term "minority" without acknowledging that the way it is using the term differs from the way it is used in other contexts. The article also inadequately addresses the issues of context of dominance. The main problem is that is trying to describe as static and proscribed phenomena what actually are unique and cultural specific phenomena. The interaction of each group is conditions by its own unique attributes, a fact that this article is desgined to ignore.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Essay-form synthesis of unrelated topics. Possibly there is an article to be written about any of the separate meanings, but this is not it.  Sandstein  05:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As noted by others, the article puts together a number of totally unrelated uses of the term "dominant group". We don't have articles on ambiguous terms: we have a disambiguation page linking to specific articles. "Dominant group (sociology)" and "Ecological dominance" are just two of the meanings covered here. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I came here out of concern with Marshallsumter's edits in wikilinking all instances of "dominant group" to the article on AfD. It created numerous cases of overlinking where the concept(s) described in the Dominant group article have not been proven relevant in the respective topics. It is inappropriate and can be construed as original research by creating a semblance of importance in the Dominant group discourse. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:22, 27 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 22:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Classic City Championship

    [edit]
    Classic City Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    local rivalry that is of zero interest and no coverage outside the town involved. LibStar (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:12, 19 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. Editors agree that although the coverage required for notability has not been demonstrated, it can be assumed to exist under the circumstances. That does not prevent specific unsourced content in the article from being contested per WP:V.  Sandstein  05:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaia Saver

    [edit]
    Gaia Saver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Contested PROD for a Super Famicom game (Japan-only release). After a frustrating and unsatisfying discussion on the article's talk page about the lack of coverage in independent sources, and assertions from an editor that discussing such topics are "waste of time," I searched for new sources and evaluated existing sources on the page that support notability. Many sources were wikis and discussion boards, which are not independent. Search results in English were lacking, so I searched for the title in Japanese, where reviews and such were more likely to be found:

    Finally, one editor of the page asserted the following in a revision summary: all SFC/SNES (Super Famicom / Super Nintendo) video games are notable. I know of no Wikipedia guideline that supports this statement. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - indeed this is frustrating. what kind of sources you want? I already added the "source" from super-famicom.jp which is the "official" SFC games site. this is a video game from 1994 and it was never released outside Japan, unfortunately there is no official web site like all these new generation games.
    honestly, if an article like this (with cover art + info + sources + categories already added) is deleted, then I think we have a big problem in here, because then you would have to be COHERENT and delete 75% of the wiki video game articles out there.
    I never played this game before, it means absolutely nothing to me, so I couldn't care less. I just think it's totally unfair deleting it just because someone thinks it should be deleted, plus I don't understand your fixation with the article. another funny thing is... the article was created at XX:54, two minutes later someone (YOU) already adds that Proposing deletion stuff. Chill out man, people (non-vandals) are not here having fun, give the creator some time to improve the article. it's because of this kind of behaviour that sometimes I think I should give up on Wikipedia. --Hydao (talk) 11:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about whether this game has an official website or not. It's about whether the game is discussed in-depth in third-party, independent sources. While I would normally allow more time for articles, I took a good deal of my time to search for sources on this game in both English and Japanese. I didn't just nominate this because the current sources were no good. I nominated it because I made good faith effort to look for sources on my own. And I didn't find any. Before I did this, you kept removing the notability templates I kept adding to the article because you didn't agree with me. I don't understand why you didn't just leave it on there until good sources were found.
    Also, you should avoid arguments that declare that we must remove most video game articles if this one article is deleted. Articles are handled on a case-by-case basis. I know you guys are not vandals, but I nominated this because I don't think the article is supported by WP policies. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - No wonder fewer people are volunteering on Wikipedia. With the guidelines becomes more strict for articles every month, people are giving up on Wikipedia. A lot of the older games don't have an official web site, but they're still notable because they were released in the marketplace and people were buying them from department stores. There are some "unofficial" references for older video games on the Internet, but there are also magazine and newspaper references that might be interesting to look at for some of the older games. GVnayR (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that guidelines are becoming more strict. WP:N and WP:GNG have been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed all that much in the sense that it has required third party, independent sources for a good while. However, I do agree that video games, especially old ones, can be hard to find sources for (compared to new ones), and that content about them can be encyclopaedic. But it's not impossible. Take the WP article for KiKi KaiKai for instance-- it's a Japan-only release. The article cites several reviews both in English and Japanese, and its notability is backed up by sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    KiKi KaiKai is not Japan-exclusive. The arcade (first) version was released both in Europe and North America, plus, it was released for several home consoles, so the probabilities of having more info are much higher.
    "Before I did this, you kept removing the notability templates I kept adding to the article because you didn't agree with me. I don't understand why you didn't just leave it on there until good sources were found."
    I only removed it once at the very beginning I guess, and it was in good faith.
    "Also, you should avoid arguments that declare that we must remove most video game articles if this one article is deleted. Articles are handled on a case-by-case basis."
    Honestly, I didn't use it as an argument, really... but it's just the truth. --Hydao (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. Lately (or since I registered on Wikipedia) i've been editing a lot video games articles, so I know what I'm saying. I'm here trying to improve the articles a little, not to destroy or delete them. --Hydao (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, Kiki KaiKai isn't a Japan-only release. My bad. This still doesn't change the fact that this article needs to fulfill WP:PRODUCT. Also, of course you used WP:ALLORNOTHING as an argument (why else would you write it here, then?) and statements like "it's just the truth," "I edit a lot of video game articles" and "I'm here to improve articles" are commendable, but unhelpful to your case. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already lost enough time on this. You're not going to change my opinion and vice-versa. I have more important things in life to worry about, I need to go for now. My opinion is simple, keep the article, that's all. --Hydao (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Hydao and GVnayR. - Even though the game is unknown overseas, it is somewhat well-known in Japan and apparently part of a larger franchise called the Compati Hero Series (which tangentially related to the Super Robot Taisen series). Jonny2x4 (talk)
    Then it can be merged to that series page, perhaps. Notability is not inherited from its larger series. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Most separate officially published and released video games are presumed to be notable, as someone back in the day had to have either reviewed or covered them in one way or another. As GVnayR pointed out above, most of these sources would be print-only as well as in another language (in this case, Japanese). –MuZemike 00:05, 20 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) –MuZemike 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have presumed there would have been reviews of this, considering the fact that it sold so well. I conducted several searches in Japanese and on Japanese video-game sites, so you can imagine my surprise when I was unable to find anything. You would think if game was notable, it might actually show up somewhere on Japanese websites aside from places to purchase the game. So no, I am not convinced of notability based on a presumption that reviews must exist. I also have yet to see a policy noting that all published and released video games are inherently notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I, Jethrobot... now you are having a point: "Then it can be merged to that series page, perhaps." The page doesn't exist yet (I think), so it's a good idea to create the page. As I said I never played Gaia Saver, but I played other games from the series and I can say that those games were (or are) very popular not only in Japan. I grew up in South Asia, this series was very popular back then. I wonder why no one created the page during all these years...

    --Hydao (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • A few games from that serie already have a page. It is better to improve or expand the existent articles rather than delete or merge them.

    And by the way, here is the page: Compatible Hero Series. Feel free to help improving it. --Hydao (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep In the case of the majority of older console games, trying to show them the door because relevant sources don't jump out of the internet is a waste of time because they almost certainly exist but are unlikely to be present. I don't believe for a second that a crossover game starring characters from series as beloved as Gundam, Kamen Rider and Ultraman will not have received a torrent of attention from relevant sources in Japan. The magazine articles won't be on hand because a lot of these games predate the internet's widespread usage and magazines are the mainstay of sources for them, in fact magazines are still hugely influential in the videogame arena, even now. Even a system as popular as the Commodore 64 has a weak web presence when it comes to magazine scans available, but it's not because the magazines don't exist. Take Impossamole, you might look at that and wonder how it's notable, and struggle to find any kind of sourcing online. Search for it on a magazine scan database like World of Spectrum or Amiga Magazine Rack and it quickly becomes apparent that it's just the internet's limits, not the lack of sources. Someoneanother 18:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet, the sales information for this game has now been removed per WP:VG/RS, as it appears that vgchartz.com is not a reliable source for this information. Now, there is nothing that asserts the notability of this game. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that you are the only user who insists in deleting the article. Go to the official website - http://www.banpresto.co.jp/ - maybe you'll find some uber lovely "reliable" source in there. Also, since VG Chartz is not "reliable", well, doesn't make much sense the existence of the wikipedia page about VG Chartz. Shall we delete it?

    --Hydao (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Per WP:VG/RS:
    In articles about video games, citing the game itself is often attractive. Wikipedia favours secondary sources, and the use of primary sources should be minimised.
    Primary sources might be the place to go for plot info, but not for sales-- there are good reasons this should be obtained independently. The game has already been merged to Compatible Hero Series. Currently, the article is a description of the characters and plot. Is this really worth keeping, considering the game no longer has any sources provide evidence for its notability? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 02:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is worth keeping, for now. I was wondering, if you had played this in the past, during your childhood, would have the same opinion? I agree about merging the article, but first the page Compatible Hero Series should be improved. Until then I think Gaia Saver shouldn't be deleted or whatever. What do you mean "The game has already been merged"? I only added the video games of the series, there is a lot to improve... And btw, the term notability is subjective. Do you want to improve the article Compatible Hero Series? I guess the answer is no, right?

    P.S. The page will be something like this: Kunio-kun.

    --Hydao (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note to closing admin: It's unfortunate that I am alone in this, but several editors who have supported keeping the article are using arguments that are not grounded in any policy:
    • "Notability is subjective" per Hydao.
    No, it's not. We have many, many guidelines that help us determine notability.
    • Because sources [should] exist, but are no longer inaccessible, per Someoneanother
    This is an assumption and there really hasn't been any evidence that such sources have ever existed.
    • "Most separate officially published and released video games are presumed to be notable" per MuZemike.
    I noted this above, but I have yet to see where this guideline exists.
    • "A lot of the older games don't have an official web site, but they're still notable because they were released in the marketplace and people were buying them from department stores." per GVnayR
    Just being "released into the marketplace" and people buying them is not sufficient. Millions of product exist on the market and we don't need a WP entry for all of them.
    • "if an article like this...is deleted, then I think we have a big problem in here, because then you would have to be COHERENT and delete 75% of the wiki video game articles out there" per Hydao.
    WP:ALLORNOTHING. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you for the most part, although notability is by definition subjective - that's what the guidelines are for. All the "Keep" arguments here boil down to, "Well, it seems notable to me." or "There are lots of articles just like it." etc. It seems like any article with a few external links as references can past muster these days. Eh. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment having an official website does not make something notable. That is an internally controlled source. It is like just having self-punlished an autobiography does not make someone notable. This is a source controlled by the thing. I have not figured out if this is notable, but having an official webpage is not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 27 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 22:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Athens Folk Music and Dance Society

    [edit]
    Athens Folk Music and Dance Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:ORG. unreferenced for 5.5 years. gnews merely shows event listings nothing in depth. [22] LibStar (talk) 05:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:36, 26 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 Danger (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Elementary project

    [edit]
    Elementary project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Refer to the original AfD discussion. The article is recreated again, and the new article is promotional again. I think the subject is not notable. The only two references are to cite GNOME-look.org statistics, and the rest of text is original research. —Fitoschido [shout] \\ 19 July, 2011 [04:50] 04:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedily delete per G4: Recreation of deleted material The recreated page does not sufficiently address the concerns from the previous AfD. There is only one source on the page, though it is referenced twice in the article. I am adding the speedy deletion tag to the article now. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:18, 19 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. Ironholds (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fight Night Mannheim 2006

    [edit]
    Fight Night Mannheim 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    a mere 2 gnews hits and one refers to an event in 2007 and not this event. [26]. this article merely confirms the event happened. google search merely confirms fighting websites and directory listing. having notable fighters or being televised does not grant automatic notability and does not mean at all strong keep. those wanting to keep must provide indepth evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep One of the strongest events in Germany and promoted by K-1 (the world’s strongest kickboxing organization) and W.M.C (the world’s most prestigious Muay Thai organization) with the W.M.C. incidentally having a world title fight on the card. While not the strongest line-up for a K-1 event these tournaments are an important developing event for future fighters who can compete against European level opposition before moving on to international competitions (possibly with K-1 or the WMC). I would argue also that these events are all part of the bigger K-1 picture and deleting these pages would weaken Wikipedia as a place for people to come for knowledge. To all that say that Wikipedia is not supposed to be about everything – I would agree, however, a series of events for a notable organization does not cover every single kickboxing event in existence and I (and other members) have no intention of swamping the site with results from the Cornish Amateur kickboxing league et al. The amount of deletion nominations must also be taken into account, making it very difficult for a small number of kickboxing enthusiasts that work on the Wikipedia pages to actually defend their work. Also do not approve of nominator telling me what kind of keep I can use - this is down to my own free will. Thank-you. jsmith006 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2011
    Wasn't the WMC fight for a European, not world, title? Astudent0 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right - my bad. I would still consider that an example of notability (although obviously not quite as much). Also a German title fight on the line. jsmith006 (talk) 20:10, 5 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) 00:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The relevant WP guideline is WP:Event, which requires (WP:INDEPTH) "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing." This event is rather minor, and has only 80 google hits, most of which appear to be Wikis. There appears to be no significant mention by independent secondary sources. Any important information in this article can be merged into a higher-level article on martial arts. --Noleander (talk) 00:20, 10 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, causa sui (talk) 03:45, 19 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 Winning Days. has already been merged so ... Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuck the World (The Vines song)

    [edit]
    Fuck the World (The Vines song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to be notable. Lachlanusername (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Dan arndt (talk) 03:12, 5 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) 00:05, 10 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, causa sui (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The material from this article has apparently already been merged into Winning Days, and in the absence of anything independently notable about this song, there is IMO no reason for a redirect. Additionally, the edit history of the article doesn't appear sufficiently useful (a potential reason to keep a redirect, but not one that applies in this case). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect. As Richwales says, it appears it has already been merged, but redirects are cheap and this is a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 23 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! 07:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sunil Erevelles

    [edit]
    Sunil Erevelles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Apparently non-notable academic, four passing mentions in local paper via lexis-nexis, nothing much in google books, everything I've found is a quote from him, works by him, or short bio-blurbs related to appearances at conferences. Seems to fail GNG and PROF --Nuujinn (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 4 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) 00:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, still not finding sources. Xxanthippe, the nominator didn't miss the h index, the nominator just doesn't think it is a good indicator for someone who specializes in marketing. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did the nominator miss the several hundred cites? Is he saying that they aren't important either? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    I did not miss the cites. I'm not sure how you mean important, but if you mean do I think the cites and h index value indicate notability, no, I don't, else I would have !voted differently. As I am sure you know, citation rates vary widely with the discipline, I suppose I expect that rate to be high in the fields of marketing research. If you want me to consider something, tho, post links and I'll be glad to take a look. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Prof#C1 states the most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work -- either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. If you do not agree with this policy you should discuss it on the policy pages. Please adhere to Wikipedia policy until it is changed by consensus. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    I believe I am. If you think I'm violating policy, there are a variety of noticeboards on which you can complain about me. Use of the h index as a criterion is, I believe, somewhat controversial and not universally accepted, and, as I have noted, citations rates very with discipline, and I believe PROF acknowledges that well. I took the time before nominating and again before !voting and again tonight to look over some of the publications citing him, and stand by my judgement. Now, if we can find some additional sources covering him, I'm happy to reevaluate. And I think we've talked about this issue enough, and we've wandered off the topic for this particular venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:34, 12 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, causa sui (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week keep The g factor is not a good discriminant except with in the fields with fairly high citation density, and marketing research is not one of them.. He has about 8 papers with 20 or more citations , which is a modest but respectable record. The total number of citations is a very poor discriminant for one can get that by publishing a large amount of thoroughly mediocre work. We need not look for additional sources covering him in the conventional sense, which typically do not occur for a scholar unless they take a pubic role in a major controversy, or after they retire, or are actually famous. Notability is less than that. Even so, I think its borderline at this time . A few very highly cited papers would make the difference. ?The record is typical for his rank, Associarte Professor, and in terms of the level we normally expect, they are only sometimes notable DGG ( talk ) 08:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Ervelles seems to be a dominant figure in his field, so that would fulfill one of the possible reasons for inclusion for academics. Academics only need to meet one criteria, and he seems to be a significant enough figure in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What evidence do you have that he is a dominant figure in his field? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 27 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. Courcelles 22:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie

    [edit]
    The Adventures of Rain Dance Maggie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable song article. Does not fufill WP:NMUSIC. After disscussion amongst editors, it was agreed that the article should be turned into a redirect until more information (or chart positions) were available for it. This has been opposed by IP's. This is the problem. I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect and protect Per this and this. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The song is notable, as it's the first single off of their highly-anticipated tenth studio album. I've read WP:NMUSIC, and I believe that the song meets all the of the criteria. It has already been released, the single cover has been made available, and the music video is completed and set to air. Deleting the article now would be pointless, and redirecting it to the album will only confuse readers who want information regarding the song. Also, deleting or redirecting the article isn't a way to solve a problem on Wikipedia. It's avoiding it if anything. WereWolf (talk) 03:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Why are we debating deleting an entry that will be recreated in a couple of days? What is the point?  Francium12  04:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: Requirements of WP:NMUSIC:
        • "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." → The article barely has any sources.
        • "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." → #1, That's why we redirect. #2, The song has not charted. #3, There isn't enough information right now for the article to be anything other than a stub.
        • Also to respond to WereWolf's argument, the existence of something (in this case let's say a Red Hot Chilli Peppers single) does not make it notable.
        • To respond to Francium12's argument, please read WP:CRYSTAL. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah but we all know it is going to chart short of Western civilization being wiped out. I'd invite the Wikipedia community to exercise a little discretion :-)  Francium12  05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Common sense dictates that this will do well enough to justify it's continued existence on Wikipedia, most likely before this AFD is complete. The fact anything since One Hot Minute has charted mystifies me, but that's not what WP is for, is it...mores the pity! Benny Digital Speak Your Brains 10:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Why should this article be deleted? This is article is notable enough to keep because it's the first single from the upcoming Red Hot Chili Peppers album. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Obviously met the chart provision of music notability. Andrewlp1991 23:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obvious Keep. Is this serious? I just searched this on danotable... The song is mentioned on some many different news articles it would be listed here just off the recent events surrounding its leak.... I doubt notability is a real issue.
    • Keep: The single is already released and we have enough references. Whoever's idea was it to delete needs to get fired :) Maplejet (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    109.65.7.100 (talk) 10:34, 20 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 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Integrated Media Association

    [edit]
    Integrated Media Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    All I can find are press releases, or non-reliable/non-independent sources, and a lack of significant coverage about this organisation. I also found a lot about the Yellow Pages Integrated Media Association in NJ, which would appear to be unconnected with this one. I can find no evidence that the organisation meet the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 19 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 Robert_A._Heinlein#Author. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Henry League

    [edit]
    Patrick Henry League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable organization that was a total and utter flop. At most, this might deserve a sentence in the Heinlein article, but that's it. Orange Mike | Talk 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I would agree that a brief mention is warranted in Robert A. Heinlein and suggest merging a summary, but that content is already present within the article. This article does not achieve notability as a subject to stand alone. IMO My76Strat talk 02:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep An organization does not need to be a smashing success to be notable. Clearly, this particular group got more attention than many because it was founded by Robert A. Heinlein. However, notability derives from coverage in reliable sources. Google News Archives and Google Books show that the Patrick Henry League has received enough coverage over many years, in my opinion, to be considered notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply - none of that is actually coverage of the League, because the League never got off the ground - it was a total fizzle; that's all Heinlein coverage, and belongs (if anywhere) in the article on RAH. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 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 speedily deleted per G11 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The Division of Psychoanalysis (Division 39)

    [edit]
    The Division of Psychoanalysis (Division 39) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to be a notable organization. Main author appears to have COI. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The text of this article is paraphrased from the Division 39 site, however, I represent Division 39 by adding this content to Wikipedia. How can I demonstrate that I have permission to do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Div39psych (talk • contribs) 01:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 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 22:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Interactive Media Awards

    [edit]
    Interactive Media Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    All the coverage I could find are either press releases or varieties of "xyz won the blah-de-blah award at the Interactive Media Awards last night" (often part of a press release any way). I can't find signficant coverage at independent reliable sources to show that these awards meet the general notability guidelines. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 19 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 22:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Canberra

    [edit]
    K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Canberra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    another non notable kickboxing event that wasn't even covered in Australian media. nothing in major Australian search engine trove [27]. LibStar (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I don't think I can find any widespread coverage in reliable sources. The fact that there was no coverage by Australian media doesn't mean that the subject is not notable, though it would suggest that widespread coverage did not occur, making a claim of notability more difficult. In a search for coverage there was the usual assortment of blogs. I did stumble across incidental coverage in Cage Potato. I now wish I hadn't. On that page the first comment suggests that one fighter will sodomize his opponent, though expressed in other words. Wishing to avoid reflex dismissal of the source because it would lack reliability, I had a look around the site. Their tagline is "MMA is not a crime". Hmmm. I checked the about page to see who the editors are. At the bottom of the about page there was a video running showing a violent assault on a pedestrian crossing in Las Vegas lasting 1:35, ending with a vicious kick to the head of a person on all fours. He slumps to the ground unconscious or dead. The video box is tagged with a link; "See more funny videos". Sickening. The video was hosted on the website of the publisher, not on an external video site. We probably won't use this site as a reliable source. I could editorialize further, but suffice to say the subject of the article is not notable nor is it encyclopaedic. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:22, 21 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. With only one delete opinion, we're close to a WP:PROD, so the article shoulod be restored if further sources appear.  Sandstein  05:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stefen Chow

    [edit]
    Stefen Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 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, Courcelles 00:30, 19 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 22:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    List of loanwords in Azerbaijani language

    [edit]
    List of loanwords in Azerbaijani language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced, original research per WP:NOR. Gurt Posh (talk) 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's only OR if it can't be referenced, not just because it isn't at present. The standard is verifiable, not verified. Are you claiming that the status of these words as loanwords is incorrect or cannot be cited to a reliable source? Another question is whether this list topic is appropriate for Wikipedia. Do we maintain lists of words in other languages? Based on Category:Lists_of_loanwords it looks like we do, but I don't know what the consensus is on whether all such potential lists are valid topics. postdlf (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find no sources online for any of the claims made, WP:Reliable or otherwise, and tags for references were removed without explanation by the article's creator. The sole reference added was an external link to About.com about the meaning of various Hebrew names, none of which are mentioned in the article. Theories about loanwords are an enjoyable speculative hobby: theories abound on the origins of Basque, for example, with many attempts to show cognates and loanwords from various languages, none of which have passed peer-reviewed scrutiny. So the enjoyable speculative hobby, once plopped unreferenced onto Wikipedia, becomes just more Wikipedia:Randy in Boise. I'm not an expert in the Azerbaijani language, so maybe I should have added an expert tag before taking it to AFD. If the consensus here is that I should do that, then I will. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – all of it (except for çaqqal "jackal" and perhaps tilif) is made-up and incorrect information; the other similarities are just coincidences.  --Lambiam 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 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, Courcelles 00:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Wikipedia is not the Oxford Dictionary of the Azerbaijani language. This is an original essay of somewhat dubious validity with an almost random feel both with respect to material included and the language being covered. Why not List of Georgian words with exactly four syllables? Carrite (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This article is almost completely unsourced. I am not going to just take somebody's word for it that the Azerbaijani word for "sheep" was taken from a Hebrew word meaning "nation" or "people". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this and any other article like it. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary is a list of words giving the meaning and derivation of each. No word is more "notable" than any other word, Wikipedia-wise. If we have lists of words then we should have complete lists of every word in every language. On the other hand articles about languages are fine, with a few words mentioned as examples. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - The sole reference describes the etymology of jackal and does nothing to verify the article's content. I think that WP:GNG may also be relevant, seeing as this has hardly received any coverage by reliable sources. Interchangable (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not because list articles cannot be meaningful/useful, but in this form has too many secondary problems and should be in a sandbox somewhere. Compare List of loan words in Indonesian with this. (1) The Indonesian article has a proper lede, (2) the Indonesian article has a decent source, (3) the Indonesian article clicks through to id.wiki wheras the Azerbaijani one has also been deleted from Azerbaijani wiki (I checked). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:57, 26 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. As for the articles listed later in the discussion, this discussion would not be adequate to develop a consensus to delete those. But it may well be appropriate to start an AfD for them. Rlendog (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi

    [edit]
    Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Creator of this page has removed the Speedy deletion tag from this article. And there are no references for this biography article. —AssassiN's Creed (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The CSD should not have been removed. No sources cited whatsoever, possibly a cruft article.Whiteguru (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep at least for now. (Changing to Delete because no reliable sources have been produced.) I removed the autobiography tag placed by AssassiN's Creed as the subject died in 1948 so the article is not an autobiography. This is a stub about an early 20th century Moslem leader in what is now Pakistan. It is not "cruft", which by the way is not a valid argument for deletion. Reliable sources may well exist in other versions of a name which has been transliterated from another language. I will support deletion if an editor with the appropriate language skills verifies that the person is not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 12 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) 00:21, 19 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. causa sui (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector

    [edit]
    Sporting Clube de Portugal Youth Sector (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No evidence found that this youth club is notable in its own right (although it is mentioned in the parent club's article in passing) - if necessary, some of the content here could be merged with that article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:13, 4 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) 00:01, 11 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) 00:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, the reason why this one should be deleted is that no reliable independent sources with significant coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything which could be used as such a source. It should be deleted because it does not (without such sourcing) meet the notability criteria, and so should not have a stand-alone article. Of course, it can be mentioned in the parent club article, but it does not currently warrant its own article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:33, 21 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Larissa Murray

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    Larissa Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about the duplicate nomination. Got a message saying the original had not worked when evidently it had. Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 00:57, 12 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) 00:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - Subject clearly fails WP:ENT, as her two film roles are hardly significant. Interchangable (talk) 01:54, 19 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Any editor is free to write a new sourced article and I'll userfy or incubate this upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ev-ie

    [edit]
    Ev-ie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Has no reliable references; quick Google search comes up with nothing. Island Monkey talk the talk 18:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:02, 5 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) 00:43, 12 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) 00:06, 19 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) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Suguru Murakoshi

    [edit]
    Suguru Murakoshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Not notable. Similar to Masashi Tsuboyama Golden Sugarplum (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Golden Sugarplum (talk) 06:50, 5 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) • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 5 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) 00:58, 12 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) 00:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:00, 19 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 22:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It's Showtime - Original

    [edit]
    AfDs for this article:
    It's Showtime - Original (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    also nominating:

    just a series of sporting results that receives no significant third party coverage. one could also apply WP:EVENT, as these sporting events have no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 12 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) 00:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep These events were held by It's Showtime, one of the biggest promotions in the world. World title fights were held on these events. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011
    being held by It's Showtime is not a criterion for notability. most of these do not involve world title fights. LibStar (talk) 08:27, 21 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Felix Kitur

    [edit]
    Felix Kitur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A 800-meter track athlete for Virginia Military Institute. Has won the the Big South Conference indoor and outdoor events. Has made it to two NCAA Championships, but never made it beyond the preliminary rounds. He fails WP:NTRACK Bgwhite (talk) 03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 03:29, 5 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) 01:06, 12 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) 00:05, 19 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 Success Is Certain. v/r - TP 15:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Second Place

    [edit]
    Second Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Does not appear to pass WP:NSONG Eeekster (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 06:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect No chart or background information, fails notability guidelines for songs and could be easily integrated into the Success Is Certain album article. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN (♫♫) 18:12, 15 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) 00:04, 19 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. v/r - TP 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yibaleh

    [edit]
    Yibaleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This appears to be a content fork from Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. The language in this article is identical to other attempts by User:Ras-By-ras to create these type of forks. Singularity42 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 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. v/r - TP 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy

    [edit]
    Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Following on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix I and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperKombat World Grand Prix II this is also not notable as it lacks significant coverage in third party reiliable sources thus failing WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Mtking (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    notable fighters does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. they are not world title fights. strong keep would require a lot of sources. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 18 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) 00:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep This article clearly needs improvement. However, the event did feature a WAKO world title fight and does have some weak sourcing. Needing improvement is not grounds for deletion. Papaursa (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "does have some weak sourcing" It has no sourcing to reliable sources that are independent of the promoter, it has one to www.headkicklegend.com, which is in reality a link to a video and a copy of the results. There is zip all that is in any way significant coverage. Mtking (edits) 01:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    SuperKombat was the promoter and the source given is WAKO--confirming there was a world title fight. Therefore, I'd say that source is both independent of the promoter and reliable (who better to confirm a WAKO title fight?). At least, that's how I see it. Yes, you could argue they're not independent since the promoter probably paid a sanctioning fee for the fight but that's SOP for all fighting events. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    we are talking about sources proving notability, how can WAKO be used to advance the notability of a WAKO sanctioned event ? It can't. I say again that there are no independent sources that can attest to the notability of this event. Mtking (edits) 03:39, 23 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 consensus on Hawaii, delete the rest. Courcelles 02:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    K-1 Fighting Network Scandinavian Qualification 2007

    [edit]
    K-1 Fighting Network Scandinavian Qualification 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    also nominating:

    another sprawling series of results listing of sporting events that gets no indepth third party coverage and fail WP:GNG. there has to be more than sherdog.com to establish notability. they all fail WP:EVENT as well. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:36, 12 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) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete All - poorly referenced and barely notable, and per nominator's arguments. Interchangable (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete all but the Hawaiian event That event featured a world title fight for the heavyweight championship of the world's premier kickboxing organization. Astudent0 (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The events were held by the world's biggest promotion and featured world title fights and many notable fighters. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2011
    having notable fighters does not mean automatic notability. World's biggest promotion? Do you have reliable sources to back that claim? LibStar (talk) 14:19, 20 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. v/r - TP 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Automated Content Access Protocol

    [edit]
    Automated Content Access Protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No coverage since 2008 as far as I can see that isn't the project itself talking about itself. Soupy sautoy (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: Unclear how lack of recent coverage is relevant. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: There was coverage at the beginning as it was launched by a notable institution, but it fizzled out. I realise that the notability guidelines say it isn't temporary, but is there room for something looking notable in its inception but turning out not to be? Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the general answer to your question. I did just notice a recent update on the ACAP site -- management of it has been turned over to IPTC and ACAP 2.0 planned.Mike Linksvayer (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no coverage though, and I'd have thought if anyone was watching it at all, that'd be something to report. Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 14 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) 00:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notable. The necessary standard of notability was met at the time, and this wasn't just somebody's pet idea that existed in the blogosphere only to be instantly forgotten. It was a genuine attempt to adopt a standard for an important sector. The value of keeping these things in Wikipedia even if they are later superseded or fail to thrive is that the topic will be mentioned in some context or another and there is a need for a reliable source where users can find out what it is/was and why it might not have succeeded. --AJHingston (talk) 07:16, 19 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. v/r - TP 15:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave Freeman (meteorologist)

    [edit]
    Dave Freeman (meteorologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Previously kept at AFD in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Freeman (weatherman)), but there doesn't appear to have ever been any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources or anything to confirm the claimed awards (a behind-paywall source suggests the award may have been for visual effects rather than for Freeman). The reference (to a blog) is a dead link. Michig (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Award is confirmed on National Weather Association website (about 2/3 down) in http://www.nwas.org/awards/nwa08awards.php. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 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) 00:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Still a bit short on significant independent coverage. I'm fairly neutral given that we now have at least something to base the article on. --Michig (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are my thoughts on those three sources:
    1. The KSN article is his biog on the station he works for - it is not independent, especially as I would suspect that a lot of it was submitted to KSN by himself!
    2. While the National Weather Association is arguably notable (the article has no citations from reliable independent sources), there is no mention in that article of their awards (and certainly no National Weather Association Awards or NWA Awards articles). I am not convinced that NWA Awards would be considered "major" enough to make a recipient notable
    3. Although WeatherBrains is arguably notable (even though there is no Weatherbrains, Weather Brains, Weatherbrains.com etc article), it is also arguable about how independent the bio at the page actually is. When I read it, I thought that it read like a bio supplied to WeatherBrains by Freeman himself.
    Overall, I personally am not convinced that these are enough to meet the notability criteria. One is not independent (it is his employer); one has an article, but there is no evidence that their awards meet the criteria for making someone notable; the final source has not been demonstrated to be notable. So, despite the excellent work by SunCreator in finding those sources, I am still recommending that we delete this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 25 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloons TD

    [edit]
    Bloons TD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I can not find enough third-party source offering significant coverage of this browser and phone based game to establish its notability. Most of the references in the article point to the iTunes store, which helps with verifiability, but does nothing for notability.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 15:59, 12 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) 05:14, 13 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) 00:01, 19 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 Juke Kartel. v/r - TP 15:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Todd Burman

    [edit]
    Todd Burman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Autobiographical article about a musician of questionable notability outside the group Juke Kartel. Majority of the major claims are unreferenced, sourced to the subject's personal website, or are references about the band, with no mention of Burman. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    To whom it may concern. My name is Todd Burman, I have been trying to do a site on wikipedia. I am trying my absolute best to upload information about myself on this page. I am new to Wikipedia and am only trying to do my best to create this and am the actual person. The content I have been providing is true and I have am performer at the highest level. There are hundreds of articles online mentioning me by name and my achievements including winning awards with the band Juke Kartel and me being one of the main songwriters for that band. I am happy to prove this with my writing societies across the globe able to prove this. All statements are of fact on my personal website including PROOF of work in the field of writing and performing all are which are copyrighted and logged with my applicable writing societies.

    As I have mentioned I am doing my best to site references and outside articles that name me by name. I have collaborated on multiple records and toured with the best in the business and believe to be worthy of inclusion on this site.

    Todd Burman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.40.2 (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Todd, this process questions and seeks discussion regarding your notability with regard to justifying the existence of a Wikipedia article. As you have probably deduced that can be somewhat harrowing for the living! Do understand that by not directly editing autobiographically and avoiding any perceived or real conflict of interest you can avoid being in this undesirable position. An editor has given you a lot of useful information on your talk page. If, after having read that information, you need further clarification about why this process is taking place, please leave a note on my talk or I'm sure the nominator would run through it for you. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The Nom's reasons are well articulated. The Juke Kartel page contradicts itself as to whether the subject is still actually a member and reliable sources are few. If it can be established that the subject is still a member of the band then I'd change to a redirect to the band article. Bleakcomb (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - It doesn't really matter if he is a current or former member. A redirect there would still be appropriate to s section listing former members. We don't ignore history. -- 01:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    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) 00:00, 19 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_July_19&oldid=1142638061"