The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is in question for this band. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deletion under A7. I'm not sure why my CSD tag was disputed here. It is a one-person, non-notable band, which has had some non-notable people as members at various points. No labels, no album releases, no tours, no press coverage, nada. Why is A7 disputed here? Singularity42 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's being worked on so I decided to give it a chance so if it is deleted the person writing will know why. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless something is added to show that their current history of unsuccess is notable, or that they have actually achieved real success, no article is needed. I appreciate the reason this was brought here, and do the same myself at times. Peridon (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No secondary sources. Precedent is that Ursa Major awards do not confer notability, and without that, there's literally no notability per WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nom here. For a notable webcomic, then the sorts of sources likely to allow notability to be established ought to be online. If they are, I can't find them. Google results deteriorate into trivial mentions, forum posts and blogs pretty quickly. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 16:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Ursa Major Award is not an indicator of notability because the award itself does not meet notability requirements. I cannot find sources which would indicate the comic's notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look like there are any secondary sources. In other news, today I learned that "WikiFur" exists. The content will presumably live on there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:00, 10 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. There is overwhealming consensus that this does not justify a standalone article and while I considered exercising discretion for a merge over a deletion to try and take the keep arguments into account the bald fact is that the delete side has such a strong showing that it would be an abuse of discretion not to simply go with the numbers. So many people have not been swayed by the keep votes that the outcome is very clear SpartazHumbug! 19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion, for all reasons discussed here, and per consensus on that page that the article should undergo a full AfD. To summarize: The article was created, most probably, by a badhat sock to make a point about Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The article's sourcing is weak (see this discussion), in spite of having a lot of big name mentions, it doesn't seem to have more than passing discussion. There is already an article where this information belongs, Lewinsky scandal, or else as part of her biography. Again, read the full discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2BE——Critical__Talk 23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion rationale from the deletion review, per nominator's request:
I make no recommendation as to deletion, merge & redirect, keeping, or moving this article to a new name. I am simply here summarizing the base concern expressed there. It basically boils down to those who wanted it to stay deleted feel like it's a pretty blatant violation of WP:BLP. Particularly, Dreadstar (the inital deleting admin) pointed to this quote from that policy:
"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
Hopefully this can serve as the basis for a discussion regarding the ultimate fate of this article. Best, LHM 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note - there is no rationale for this AFD - it has been opened as a confirmation AFD - please do not comment here - this AFD is valueless and should be closed. There is clear support for this content, the AFD has been opened to strengthen it not to delete it. Speedy close as outside process, no deletion rationale confirmation nominationOff2riorob (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain calm. It accomplishes nothing to repeatedly blank this AFD, as you have done, and to now rail against it. The consensus at the deletion review was to overturn the speedy and relist. I read nothing there that would support your claim that "there is clear support for this content." LHM 22:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We shouldn't say "no" to having a discussion, and the DRV discussion clearly shows heated contention rather than unified consensus. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I amn not suggesting "unified consensus" - however there clearly is no consensus to delete. Without a deletion rationale any comment keep or delete is void. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a definition and an etymology. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) A mention in Lewinsky scandal may be appropriate. 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well this is off to a terrible start! The original nomination was not completed and did not include a real rationale. I had no interest in making this nomination myself but I did complete the process so it would be listed properly. Off2riorob repeatedly blanked the content, claiming this was a bad-faith nom from someone who does not actually want the article deleted. Whether or not that is true, blanking this page (and edit warring over it) was inappropriate but apparently will stop now. The nominator does need to include a rationale, and if they don't actually want this deleted then this never should have been nominated in the first place. That said, given the discussion at the DRV I would imagine someone would have nominated this eventually. This note marks the end of my involvement here because, well, it just does. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks bigtimepeace, I have learnt something from you "The nominator does need to include a rationale, " I am surprised but hey, I am surprised here every day, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping, I had to leave the computer at an inopportune time, and couldn't finish things (and not used to the process). BE——Critical__Talk 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Weak Transwiki, and UNBLOCK KIWI BOMB. The article is essentially a dictionary article. I've recently transwikied one (Camel toe to wiktionary:cameltoe) which I thought had some remote potential to become an encyclopedia article as well; this seems just a little less than that one, basically a list of attestations. Wiktionary currently lacks an entry at all, which should be modified. From the deletion review it sounds like the sources need double checking to sort over some details. However, I do not support deleting the article in the event transwiki is chosen, because it is better to keep the original contribution history and discussion - a soft redirect is good enough, no need to erase the history. But above all what we need to do is recognize, whether it was a good article or one better shoved aside, it was not a wrong article - it is not something that a newbie should be blocked for creating. I want us to come out of this AfD with a clear statement of that. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussions are not unblock discussions - if you want a statement/declaration of that you should go to WP:ANI - this is not the place at all. Off2riorob (talk)
When I say "unblock Kiwi Bomb" I'm using a shorthand - what I mean is that the discussion should make clear that the article per se is not improper; and the article is all he had a chance to do. This is very important to me because I actually do think it can be transwikied, but I don't want that to be taken as meaning Kiwi Bomb should be blocked - the article is near the boundary between encyclopedia and dictionary definition, and new (or old) editors should not be penalized for sticking it in the wrong spot. Wnt (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep There may be nothing more here than a DICDEF so we should consider that as a strong reason for deletion. However I strongly contest the unsupported allegations that the article itself is an attack page of that the mere mention of "Lewinsky" is some BLP violation so gross that the editor creating the article be blocked without discussion and the article speedily deleted. We need to slow down and have a calm discussion of the merits of the subject and the article. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no real problem with merging this to an appropriate parent article. Protonk (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of sources that start with a quote from an announcer for professional wrestling is not a good sign. Oral sex had been around for a great many years before Lewinsky became infamous; it doesn't seem quite fair to tag the young woman with a label a few clowns have tossed around.
Agreed that this page is a horrible mess, but I don't think anyone has done anything worth blockage. Loud chiding might be in order. PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence for a while but after reviewing the sources in the un-deleted article I now think that it meets the relevant guideline (WP:NEO), however distasteful the subject may be. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Disgusting and distasteful article topics are not problematic. There are clearly enough reliable sources about the word itself that we can reasonably have an article here. Since source discuss the history and use of the word, transwikying is suboptimal. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- reliable sourcing exists for the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. A few joking uses of the word do not constitute "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources." Edison (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletealready covered elsewhere, and not sufficient notability for a stand-alone article per WP:NEO policy. Most of the sources are primary sources, i.e. sources using the term, rather than secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources. Also BLP concerns. --JN466 00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Will, thank you. I thought someone said it was covered in these article, and upon checking I find it isn't. Adding a paragraph in Lewinsky scandal will be the best solution, rather than having a standalone article. --JN466 01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there's reason for a paragraph, not an article. BE——Critical__Talk 02:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yet no one has added such a paragraph. Will Bebacktalk 11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Monica Lewinsky is only notable for a single reason, the scandal surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton. This would be a third article dealing with her and the aspects of that scandal. Its a BLP violation to have Monica Lewinsky only notable for this sex scandal to be featured in three stand alone articles. If this neologism, is deemed either appropriate or significant enough to be noted in Wikipedia, a line in one of the other two articles is enough.(olive (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, and merge any useful content into a short paragraph into a parent article, per concerns raised both here and at the deletion review regarding WP:BLP issues. There's simply no reason to have an article that identifies a person's name with a sexual act. Even the similar "santorum" article (which presents much different concerns) did not survive as "Santorum (neologism)" but was renamed. LHM 02:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I think this meets WP:NEO and WP:N quite nicely. However, from an organizational viewpoint I think a merger to the Lewinsky scandal page with a short paragraph of coverage there would be workable and maybe even the best solution. I do oppose deletion. That is I don't see a point to delete and merge (in addition to the attribution problems, there just isn't a point here). Hobit (talk) 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Updated, S Marshall's arguments that other than the definition there really isn't anything to do here that isn't on the scandal page. Rather than redoing that on this page, a merge makes a lot more sense (yes, I know he got delete out of that, but A) I don't see a BLP violation here as it's all quite well sourced and B) I think a merge addresses the problem better than deletion.) Hobit (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.WP:BLP calls for the removal of unsourced or questionably sourced material about a living person. This article is impeccably sourced. Summoning a BLP violation here is best described at our essay Wikipedia:BLP_zealot: As the policy says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The BLP zealot would take this to apply to all contentious material, no matter how well sourced. He would remove a statement like "Roman Polanski was charged with having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl"[1][2] under this policy.Wiwaxia (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really comparing a 22-year-old intern, who was seduced by the president to Polanski, who was charged with molesting a 13 year old girl? LHM 04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough, you have exposed the principal problem with broad enforcement of BLP. Where we are normally supposed to be supremely agnostic about the subject of the article, a liberal interpretation of BLP would force us to distinguish between those two cases. We should be just as suspicious about unsourced allegations in both articles. Note I did not say (nor did Wiwaxia) that sourced allegations be scrubbed from both articles. You would also be hard pressed to find literal policy which would force us to do the scrubbing. And yet here we are. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison. Petty name calling without any impact on the English language. Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Appearing on Law and Order and in the New York Times is good enough for notability for me. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lewinsky scandal. Unfortunately, it appears in concise Partridge (Datzell's edition, 2008). And it seems to have entered the English language. Also, unfortunately, it has enough material to prevent a move to wiktionary via WP:NOTDICDEF. Similar to Gerrymandering, which is based in Elbridge Gerry. As JN466 says "[it lacks] secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources" (apart from 3 sexual slang books), so it could merged to the scandal article Most of the article is original research on how the primary sources use the term, and it could be trimmed during the merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the Lewinsky (neologism) and Santorum (neologism) is that in the Lewinsky case, the word itself hasn't attracted controversy or coverage. There wasn't a campaign to elevate "Lewinsky" to a word, and there was no controversy about that word. This is why it's entirely self-consistent to argue "keep" for Santorum but "delete" for Lewinsky.
Now that we know we're not being inconsistent, it remains to consider the Lewinsky case in detail. There are two things the article might discuss: the word itself (as a dictionary definition) and the way the word arose (for which see Lewinsky scandal.) After you subtract (a) the dicdef and (b) the things that belong in Lewinsky scandal there isn't anything left. Delete this negative information about a living person per WP:BLP, and do it now, not later.—S MarshallT/C 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Used once or twice, over a decade ago. Not remotely encyclopedic. Not a definition, not anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gelobet sei (talk • contribs) 12:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need an article on every neologism in the English language. This one is old, trivial, and barely worth a mention. I might weakly support a merge of one sentence about it into another article.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somewhat similar to the "santorum" retardation, this is not a real word; it has been utilized...sparingly...as a crude joke, that is all. Reliable sources that make mention of this could be used in the Lewinsky scandal article to note how some have mocked her last name. But it is not an actual word, just as a certain NFL player's name that was used amusingly for a time at WP:BOOMERANG isn't one, either. Also ,please re-indef block the article creator, the quacking is practically deafening. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you want to request a block of the user, please do so in the proper forum.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment on blocks where and when I choose. Kindly mind your own business. Tarc (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am the creator of this article. The word "lewinsky" as a slang term or euphemism for oral sex continues to be widely used as I have tried to show by my selection of sources. Many of the sources not only use the word but also mention that it has become part of the lexicon. It has been included in multiple slang dictionaries. I believe that its popularity derives from the fact that it is seen as an acceptable euphemism for a subject that would not otherwise be mentioned. The Lewinsky scandal gave rise to public discussion of topics that would previously not have been addressed by the mainstream media. See The Nation: The New Scandalisms; It Depends on What Your Definition of Linguistic Trend Is from The New York Times for example. KayBee (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disgusting, Wikipedia has become a place where everyone can read about the sexual slang byproducts of someone's mistakes. I wonder how Jimbo would like it if I used the terms "pulling a Jimbo" to refer to chatting about sex? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or renaming a decade as a "full Jimbo" as in the length of time between divorces. John lilburne (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that editor revulsion at a subject was sufficient reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean—the revulsion is at allowing this page to exist, not the action of oral sex. BLP is about protecting people, not further associating them with something undesirable. Now, this doesn't mean all negative content should be removed, of course, but we shouldn't be hosting pages purely about someone's name equaling oral sex. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (carefully and judiciously). A number of policies and issues intersect here, and (pending a more complete review of the sources) the case could be made that this satisfies WP:NEO and as a well-sourced article about an (unwitting) public figure is thus out of WP:BLP territory. However, I am also a firm proponent of WP:SOCK, WP:DENY, and WP:POINT. Assuming that's how and why the article was created we shouldn't reward a disruptive editor who happens to have found a viable policy argument the fruits of their mischief. Further, stepping way back from all of this, as an encyclopedia I think we should mention this pop culture phenomenon -- the English language and its evolution being an important topic well worth covering in the encyclopedia -- briefly as a side issue to the scandal article, not as a stand-alone article. That's what's best to inform the reader, our primary mission here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a dictionary and especially not a dictionary of obscure slang. I'm now of the opinion there should be no neologism articles. Any new words should be a section of the event that created the word. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't get me started on the fiction that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See, e.g., that and either. Sorry, just venting.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, please vent. However, that and either articles are about grammar and logic and such articles are appropriate. I'll grant it can be hard to know where to draw the line. Some feel there should be no articles about words period. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fills a necessary void. (M.Twain) JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to scandal article, after condensing substantially. The cited material doesn't show enduring use of this neologism, just a burst of use in the immediate wake of the events. Most of the cited later uses are from partisan sources and targeting commentary, no more than ordinary political invective that lacks independent notability. Perhaps a better case could be made for more general usage, but without one the article can't stand alone. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Wikidemon. -- Khazar (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though I appreciate Wikiedomen's argument. This does not rise to the level of notability required for something relatively extraordinary, and the lack of proper sourcing is indicative. That a Wrestlezone commentator needs to be cited suggests this lack of notability, as does the plethora of primary sources. Drmies (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here per wp:NEO and merge partly into Lewinsky scandal. KayBee Good point to mention it and bringing it to Wikipedia, but best destination is there. Standalone article? Why? Reo+ 07:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per S Marshall, without prejudice to merging anything relevant. Yes this is a delete-and-merge recommendation. The redirect is useless. We can preserve attribution through edit summaries or talk page notes. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leaving behind a short mention in the Lewinsky scandal article. I reject the reasoning stated in the nomination; there is no BLP violation here. The reason to delete is that there's nothing here beyond the dictionary entry. New words enter the language all the time. It's not like Gerrymandering or Boycott or the like because those articles are primarily about the thing itself, with a mention of how the thing came to be described with this word. We should and do have an article on oral sex. It's not like Campaign for "santorum" neologism because there's no campaign here, and no sources indicating any political impact. The purported notability is simply indication that the word is being used, which is enough for a dictionary but not for an encyclopedia. Although I disagree with KayBee's "keep" rationale, I see no blockable offense here. JamesMLanetc 14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A flash in the pan. The only current sources using the term are political commentators who live to beat dead horses. The rest are painfully dated. At most this deserves a sentence or two in the scandal and biography articles about a short-lived eponymous piece of slang, that has not been picked up into the language. I'd suggest Campaign for lewinsky neologism except that Rush doesn't have an SEO-savvy following of word-users outside of Urban Dictionary (result #3 on Google as of 11:09 EDT 2011-Jul-5). And the other one will, I think, last much longer than this one did. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not even counting that this article is a textbook example of why BLP1Eexists, it has been clearly created in order to make a point about another unrelated article. — Coren(talk) 16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we are not UrbanDictionary. Add the bare bones (i.e. that the word "Lewinsky" was briefly regarded as a synonym for fellatio) to the main article on the Lewinsky scandal. JFW | T@lk 18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor lady has had enough without it becoming a wikipedia page. Drop it. BTW, Santorum is a deliberate public figure. So the analogy is bad. Jewishprincess (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:NOT or any core policy is "the poor lady has had enough"? That's the thing here, there are *NO* policy-based reasons for deletion. BLP covers unsourced material, not things sourced to the New York Times, BLP:1E doesn't apply to words. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I worded my objection incorrectly. I was merely saying it is time this discussion is put to bed. There are myriad reasons for deleting this article, many of them detailed here. I pretty much agree with all of them. Jewishprincess (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, my way of thinking with BLP is that if an entire article exists on something that should just be sentence in a section of another, the very size and scope of the standalone article makes it a BLP violation. At the very least redirect it, but I don't think there are sufficient sources for a standalone article or even a redirect of this purported neologism. the current sources fail miserably. Dreadstar☥ 02:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, upon a second review I still don't think this is a malicious BLP violation. With that said, I think there is undue weight given to the neologism given the sources available, so I think a merge to the scandal article to cover the coining of the word (thouroughly referenced, of course) is the best way to go here. Lankiveil(speak to me) 08:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Merge Merge - non-notable neologism bordering on BLP vio. (talk→BWilkins←track) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; article is really straining to get this to a standalone topic, and the content fits a lot better as a paragraph in the Lewinsky Scandal. There are a lot of sources in this article but many of them are simply uses of the neologism, which are then mentioned in the article (in some detail, I add). That basically amounts to an "in popular culture" section. All this content should be removed till secondary sources can be found to support it. The remaining sources do, yes, raise this as content we should be adding - but not to the level of a standalone article. The neologism was relatively short lived and relates to the wider story of the scandal more than anything else. --Errant(chat!) 11:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge) for the same reasons I expressed at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism discussion. The entire concept is a WP:ATTACK on a WP:BLP. It's a WP:FORK and WP:COATRACK. My view also has grounds in many areas of WP:NOT. Simply put: This is not what an encyclopedia, regardless of how extensive, should be documenting in all juicy lurid details. The funny thing is, I won't be surprised a bit if this gets deleted, and the santorum one gets kept. But I'm starting to get used to the complete lack of consistency in this project. — Ched : ? 13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on a side note: I am somewhat puzzled by the nom's desire to keep and work on the santorum article, and yet feel so adamant that this one should be deleted. However, I'd be a bit surprised if he was the only "keep santorum" and "delete Lewinsky" editor here. The funny part is ... I've actually heard people use the later term. Dial Ripley's Believe it or not. — Ched : ? 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no inconsistency. One article describes a current ongoing campaign, the other a word that is not currently in notable use. If/when the santorum campaign folds or people stop talking about it the way they've stopped talking about lewinsky, I'll !vote to merge santorum too. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, now please. This article is almost a violation of BLP by its very existence. We do not need to treat living people like this. I thought Santorum (neologism) was bad enough (an article which inexplicably still exists), now people want to create more like that? No, let's stop this silliness here. In this case, a brief mention in Lewinsky scandalmay be appropriate, but I cannot agree that this is such an important word that it needs an article notwithstanding the obvious BLP issues. Robofish (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JakeInJoisey causa sui (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this article and Campaign for "santorum" neologism. Or keep them both, as long as we're consistent. They are of equal notability/importance to share the same fate. Peacock (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A handful of allusive references do not a neologism make. Sources that characterize a joke among college kids and attention seekers as a neologism, rather than a protologism at most, are expressing a fringe view. Even as a protologism, there is nothing encyclopedic to say about it, just an etymology and some use cases, titillating though they be. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Judging from the age of the references, it looks like it was briefly used as a word but didn't take. A couple of contemporary jokes don't add up to current usage. Nor is this an odd linguistic phenomenon like Santorum worth documenting. Perhaps a paragraph in her article or in whatever appropriate Clinton scandal article. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a reference: Don Van Natta Jr. (1999-10-17). "The Nation: The New Scandalisms; It Depends on What Your Definition of Linguistic Trend Is". New York Times. NBC said Lewinsky was used "many times on TV". Dick Wolf refused to apologize for using it. So there's some legitimate notability to the word as a neologism, and some content that doesn't really fit into a dictionary article. Wnt (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per WP:BARE. It was once notable, and used for about ten years, then a new generation used "brain" instead. I looked at the sources and was surprised at how good they were. The other, santorum, has been attested for a longer time. If this one were deleted, I would not be unhappy, but agree that we should be consistent. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a newly created List of sexual neologisms. Easy to populate such a list. Should have been done with whatever we're calling "santorum" now. Merge other sexual neologisms into the list as they come to meet the tests of notability and verification. Create redirects from all such into the new parent. This should provide reasonable coverage without offering undue promotion to one single neologism. BusterD (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion wouldn't be a bad option. The problem is these are minority uses of the word, which of course is not actually a word, but a surname. Even when used as this article purports it is used, there is not actually word usage there (this applies to "santorum" as well) but rather invocation of an idea that requires thinking about—first one has to think about the Lewinsky scandal and then one can conjure up the image intended by the speaker's linking to that particular historical incident. So, no, there is no topic for an article here. In fact there should not be a dictionary definition for the terms lewinsky or santorum. There is no way that anyone could argue that these are words that have entered our language. At best we can describe usages of surnames as references to particular inflection points that are confined considerably to historical points in time. My prediction is that the point will come, in the not too distant future, when these two references will be dated and will adversely reflect upon any user, and any further use will mark one as from a previous era. At that point the only possible use will be the recreation of historical settings as in writing and filmography. The briefest of mentions of both of these terms should be confined to articles on wider topics, as these terms definitely have not entered our language, but merely are references. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A "handful of allusive references" (Ningauble's excellent term) does not warrant an article. Neutralitytalk 01:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lewinsky scandal, where a one-sentence mention of this phenomenon may be appropriate. There's really no need to repeat all instances where a word has been used. —Kusma (t·c) 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the neologism is documented in dictionaries and a number of other reliable sources that discuss the term rather than just using it in passing. Quigley (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - limited usage and limited note. Off2riorob (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on a humdrum synonym for blowjob. True, it's impressively tricked out, but it's merely a longwinded dictionary entry. And examination reveals that it's less impressive than it first seems. Example: In 2009 on popular wrestling site [[Wrestlezone]], announcer Jim Ross opined that "most know what a 'Lewinsky' refers to".<ref>{{cite web|last=Boone|first=Matt|title=Jim Ross On WWE/Denver Incident, RAW Announcing, Tag-Teams|url=http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/jim-ross-on-wwedenver-incident-raw-announcing-tag-teams-77475|publisher=[[Wrestlezone]]|accessdate=2 July 2011|date=22 May 2009|quote=Most know what a "Lewinsky" refers to so I wonder if arena scheduling issues might be referred to as "Kroenke's" in the future?}}</ref> -- there's nothing there, or in the source, to say that "Lewinsky" means blowjob as opposed to intern of the preferred sex, intern selected for looks, sexually available intern, curvacious person, person who's the butt of jokes, person whose "15 minutes" elapsed some time ago, etc etc. ¶ There is little parallel with the neologism santorum, which by contrast was created and has been popularized for a political purpose. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At best, a non-notable neologism. At least as likely: a POINTY retort to the Campaign for Santorum Neologism piece. Stacking three footnotes on the first line in the lead to "support" a highly arguable subjective statement is the tell-tale red flag for me. Footnote stacking is often a sign of tendentious editing... Carrite (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Carrite and Hoary directly above. Tony Fox(arf!) 01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as others have said as a non-notable neologism. Mtking (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism that hasn't been itself the subject of signficant coverage. The article justs lists everytime the phrase has been used in the media, without giving any sources which discuss the broad reception of the term. ThemFromSpace 02:59, 11 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. Bastin, you claim to have found 3 sources which satisfy WP:GNG. If you would have presented them in this discussion so they could have been evaluated the result might have been different. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. There is no sourcing to indicate that he has played for Cape Verde. In addition, his one sourced call-up was against Italy's U-21 team, meaning it was not a full international match and therefore insufficient to grant notability, whether he played or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several references if you actually look for them; I just found three more in five minutes. Thus, he meets GNG. On the issue of internationals, a call-up for an official international is now sourced. I'm sure you'd find that he's played a game for Cape Verde in the past four years if you looked for it. However, since he meets GNG, it is presumed that he is notable, so it is up to you to prove that he hasn't. Bastin 23:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY with no verification that he has actually played for Cape Verde. The sources are pretty much only trivial mentions of the player, so this fails WP:GNG, too. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not yet meet WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY criteria. Can be added if/when he plays for Cape Verde in a senior international. Deserter1 10:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. it is usual to give the votes of more experienced editors more weight then inexperienced editors and on that basis the outcome is clear SpartazHumbug! 03:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The church didn't just move, there was a separation from the Diocese of Ottawa. The Church of the Messiah chose to separate from the Diocese over the issue of same-sex marriage. Lovely sre (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it seems that this church is only really notable for one event that happened a few days ago, and I don't think it meets WP:EVENT. I'm not opposed to the article being re-created if it the church remains notable in a few months' time, but right now, it is impossible to tell. Singularity42 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. "Event" doesn't apply, it is an information article on a church, that was founded 144 years ago and that Sir John A Macdonald attended. I'm perfectly happy to keep the information on the St. Alban's article if that is the more appropriate place for it to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.54.52 (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely sre is an account which has edited this and one other related article, and is the creator of this article. Edison (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no inherent notability for being a church. The relevant notability guideline is WP:ORG, and thiscongregation in no way satisfies it. One burst of news coverage for leaving its former parent denomination fails WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in third party sources and as such fails WP:GNG et al. Mtking (talk) 08:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFD is not an appropriate place to insert lots of spam links. There is no "inherent notability" for the "Anglican Relignment" or the "realignment movement." Edison (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are not spam links, they are references, to explain why I think the parish is notable. If there is no inherent notability in the Anglican realalignmnt movement, why does Wikipedia already have a series of articles on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.54.52 (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notibility 19:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Jewishprincess (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - per nom. In the absence of significant coverage, he clearly fails WP:GNG, and since he has not played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem very notable and from the edit history looks like self promotion. WOSlinker (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the article starter's user name, this appears to be an autobiography by a single-purpose account (writing about himself and his school). The edits of checked out by editors other than the article's subject/author consist of either formatting clean-up or vandalism. Although the subject does have media coverage in multiple articles, I think the presumption should weigh very, very heavily toward deletion of autobios. If a person is notable, someone else will create an article on him/her eventually. In the event the result is Keep, the article should be overhauled to remove the self-promotional tone and make it look less like a resumé. --JamesAM (talk) 01:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the Wikipedia nobility standards based on the sources presented. The book written about Rashid noted that it used Wikipedia as one of its major sources.--CHASEMOON (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no impact apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as too early. Near zero impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No sources, no WoS citations, no credible claim of notability, etc. This article is SPA-created and likely to be just a vanity page. Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Article appears to have been created by a small audio book company which publishes Harkness's works. Account reported via ARV RadioFan (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - vanity article. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete! Dr. Harkness and her Saturday meetings have changed my life for the better. She encouraged me to have the confidence to be interviewed by BusinessWeek as a subject matter expert on changing workforce trends and the looming labor shortage. See www.businessweek.com, technology, "The IPad's Secret Abilities" and other articles in the series by writer Rachel King. Helen is a pioneer in thought leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.152.200.93 (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — 99.152.200.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment that's great but in order to be retained here, the article must meet wikipedia's notability guidelines which is based around coverage of her in reliable sources, not how people she's worked with have been covered in reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Question notability. Individual only appears as an extra or has minor (one-episode) appearances in several plays, commercials, and music videos. Couldn't find evidence of re-appearing roles. Two limited-release films doesn't really establish notability either. I've worked on this article for a while hoping it would improve beyond a fan-site, but it doesn't seem to be happening. nsaum75!Dígame¡ 20:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Metropolitan90's research, there appears to be enough coverage to meet the GNG. Quasihuman | Talk 22:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Chicago International Film Festival is apparently the oldest film festival in the U.S. That alone seems like a big enough award to merit notability. It would seem inappropriate to have a red link or no link on the award page. In the article for the film, Roger Ebert was quoted as praising her performance. It doesn't seem at all like a fan site right now (although earlier versions have that tone). Plus, she's got a number of other roles. But barring really extreme problems that seems like a reason for improvement rather than deletion. --JamesAM (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"Professional ludo player". However, the world of professional ludo appears to have collapsed - if it was ever anything much. The World Championship appears to have existed only in Pakistan. References are blog based. I'm bringing this to AfD (having deleted it once previously) in order to get a consensus. Peridon (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in secondary reliable sources, thus fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. All the sources are from a blog of another ludo "World Champion". Ludo "World Championship" is not a notable sport event. --Muhandes (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Most of the mentions of him are on blogspot, together with some on facebook and other non-reliable sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Visit Lahore and see him. By sitting in USA and Israel u can that there is no notability and he has his website which is copyrighted.This website has been made specially for Wikipedia.--Nokhaiz Kaunpal (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid argument. You need to read WP:BLP to understand what constitutes notability. We don't need to visit any one. If a person is notable for something, there should automatically be coverage in reliable sources which substantiate his/her notability. Mar4d (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching on Google, I can't even find reliable coverage of Ludo competitions in general, let alone this person. I can't help wondering if this article is a hoax. Jowa fan (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, and likely made up. I'm assuming Ludo refers to Ludo (board game). This blog would indicate its just some friends and family making up a "World championship". Refer to the first post where a 7 year old wins the championship.; as well as all the other posts. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I was always suspicious of this. It is difficult, to say the least, to see how anyone could be a professional ludo player. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no such thing as a ludo word championship. All references are in fact blogs. This article is a hoax. Mar4d (talk) 09:45, 10 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.
Of the current sources used in this article, only four are secondary sources. The first two of these are citations from the same comic art auction magazine series and only briefly mention the character in passing. The third secondary source is a website that does not appear to be reliable. The fourth secondary source again only mentions this character very briefly. A further search for reliable secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage to justify an article on Wikipedia. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The character is notable because it is the first major character to find death in a Marvel comic, it has an impact on the series Sgt. Fury and the Howling Commandos. He is a founder member of the Howling Commandos. He has some appearances in the main continuity and he has three apparitions in alternate universes. [1] Even if the character has died, he continues to make some apparitions in comic books with flashbacks like Dark Reign: New Nation #1 (2009).[2] With the announcement of the film Captain America: The First Avenger, the name was given among the description of the Howling Commandos. The article suggests that it could be, like some members of the Howling Commandos, presented in the film.[3] The sources are difficult to find due to the main period 1960's. About the secondary sources described by the nominator, in my opinion, they allow to verify the information provided by the article and the notability. About the comic art auction, passing mention in a description of three sentences of a comic book is quite good for me. The website in question is reliable, read TwoMorrows Publishing and the information on Jack Kirby Collector. The two paragraphs of the fourth secondary source cover the information given in the article about the death of the character. The external link Jonathan "Junior" Juniper at The Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe which has been credited as a source by Marvel in their Marvel Monsters volume, allows also to check some information given in the article.--Crazy runner (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The character has an entry in Marvel Legacy: The 1960's Handbook (2006) and one in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z HC vol. 6 (2008).--Crazy runner (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more source: "This is the first time a main character has actually died in a Marvel Comic, I think. And this isn't your typical "dead-but-really-not-dead" kind of thing. This is war and Junior's dead. He ain't coming back." McCoy, Paul Brian. "Mondo Marvel #19 - November 1963". Comics Bulletin. Retrieved July 4, 2011. --Crazy runner (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article provides no clues of notability. Google test only delivers 923 hits in all languages. German WP has no article about him. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete English Wikipedia is not intended to be a mirror of German Wikipedia, so presence or absence of an article there is largely irrelevant in an AFD. Please do not even bring up basic Google hits, since the number of such hits is also irrelevant in AFD discussions. Google book search is a better guide than Google search. It only shows one mention [4], not sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO. Google News archive had no hits for '"August Hain" communist'. The name comes up twice in Google scholar, (a third hit is spurious, the juxtaposition of the two names as part of two other names) but without a snippet, or in French, so no clue if the hits are relevant.Edison (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article provides no clues of notability. Even with correct name (Hermann) the Google test only delivers 4500 hits in all languages. German WP has no article about him. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German Wikipedia and Google hits are of little relevance to an AFD discussion. Please read and follow WP:BEFORE before nominating an article for deletion. Edison (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the source found by Cullen, The Revolutions of 1848 describes him as "a leading member" of the League of the Just. Many additional mentions found at Google Books. [5][6] He appears to have been a significant figure in the movement. The article needs improving but the subject is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
advertising for made.com instead of making an article about it. Thebestofall007 (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather neutral descriptions and factual with some quoted references. If considered unsuited please suggest how to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninglimade (talk • contribs) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Spam. When I searched Google and Yahoo, I only found one mention here. Anybody else is welcome to dig for some more sources if they can find any. SwisterTwistertalk 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This fringe group has some 27000 hits on google, but reliable sources seem to be lacking. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"James Turk" has over 550.000 Google hits. Including reputable sources like ReutersFT, KWN or Bloomberg.--╪ 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — ╪ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep I think within its specialized subject, this foundation is very well known and relevant. It's been referenced by pretty reputable media sources including Forbes, FT and Bloomberg. Please suggest if this article is missing anything important, but don't delete if it just needs improvement. --╪ 07:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep The Youtube channel by this foundation has generated about 600,000 views. It looks relevant at first sight. --Roadtoliberty (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources provided do not meet the requirements for establishing notablility per WP:N. We do not have in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. A number of the sources are blogs or other unreliable content. Of those that might be considered reliable, most simply mention the name of the foundation without any further information about it. Further, the "Foundation" does not even have its own website, but is a subsection of a commercial site, goldmoney.com, with the subtitle "The best way to buy gold & silver" and which entices visitors to sign up as customers. This is spam, subtle spam, but spam nonetheless. Yworo (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above, the video page is quite well populated (over 240 videos, 4 languages, over 700.000 views) as well as widely linked by hundreds of secondary sources. The videos are mostly centered on academic and historical topics. --╪ 08:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
In order for the page not to be deleted, I need examples of those secondary sources that directly refer to the "Foundation"'s prominence. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 17:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of external, third party references if you bother to google, just a few examples, but there are hundreds: 1234567891011GATA121314 --╪ (talk) 08:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to videos created by the Foundation, self-published documents and videos may never be used to establish the notability of the publisher. Only in-depth independent third-party reliable sources can be used to establish notability. The number of documents and/or page views are not part of our general notability guidelines. Read the guidelines and satisfy them or the organization will be determined to be non-notable and the articles of non-notable organizations are deleted. Wikipedia is not here to help promote such organizations. Yworo (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful Yworo. I'm familiar with notability, thank you very much. Considering this is a very well known organisation in the sound money world, I did not imagine it would be a problem when I created this entry, especially since similar organisations like Gata or Mises Institute already have entries. I clearly underestimated the free time that some wiki guardians have on their hands. You might use some of that time helping improve articles instead of knocking them.--╪ (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is such a well-known organisation, why does it turn up zero hits in Google Scholar? I am very much convinced this is just a wackjob fringe group with no real claim to notability. I do not have that much free time -- my day job is as a biochemistry researcher -- otherwise I'd research each contested article more in depth. Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (be free) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Google Scholar works better for biochem than for monetary history. Example: top treatise on US constitutional monetary theory? "Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution" by Edwin Vieira. Last edition published by... yes the GoldMoney Foundation. Maybe the whole subject of monetary history is too fringe-y for wikipedia. Or maybe the fault lies with you. All I know is that I'm not wasting more time on this. --╪ (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough notable mentions. When I searched Google and Yahoo, I saw one mention that was even close to notable here. SwisterTwistertalk 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to James Turk. Virtually all the references cited in the article are about Turk, and mention the foundation in passing or not at all. Google hits all go to Mr. Turk's company, goldmoney.com, rather than to this supposed foundation (which as Yworo noted above may be simply a stalking horse for the business). Literally nothing about the foundation can be found at Google News about this foundation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my opinion to just plain "delete". It turns out that James Turk does not currently have a Wikipedia article. The James Turk linked to in the article is a retired federal judge, not an economist. --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:37, 11 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I hastily deleted this page and redirected it to here. It was reverted, since I deleted it without discussion. Okay. So I'm recommending it for deletion, based on the following criteria:
Notability. Wikipedia's own list of main regional styles of barbecue in the US doesn't list St. Louis. That's not grounds for deletion in itself, but the fact that three of the four styles listed there (Memphis, Carolinas, Texas) don't seem worthy of having their own article makes me think that this isn't worthy either.
Quality. Lots of phrases here aren't encyclopedia-like, in my opinion. "Slow cooking over low heat is the key to culinary success here, with a good, smoky grill." "The result is a surprisingly tender and tasty entrée that is the centerpiece (along with a good St. Louis beer) of many a backyard party in suburban St. Louis." "A typical menu at a St. Louis-style barbecue includes..." "Often, the ice cream component will appear in the form of Ted Drewes Frozen Custard, a St. Louis tradition since 1930." "When not practicing the art and science in their own backyards, St. Louisans like..." etc.
Citations. There are very few, including for most of the phrases I quoted above. Two of the three references are dead links.
Basically, if you took all of the essay-like and uncited material out, you would have something like what I wrote on the page I redirected the article to. That would be a serious "stub" of an article, don't you think? At best, maybe the cuisine of St. Louis as a whole deserves its own article? I don't know. Comments are appreciated. Elchip (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has objections to the style and phrasing of the article, but has apparently neglected to search for evidence of the notability of the subject. Searching Google Books for '"St Louis Style Barbecue" - Wikipedia' yields 17 results, of which 8 have a preview available. There is significant coverage in at least the following: [7], [8], [9]. Google News archive has 20 examples of additional coverage: [10], many not viewable without payment. As for the other styles, there is considerable coverage in books, magazines, newspaper articles and TV series dedicated to the various styles of barbecue. Edison (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly enough non-trivial sources to indicate notability. This,this,and this appear to be pretty detailed coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I submitted this request for deletion, but upon seeing several "keep" votes I decided to overhaul the article instead. I feel that it's much better now than it was before. Elchip (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete No notability. While the company shows up high in a Google search for Mac POS software, the company's product, it does not seem to have many customers. I also did not find any independent sources. --Aftonj1993 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article because POSIM is notable because there are over 5,000 small retailers who use POSIM in their daily operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydell (talk • contribs)
Comment Do you have a source for this? Or is it just another unsubstantiated claim? Note that even if 10,000 people were using it unless it got significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources it would not be considered WP:notable. noq (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, no notable coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Dialectric (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro competition, and there is no evidence of significant coverage. He therefore fails both WP:NSPORT, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never the less added more refs to the article while watching him score another two goals in the quarters. -Koppapa (talk) 21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Article has been reverted back to the pre-hijacked version. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CITE, WP:NOTE & WP:NPOV. Author keeps removing maintenance and category tags, as well as the first AFD template Who.was.phone (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author created an account; Created another 4 pages on this subject (his family). All CSD deleted. Also keeps removing AFD tag on article. Who.was.phone (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Wikipedia isn't just the place to promote others. I see no indication of the importance on this topic. Such topics do not deserve articles. Bryce53 | talk 13:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Revert back to a stub about a small town in Nakodar. The user has been repeatedly trying to add information about this subject to Wikipedia for a number of days now claiming that "Everyone has the right to promote ones family" - which firstly is untrue and secondly goes to show this users lack of understanding of the rules. Nikthestoned 13:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Article has been reverted back to what it was originally intended for - an article about a small village. Given that the village has the same name as the surname of an editor who was trying to use the article to promote his family, I didn't realise this and thought that the article was just a self-promotion page. In light of the revert this AFD can be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who.was.phone (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(Prod removed with mistaken premise). No evidence this is a notable piece of software. Fails WP:N; no 3rd party sources. Tassedethe (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - papers re this program are all by authors, can find no other notable independant secondary source. Kilmer-san (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete no reliable sources. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, no reliable sources, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject of article not at notability standards of WP:GNG Oonissie (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Education in Norfolk, Virginia, as is the de fact standard for articles about elementary schools. This one only goes through grade 5. The refs include only one source amounting to significant coverage in an independent and reliable source, a paragraoh plus a sentence in a US News article. Not sufficient to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability standard. Edison (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Schools established before the Second World War are to my opinion notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per standard procedure for nn schools. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Saddleworth#Rushcart. Rough consensus is to delete. The debate has exhaustively discussed the available sources and obviously the difference of opinion is about whether they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". It's quite clear upon interrogation that one or two of the keep !votes have not really analysed the sources at all. The keeps that have (eg Warden) are perfectly valid but consensus is against them. The consensus is that the sources, taken together, are too local, do not give sufficient attention to the subject, or are not sufficiently independent of the subject, to give rise to "significant coverage in reliable sources".
While there's no consensus for "merge" or "redirect", there's no consensus, or in fact any arguments at all, against such a course. So for the time being, the article is converted to a redirect to Saddleworth#Rushcart. That way the page history remains available for content to be merged elsewhere (just please do so in accordance with WP:CWW). If anyone disagrees with the redirect target, it's not part of the "consensus" here, so best to discuss on the article's talk page or just change it yourself. Mkativerata (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of the subject's notability. MalleusFatuorum 14:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment surely the question is whether evidence of notability exists? There are 13 hits on Google News, including national newspapers, and nine on Google Books. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been flagged with a {{Notability}} tag since September 2008 and none has been produced. Have you actually read any of those Google Books links? Here's a one example, a footnote from page 225 of Dancing from past to present: nation, culture, identities (2007) : "Saddleworth Morris Team member interviewed on ITV television program Second Tuesday, 1984. It should be recognized, however, that not all views expressed in this program were genuinely held." That's all it has to say, nothing else. MalleusFatuorum 16:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment is not normally regarded as an argument for deletion -- see WP:NOEFFORT. It is, however, an argument for making an effort to find some sources. Your second seems to argue that because one source is not significant then all others cannot be. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, yes I had read that source on Gbooks. It's a footnote referring back to a page that isn't available, so it is not actually possible from Gbooks to say what coverage that source might or might not have. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed the point; that coverage wasn't of the Saddleworth Morris Men, but the reporting of a comment made by a member of the Saddleworth Morris Men on a local TV program. Are you arguing that the other GBook hits are more substantial? I can't see it myself. MalleusFatuorum
My point is that when there is prima facie evidence of notability, such as ghits on Books and News, it is necessary to address them, rather than argue, as you seem to be doing, that if there were evidence then someone else would have added it by now. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying quite clearly that there is no evidence of notability, and you certainly haven't produced any. How much more clearly can it be said? MalleusFatuorum 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a clearer statement. The initial nomination saying "no indication" I took to refer to the article, rather than to the universe at large. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously my fault then, I ought to have been clearer. MalleusFatuorum 17:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added eight references to the article which in my view are sufficient for notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number of references is immaterial. You need to provide reliable sources that do two things; support the facts and the notability of this group. Let's take the very first for instance, [11] which is supporting the assertion that "They were formed in 1974 and revived a tradition of Morris dancing in the area that dates back centuries". In fact all the source says is that the Saddleworth Morris Men were reformed in 1974. MalleusFatuorum 21:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, in what way does that citation, which incidentally I did not add, fail to support the wording in the article, and what does it have to do with this discussion anyway? Secondly, notability guidelines talk of "multiple" sources, so multiplicity is indeed material. Thirdly, I don't "need" to do anything. Like you and everyone else I'm a volunteer. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then let me spell it out for you; the only assertion here is that the Saddleworth Morris Men were reformed in 1974, not that they revived anything. In what way does that make them notable? MalleusFatuorum 21:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, and I didn't say that it did. I say that the eight references I added between them constitute sufficient indication of notability. To take the one I did not add, and say, correctly, that it does not by itself support notability, is quite beside the point. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of them do, which is my point. MalleusFatuorum 21:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, and no doubt other readers, including the closing admin, will give it the weight it deserves. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously that's my opinion, so what are you trying to add by saying that "the closing admin, will give it the weight it deserves"? Other than trying to persuade others than my opinion is worth less yours? MalleusFatuorum 21:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words into my mouth: I am making no such suggestion. What I am suggesting is that I have given my opinion on whether these sources demonstrate notability, you have given yours, the points have been adequately clarified for the benefit of others, and that further discussion on this precise issue will probably generate more heat than light. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been adding citations that do not support the material preceding them. Where in this does it support "The very first members of the team were ... David Lees, Len Butterworth, Dave Caddick, Ron Yates, John Dunning, & Allan (Fred) Broadbent. The idea to start a Morris Dancing side in Saddleworth was borne out of a conversation with friends in a local pub." All it says is that the Saddleworth Morris Men practice at the pub on a Thursday night. The article is about the pub, not the Morris men. MalleusFatuorum 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not this criticism is justified, it is a matter of common-or-garden editing and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the article should be kept or deleted. It is also phrased in an unnecessarily accusatory tone. Please do not disrupt this discussion with such comments. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been either incompetently or dishonestly adding almost random citations to make it look as if the material has been properly sourced when it hasn't been, and can't be. Here's another example: neither of the two citations given towards the end of the third paragraph support anything in that paragraph. MalleusFatuorum 21:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are ample indications of the topic's notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the search links at the head of the discussion. Warden (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is a side that has being going since at least 1974, and responsible for the revival of the Rushcart festival, a peasant tradition that goes back to 1380.Ideal footwear for giving a poor article a good kicking. It gives a good opportunity for linking to many folk song and dance terms such as Long Sword dance which is of course the symbol of the EFDSS with links to Cecil Sharp.. And there are more of them than in other entertainment groups say Rolling Stones. It could do with a ce, and the links picked out. If folk traditions are to be taken seriously then setting up a category tree may be a way forward and the relevant sides contacted, to see if they would contribute first to a list page, and then select from these entries, sides notable enough for their own articles.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UndecidedDelete The way the article is currently structured, it could be about anything. I could replace "Morris Men" with "Plasterer", and write about how the Saddleworth Plasterer drives a Ford Transit, and how his first job was to plaster the local vicar's house. What exactly is notable about them? Parrotof Doom 11:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting to see what these mysterious independent reliable sources are that you believe have significantly covered these Morris men. MalleusFatuorum 20:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that was addressed to me, then I refer you to my comment above datestamped 20:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC). Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been addressed to you then I would have addressed it to you. It's quite clear that you don't really understand sourcing at all. MalleusFatuorum 21:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then who was the "you" addressed, may I ask? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might more usefully consider searching out these elusive sources, and removing the deceitful ones you added yesterday? MalleusFatuorum 21:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sergeant Cribb, newspapers mention a great many things, but as far as I can see the only references to this troupe are in passing. None of the sources used give significant coverage, the articles are all about other things, and not the Saddleworth Morris Men.
If they're notable then surely you can find a couple of sources that also think they're independently noteworthy? I can't. Parrotof Doom 21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider this significant coverage: " In the car park by the wheelie bin, the Saddleworth Morris Men from Yorkshire arrive, trotting like pit ponies, bells on their black clogs, wearing hanging baskets of flowers and feathers on their heads, led by a meaty man with a whip". And it was published during the silly season. Graham Colm (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider this significant coverage – suit yourself. No pun intended. And it was published during the silly season – once WP:SILLYSEASON becomes policy, drop me a note on my talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 21:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion yet on this article or whether or not the source in question represents "significant coverage" but I have to agree with this view. Is it wise to discount a news story because it was published at a particular time of the year? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Treasury Tag's linked article. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that link says is that A. A. Gill was once at a pub where the Saddleworth Morris Men turned up. MalleusFatuorum 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Really? It's strange then, that everyone else commenting on this AfD spotted: At the next village pub, something quite different happens. They release the beast. In the car park by the wheelie bin, the Saddleworth Morris Men from Yorkshire arrive, trotting like pit ponies, bells on their black clogs, wearing hanging baskets of flowers and feathers on their heads, led by a meaty man with a whip. There is none of the hop, skip and whack about this troupe. They have a muscular, purposeful swagger. Their dance is physical and masculine, and beautifully aggressive under their great flowered hats. They have the gimlet-eyed, tuber-featured faces of the north, and suddenly the morris is captivating. The rhythm stamps out darker motifs and bellicose camaraderie. The patterns they make stay in the mind’s eye. You can see them weave spells. My small boy offers a swan’s feather he found to one of the dancers, who takes off his hat to put it in. The boy’s mother asks if she can see the hat. “You mustn’t put it on,” the dancer warns like a woodland troll in a fairy story. “I don’t like to say in front of your man, but if a lass wears the hat she has to have… you know… go to bed with the morris man. That’s the rule.”╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 21:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it includes a description of A. A. Gill's impression of the SMM. Would you claim that the Britannia Coco-nut Dancers of Bacup were equally worthy of an article, because A. A. Gill describes his impression of them too? MalleusFatuorum 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you haven't used A. A. Gill's article. But the difference between the Nutters and the SMM is very clearly that articles have been written about them, whereas none have been written about the Saddleworth Morris Men. MalleusFatuorum 00:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The piece by aa gill is almost the epitome of insignificant coverage. The only thing you could use that for is to say they were at a certain festival one year. If that's the best coverage then there certainly is not enough to the notability of the subject.Polequant (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find significant coverage in one of the accessible sources; the rest are brief mentions. ceranthor 03:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article text gives no notability. Are these guys rock stars? Do they get covered (well) in the press? They sound like they are not even notable enough to do this stuff professionally. This is a clogging version of a Myspace garage band.TCO (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but suggest that the verifiable material is added to Saddleworth (where a brief mention already exists), which seems the right location for this sort of thing (along with any other borderline cultural material). Rushcart also needs some attention. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There does seem to be some difficulty with how to establish notablity. There is dearth of articles on North West MorrisCotswold Morris and other traditional dance forms, so it is not surprising that editors (including myself) are unfamiliar on where to find a source that can verify notablity. In some ways all folk traditions followed the oral model, until they became the focus of middle class academic study by the likes of Cecil Sharp, who established a written record which became revered. Most of these sides were revivals of an older tradition that was tied to the locality, this side seems to be respected within the movement because they revived the Rush- bearing ceremonies (And I hadn't heard of that either). Longevity seems to be an indicator- but that is only orally. A solution may be to collapse the information into North-west morris dance revival (1970s) where other sides such as Stockport Morris men could be documented. All we need is some committed morris men to share their knowledge and write a few of these articles. A few links that could give a starting point, try [12],a Morris wiki, Dave Mallinson, Cleckheaton a publisher and knowledgeable.--ClemRutter (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cant let that POV pass. Bampton dance Cotswold- not North West- I doubt they would even be allowed into the Red Rose county! There are as many schisms in Morris as there are in Christianity. The bullet needs to be bitten and Bampton Morris Dancers rewritten as an articla on Cotswold Morris- which would provide the precedent for Stockport Morris men to be merged with a new article on North West Morris--- sorry we are talking about Saddleworth Morris Men! I have found that JStor has a collection of historic Journals of the EFDSS English Folk Dance and Song Society. If anyone has a JStor password they could search for notability there.--ClemRutter (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and do as Carcharoth suggests (merge the usable content). There is no significant coverage of this group. --Errant(chat!) 09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's look at the references: 1) is insignificant coverage from an unreliable source. 2) and 3) are from the group's own website. 4) is more about the festival and the rushcart than the dance troupe. 5) I don't even know where to start. 6), 7), 8) brief mentions. None of these are close to being enough to pass the GNG. BigDom 07:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are not RSs. Coverage of a local group of performers by a local newspaper or magazine is dubious as a RS for notability, because coverage of local events by such sources is indiscriminate. The group's website is obviously unusable to show notability, though it's certainly usable for the routine facts about the group.I agree with the evaluation that the others are mentions. It's articles like this which make local events and performers one of my exceptions to a general support of reasonably wide inclusion. For material like this, I'd support the idea of a Wikipedia Two - an encyclopedia supplement where the standard of notability is much relaxed, but which will be different from Wikia by still requiring WP:Verifiability, and WP:NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 16:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers such as the Sunday Times and The Daily Telegraph are not local - they are national with substantial circulations. In any case, there's a book of 51 pages, Rushcarts in Saddleworth, coverage in journals such as The Journal of the English Folk Dance Society and English Dance and Song and much more besides. Warden (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those are articles about the Saddleworth Morris Men, they just briefly mention them in passing. MalleusFatuorum 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There is plenty of material which may be used to develop the topic by means of ordinary editing and it is our policy to prefer this to deletion. Warden (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's plenty of material available then why are you unable to produce any of it? MalleusFatuorum 18:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did produce some. But you're the one trying to make a case here. Where is your policy-based argument for deletion? All I've seen so far is some weak notability grumbles but these do not seem sufficient to override our policy which is to prefer ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you've never read this, so I'll quote you a bit: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." There has been no significant coverage of the group anywhere. None exists. Therefore this article fails the general notability guidelines. MalleusFatuorum 21:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I quote WP:SIGCOV all the time myself. You have yourself worked upon this article from these sources and so have found it possible to support content without original research. We therefore have valid content - small but perfectly formed. If this seems too small to stand by itself then we might merge it into some larger topic such as Saddleworth, Rushcart or North West Morris but that that action is not performed by deletion as that would be disruptive to such development. Warden (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. What I did was to eliminate everything that couldn't be sourced, leaving what's there now. But the problem remains that most of the article is sourced to the Saddleworth Morris Men's own web site, as there is no significant coverage anywhere else, thus clearly failing the general notability guidelines. MalleusFatuorum 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor, local, no reliable sources to suggest that this is notable by our standards--mere mentions (this has been said better above) don't add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather unusual for an editor's first ever edit to be a vote at AfD. MalleusFatuorum 20:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly seems to be something fishy going on here. Why is this minor topic attracting all this Sturm und Drang? Warden (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are far too many users here who have not given heed to TreasuryTag's sources which prove notability of this group :) May I be permitted to close this AFD as per WP:SNOW ? Hungarian Jew (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not; either you can't count or you can't read. MalleusFatuorum 22:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I READ the votes, and only COUNT those that have some substantial basis for their decision, then the result is a clear speedy keep. Hungarian Jew (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this is only your eighth edit, yet you seem to be very familiar with all the blue links like WP:AGF, WP:SNOW, WP:NPA and so on. I can hear some very loud quacking. MalleusFatuorum 22:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I have blocked Hungarian Jew (talk·contribs) indefinitely for trolling/socking. I have also stricken his !vote. Eagles24/7(C) 22:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability has not been established. Graham Colm (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morris dance. The content is verifiable, but the independent coverage seems to be about the rushcart, with only brief mentions of the Morris Men, so probably isn't enough to meet the guidelines for articles - a sentence or two in the main article would be enough. Peter E. James (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, nothing notable about the group. —SW—talk 01:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of delete !votes that seem to be IDONTLIKEIT, or perhaps JNN. The sources seem fine (The article TT links to has 2 solid paragraphs on the group for example) and thus the group is notable per Wikipedia's definition of "notable" and honestly seems notable to me even using the English definition of the word too. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No significant mentions in reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 07:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG. Sufficient coverage in RSs, which is what (for our purposes) makes it notable. Notable means, for our purposes, sufficiently "noticed" ... which it is. It need not be "notable" in the normal usage of the word.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG actually requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Can you supply even a single source that addresses the subject in anything beyond trivial and passing detail? MalleusFatuorum 04:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive. 26 comments by you, already. As to your 26th comment, in saying that it has "sufficient coverage in RSs" I refer to the sources referenced on this page in the article, including the one that Hobit and TT refer to above. But you knew that. You simply don't find them to be significant. I do. As do another half dozen editors so far, on this page. Best. (No need to reply, unless you have something new to say ... or are simply trying to drown out the voices of the keep !voters by reaching three dozen comments).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you don't seem to understand GNG; I'm trying to educate you. MalleusFatuorum 14:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. I am a seven-year-old, who could benefit from learning the wisdom of the ages at your knee, Oh Wise One. Then again, perhaps there is some sliver of possibility that editors who disagree with you have an informed different opinion, and simply think that you are incorrect. I'm just saying... But please ... let loose with comment # 28, if you must, to show the ignorant masses "how it is done". --Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly behaving like one. MalleusFatuorum 18:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but for the day when my edits can be as civil, enlightened, and non-tendentious as your 29 edits on this very page. MF -- perhaps if you were to focus on the substance, instead of engaging in uncivil ad hominum attacks on the half-dozen editors who see things differently than you do, we would have a more thoughtful discourse here. I've nominated a few dozen articles for deletion this month, and have been editing for a few years. Cut your personal attacks -- they're not appreciated. The editors who view things differently than you do have a few hundred thousand edits between them -- we just think you're wrong. Don't take it personally, and attack each of us with a deluge of posts in an effort to drown out our voice. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG is a guideline not a policy. It provides extreme examples of trivial and non-trivial sources but does not provide a bright-light boundary between them. That is therefore a matter to be determined by editorial discretion and consensus and so it is to be expected that we might have different views. And we also have policies such as WP:PRESERVE and WP:AFD which advise that deletion should not be used when ordinary editing will suffice to address and improve a topic. In this case, merger with another article seems an obvious better alternative than deletion. Why on earth should we make this a red link? How would this help our readership?Warden (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Epeefleche, the only source that covers them in detail seems to be the A.A. Gill one (excluding, of course, the ones that come from their own website). One source rarely(, if) ever establishes notability. ceranthor 17:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one source. The Manchester Evening News is another solid online source, for example: "... The Saddleworth Morris Men are famous for their spectacular hats, stacked high with fresh flowers, and unique dances." There also seems to be significant coverage in books such as Yorkshire Miscellany and Rushcarts in Saddleworth but their content is not so easy to get at online. I shall visit a library for these when I get a chance. Warden (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't even one source that "addresses the subject directly in detail", or is more than "a trivial mention". The MEN article, which is about the rushcart, not the Saddleworth Morris Men, contains a mere two sentences in passing:
"Saddleworth Morris Men and 20 visiting 'sides' helped pull a three-ton cart eight miles through local villages over the weekend - stopping at the odd pub along the way."
"The Saddleworth Morris Men are famous for their spectacular hats, stacked high with fresh flowers, and unique dances."
Hardly significant coverage addressing the subject in detail. MalleusFatuorum 18:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article is "Thousands watch Morris men pull rushcart". The Morris men and their activity are therefore central to the article, not a peripheral or tangential matter. The person who is quoted in the article is the leader of the Saddleworth troupe. The Saddleworth Morris Men are addressed both directly and in person. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Morris men being discussed in that article certainly include the Saddleworth Morris men, but also the other 20 sides attending the rushbearing. By no stretch of the imagination can you claim that the article is about the Saddleworth Morris Men. MalleusFatuorum 21:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is irrelevant because WP:SIGCOV states, "Significant coverage ... need not be the main topic of the source material.". But as the Saddleworth Morris Men are repeatedly identified as the principal participants, the article is certainly about them in particular. Your assertion thus fails on both counts. Warden (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're only mentioned briefly twice: once at the start of the article and then again at the end. That is neither "significant coverage" nor "addressing the subject in detail". MalleusFatuorum 22:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it is. The article does more than mention them by name repeatedly. It tells what they wear, what they are famous for, what they do, who their leader is, how recruitment is going and much more besides. It tells us that thousands of people turn up to watch them. I'm sufficiently interested in this now that I may well go myself to this year's Saddleworth festival. Perhaps we should form a troupe of Wikipedian wafflers to perform there; I expect that we'd fit in quite well with the other eccentrics. Warden (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's for whichever poor soul has to close this discussion to decide who's right, or at least which way the consensus leans. On a tangential note, I really like what you've done with the Britannia Coco-nut Dancers. Now that really is a bizarre topic. MalleusFatuorum 22:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I enjoying it myself - finding a source entitled Fifty Years a Nutter was especially delightful. I just turned up a good snippet of video on the BBC which is worth a look: The Most Unusual Dance in England?. Warden (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just watched that, fascinating. MalleusFatuorum 23:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per solid improvements by Sergeant Cribb and per TreasuryTag. Sufficient sources have been found to comfortably pass GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:CORP. lacks indepth coverage in 3rd party sources. many of the 8 gnews hits are from MWA and therefore not third party. All this company did was host 2 fighting events both of questionable notability (and currently under AfD). and also nothing in a major Australian news website [13]. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This needs to be added to mixed martial arts discussion page as well.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article in it's current form is a joke and should be deleted. However, a Google search suggests, to me, there are sources available to beef up the article. With those improvements I could fully support keeping the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice essay you linked to there. Unfortunately, from my experience the admin who will close out this discussion won't care about essays or other arguments you link to; they simply count up the keeps vs deletes and go from there. However, I have added some actual text to the article now (it's no longer a joke as I described it) including citing sources from the Brisbane Times and USA Today. This article and/or the event articles can have additional material based upon the fight cards, the background leading up to the cards (as always there were changes including the Australian commission forcing at least one change), and perhaps more details of the results of the fights. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a little harsh to call it a joke (sparse is more like it) but I agree it could do with some additional sources to improve the quality. Otherwise a promising up and coming organization which has already had a number of notable fighters on its two shows. jsmith006 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2011
Weak Keep Normally I'd say it's a no-brainer to delete the page of an organization that's only had 2 shows, but both of it's events got plenty of coverage. Most of the coverage was for the wrong reasons, but I can't separate the coverage of the events from the organization. Astudent0 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two events hosted by this organization have also been nominated for deletion, but numerous references are available at that AfD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impact FC 1, to justify their notability. Could the promotion's page and the separate pages for the two events be combined into a single article? Probably. But, AfD is not the best place to discuss page mergers and page deletion is not the best way to achieve that end. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment none of the above keep !votes have demonstrated actual examples of sufficient indepth coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I look at the AfD for IFC-1, I see plenty of independent sources. I think Astudent has it right--the source articles blur the line between the events and the promotion, making it hard to delete either. Papaursa (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see LibStar's point. The two refs that could be considered reliable sources; the Brisbane Times and USA Today are not indepth. Careful reading of the Brisbane Times article has very little specific to the subject, lots of general "MMA in Australia" and lots of UFC comments, though. The USA Today article is short and just highlights the relative failure that the promotion was. Note that the Brisbane Times article was published before the Brisbane event and should be viewed as promotion rather than journalism. Fails WP:CORP. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:35, 10 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) 20:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why this is on being deleted as there is nothing wrong with it. This is a very good wiki page and there is nothing wrong with it to delete it. It has good sources and references. noq, you dont even know about this centre, i live beside it. Although I didn't create this page and it was created before my Time on wiki there is no reason to delete it. I have worked hard to add details about the centre to the page. EastBelfastBoy 15:51 3 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastBelfastBoy (talk • contribs) 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:notability and WP:reliable sources. Then explain how the article meets the guidelines. I am sorry if you have wasted your time adding the list of stores but just adding a list of stores will not make the shopping centre notable. noq (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should "keep" this article, it has suffered vandalism and therefore needs to be re-written, which is being done. It just needs sometime and it will become an amazing article about a great shopping centre. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)EastBelfastBoyEastBelfastBoy (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 18:49, 3 July 2011[reply]
Island Monkey, with all this hastle with the AfD, and trying to improve in other places, I forgot to put in an opening date, The article just needs a bit more time to progress so please "keep" it so I can help improve. Many Thanks EastBelfastBoy 19:37, 3 July 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EastBelfastBoy (talk • contribs)
Keep. This could be a brilliant article if it had a chance to become one. It was previously vandalised and needs to be re-written. It has a great structure and just needs progressed. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)EastBelfastBoy[reply]
Redirect to Economy of Belfast and Merge the few bits of encyclopaedic information. EastBelfastBoy, your contributions were made in good faith, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't the right place for this information. The problem is that this article almost exclusively lists what shops occupy/occupied retail units in the shopping centre and other facilities, but Wikipedia isn't a business directory. There is a precedent that article about shopping centres or shopping streets shouldn't just be lists of shops there, and the main reason reason is that as shops come and go so often, it would be impractical to keep this up to date. Also, Wikipedia is supposed to be a record of permanently notable information, and in 2021 there's be nothing notable about what shops used to be in a shopping centre in 2011. There might be a place for an article about the shopping centre itself (e.g. its history, the scope of its retail operations, and anything else that has been written about in third-party sources), but all I could find on GNews was coverage confirmaing that the shopping centre exists (and some mention of the refurbishment). Unless more third-party coverage is found, the most I think this can get is a mention in Economy of Belfast, which should list the major shopping centres if it doesn't already. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe add a mention elsewhere, as suggested above. No claim, or any indication, of notability. Cheers, LindsayHello 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Scolaire (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Simply nothing notable about it and nothing notable has happened there. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:30, 11 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 subject's notability has not been reliably demonstrated. The only significant claim to notability is that the subject created Singapore's national martial art or Singapore's indigenous martial art, but the only source given is a reference to the subject's organisation, with a street address in Singapore. (In any case, these are both dubious claims, given Singapore's history; i.e., a Kung Fu style founded in 1966 is very unlikely to be the national/indigenous martial art of a country that has had prolonged exposure to a range of non-Chinese martial arts before then, quite apart from the lack of any official source for this claim so far.) All of the on-line sources are dead links, and a good faith search for references has thus far failed to find any reliable sources to demonstrate the subject's notability. Janggeom (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Janggeom's comments. My own search failed to turn up anything that indicates notability or coverage by independent and reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is misnamed. "Sifu" is a title, and means "Master", similar to the Japanese term "Sensei", so if this article is kept, it should be renamed to Tan Siew Cheng. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found nothing to support this individual's claim of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unreferenced definition of an action performed by a specific body. Even if it were notable, there are no refs, and it would belong at Wiktionary. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Del/Merge - this should be in the medicare article, if anywhere. → ROUX₪ 02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article with more context. JFW | T@lk 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An apparently unsigned band, without notable members, who don't appear to have received significant levels of press attention. Albums were released via CD Baby.com and 101 Distribution. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete- There is not enough useful information to make this article relevant. It could be added to The Vines wikipedia page in order to retain the information. --Rvanwinkle1 (talk) 23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- More of a novelty or collectors item rather than a song of note. Hard to find any good refs. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be no reliable sources, and even if there were, this article would be better redirected to Silverchair discography. --Ahenry32 (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep meets WP:GNG: the title track was used as the theme music for a network television show. Have provided verifiable references. Dan arndt (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable and sufficiently covered in sources independent of the topic. Orderinchaos 10:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep have provided indepth third party coverage of this release with numerous independent verifable references. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable and sufficiently covered in sources independent of the topic. Orderinchaos 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep meets WP:GNG- have provided indepth third party coverage of this release with numerous independent verifable references. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable and sufficiently covered in sources independent of the topic. Orderinchaos 16:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference to the Abbey Centre website in which the sources are from. User:EastBelfastBoy 14:17, 3 July 2011
Plenty of good, reliable stuff on this page now, I think it shouldn't be deleted. User:EastBelfastBoy 15:24, 3 July 2011
Comment Its a list of store names with an unsourced claim to being one of the biggest shopping centres in Northern Ireland added since the nomination. The only independent reference is a directory listing. So there is still no notability established and no independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think wiki should "Keep" this page EastBelfastBoy (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)EastBelfastBoyEastBelfastBoy (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 17:33, 3 July 2011
I live in Northern Ireland and I know that it is one of the biggest, you could walk up to anyone in Northern Ireland and say, Is Abbey Centre one of the biggest shopping centres and they would say yes. You don't even live in Northern Ireland, I do. I think unless you know about the place then you shouldn't nominate for deletion. I have seen your talk page and many people are wondering why you have put their Pages up for nomination. EastBelfastBoy 17:40, 3 July 2011[reply]
Comment People who create non notable articles often complain without reading the links provided which explain WHY they have been nominated. Wikipedia requires WP:reliable sources to WP:verify the claims. They need to be WP:notable - they cannot just rely on claims without sources. noq (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is new and hasn't had much time to develop which i feel is unfair. I think with a little more time this could be a great wiki article. Keep Abbey Centre Page. EastBelfastBoy (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)EastBelfastBoy[reply]
Comment As stated before, HOW is it notsble? Just adding more bits from the centres own website will not establish that. Time to develop is OK if it can show notability - that is a minimum requirement - without that it is eligible for deletion. It only just avoided a nomination for speedy deletion. noq (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I found this reference which does back up the claim that this shopping centre is one of the largest in Northern Ireland, but not much else that can contribute to a Wikipedia article. A mention in either Economy of Belfast or Newtownabbey seems the best place. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and maybe add a mention elsewhere, as suggested above. No claim, or any indication, of notability. Cheers, LindsayHello 19:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Simply nothing notable about it and nothing notable has happened there. In passing, I would note that the phrase "All of our retail units ..." gives the game away about the source of some contributions. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:34, 11 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.
Delete per Treasury Tag's rationale, even the studio behind it seems to barely exist except in a facebook page. EggCentric 08:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it speedyable? It seems to me like it may be recreation of already deleted content given the [1] [2] [3]s that were presumnably ref's before...? EggCentric 08:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable film with no independent coverage.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire lightweight rail article reads like an essay, and is built up as a non-neutral arguments for why this concept is so fantastic and bases itself on presenting original research. We have an article about light railway, which covers the topic about railways which are lighter than normal, and we have an article about monorail. The article is constantly mixing terms; it tries to explain a science-fiction version of suspended monorails (real ones which are covered in the monorail article), but at the same time has selected incidents and examples from alleged short-comings from conventional railways which are used to support the authors point of view. Other claims are just not true: there are numerous elevated conventional railways; comparing the person-to-weight ratio of high-speed intercity trains (which for instance contains a dining car and needs more power output per tonne than, for instance a metro) to low-speed, high capacity people movers is mixing apples and bananas. No-where does it introduce any references from reliable sources, instead relying on the author's fanboy page on the issue. And don't get me going on the article being written in first person plural. Arsenikk(talk) 09:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, essay, POV, unreferenced. Arsenikk and Edgepedia have about covered it all. LordVetinari 10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not because it's written like an essay, that can be fixed through editing and is not a proper reason for deletion. It is, however, as others have said, not needed given other articles that cover the subject in a more encyclopedic way. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 13:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now linked to some extra sources, and is now to a greater extent referring to existing rail systems and independent projects, so it should be clear this topic is not just a pie-in-the-sky.
The remaining theoretical discussion is based on a simple calculation: comparing passenger weight (for which the train should be designed) with the traditional freight weight capability. This ratio is about 1:15, and such a design mismatch for a main specification must of cause be pointed out. The consequences of ignoring this important factor are naturally described. There is no original research involved here; just logical thinking, which is allowed.
Regarding lack of neutrality: Which opposing position should be respected here? The position of those who want to disregard weight mismatch issues?
There are no commercial interests, patent claims or protected designs behind this article.
I tried to submit the above response when I removed the delete tag, but by some technical error the submission failed. It consequently seemed I had removed the deletion tag without changing the article. Sorry about this misunderstanding. OlavN (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OlavN. The standard for something to have an article on Wikipedia is Notability. The details can be found at WP:N, but can be summerized simply as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The page Reliable sources goes into some depth about the types of sources that are considered reliable.
Regarding the sources in the article:
//http:on-nor.net appears to be a self-published source, by Olav Naess. Is this your work?
A concept of lightweight rail is discussed in the first source, but I'm not seeing the term 'lightweight rail' in the 2nd and 3rd articles. Am I missing something?
Also you mention the ratio of passenger to vehicle being 1:15, then you state that "such a design mismatch for a main specification must of cause be pointed out". Has this design mismatch been mentioned in any reliable source? Edgepedia (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The didactical term Lightweight Rail could have been replaced by Beamway (or Suspended Monorail). Beamway is used by the Swedish sources I mention, and implies less obligations to write a lot about old rail systems; Suspended Monorail is an old term with obvious notability. (I could easily have included more sources for conventional descriptions of this.)
When I call it Lightweight rail, it is to replace geek/antigeek prejudices with rational environment thinking.
I don't know if the important ratio 1:15 has been used previously, but it is the easily calculated ratio between the weight to be transported in a 24 m long wagon (72 passengers: 7 tons) and the too large capability of traditional rail (>105 tons cargo). Avoiding this 1:15 design mismatch is a prerequisite for building a beamway/monorail, and thus achieving a 99 % reduction in ground razing and barrier formation.
My site on-nor.net can be described as my personal wiki. Wiki in the sense that I keep expanding the articles, and the content can be freely used by anyone. OlavN (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which could accept the suspended or "Beamway" part of the present article, but for now neither mentions the topic nor links here.
Incidentally a personal Web page open for all to read and copy, and frequently updated and expanded by its owner, may be a good thing, but it isn't a wiki. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. I searched and searched for this yet nothing comes up. The website improperly listed in the text does not reference the subject as Firefox told me it's a malicious URL. I doubt the article or said "company's" notability. Author decided to remove my PROD so I have chosen to nom. per WP:PROD#ObjectingKING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched a found a few hits but nothing relating to the topic. Fails GNG. LordVetinari 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article needs to be deleted because Yellow Pages is not an LLC, the website in the article re-directs visitors to another website, and Yellow Pages is a trademarked company. The company that publishes the print telephone directory is the one that manages Yellowpages on the internet, they are one in the same. The article seemingly attempts to describe an independent company that digitized the print versions of the Yellow pages books, or something similar to that. There are no sources, the website is not real, and has its own article, therefore this is factually incorrect and redundant. --Alexeink (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, and even if true, all sorts of people started internet sites with "a couple others" in the late 1990s and are now defunct. So not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to demonstrate WP:NOTABILITY. Wikipedia is not a listing of businesses. Dolphin(t) 22:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are the company's own website and a press release from 15 years ago. No independent sources establish notability. BiruitorulTalk 05:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, any coverage I can find in reliable sources appears to be very trivial. Quasihuman | Talk 11:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. I didn't find anything on Google or Yahoo, except for what's connected to the subject. SwisterTwistertalk 06:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. causa sui (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An entrepeneur who's been involved with some sucessful businesses. However I can't see anything in the article which justies having a Wikipedia page about this individual rather than including the key information in pages about the organizations he's worked with. Goopy Gloopy (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This needs to be tagged for sources at a minimum, as the money line is unsourced: "In 2001 Catcha launched a publishing arm which has since become one of the largest Magazine publishers in South East Asia. The company is primarily based in Malaysia but also publishes in Singapore and Indonesia. Their portfolio of titles include JUICE, Stuff, K-Zone, Evo, MiNT, Fairways, Clive and Prestige." It may well be that Catcha media should be the article and this bio and story should be subsumed in that. HOWEVER, when the specific phrase "Catcha Media" returns 32.3 MILLION hits on Google, I absolutely guarantee that there is an article topic here that can pass GNG muster. Yes, I know that there are many who scream and wail about using Google to estimate the size of the haystack... Still, "Bigger Haystack = More Needles" and this particular haystack is the size of Mason City, Iowa. My preference would be for one about the company but that's not what we have here. Nevertheless, KEEP + TAG + IMPROVE is pretty clear in this instance. Carrite (talk) 05:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that this is a big new media conglomerate and that some of these may be technically self-sources rather than independent sources, here's ASIA MEDIA JOURNAL on Grove and Catcha Media being selected to run MSN's portal in Malaysia. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's MONEY TREE SINGAPORE with a bio that indicates Grove's Catcha Media publishes 18 magazines. Carrite (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And an article by Marissa Lee of ASIA ONE BUSINESS, entitled "Once bitten, twice not shy for Catcha's founder." Carrite (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It goes on and on and on, this is just the low hanging fruit. This is a whoopsie nomination, should be withdrawn or a speedy keep. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree that there should probably be a Wikipedia page on Catcha Media. But nothing Carrite has said justifies there being a Wikipedia page on Patrick Grove. From what I can see, notability here is for the organization rather than the individual. Goopy Gloopy (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I say, I would have done it about the company and then brought the mogul's bio into it in through that; someone took the other approach, talking about a very clearly notable company through the bio of its founder. No matter, there are sources aplenty however one slices it. I basically agree with your argument; if one were inspired to write a piece on the company and merge this into it, that would be very logical. Failing that, this is a clear keep. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it also appears the individual has successfully launched another company for an IPO.
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/7/5/business/9030605&sec=business
So it appears he has founded and now taken for an IPO, 2 companies. So it would not seem ideal to list the individual under a company profile as there are quite a few companies of merit. I think it should stay and be updated with more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.155.3 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article which 175.136.155.3 has given a link to is about Catcha Media, the same organization we've been discussing above. So I don't know which other organization 175.136.155.3 is referring to. Goopy Gloopy (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious advert. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment. The 2 delete !votes appear to be based on the article being a speedy deletion candidate (CSD G11). Therefore I evaluated this the same way I would if I came across it while patrolling CAT:CSD and I decided that I would decline a G11 for this article. Therefore, I think this discussion needs to shift toward WP:CORP and the nominator's claim that all the gnews hits are "press releases". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. The first AFD was one of my world famous NACs. In it the !voters were satisfied that the coverage was sufficient. (ie not "press releases") Ironically, the version first AFDd looked a little more spammy then the current revision. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 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) 00:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A number of gnews hits for this, however, all of the coverage that I have seen is local, and none gives anything approaching significant coverage. Quasihuman | Talk 21:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus again. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The band appears to fail to meet the notablity criteria of WP:BAND. The article cites only 2 instances of independent coverage. When performing a Google search, I found no additional independent coverage that was not from a self-published source. The 2 instances of coverage were not major. One was simply a brief review of one of the bands albums, and I was unable to translate the other article. The band came up with no results on Google News. With such little coverage, no songs on a country's music chart, and no awards, the band fails to meet WP:BAND. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their nomination for a Season award looks pretty good. ("Thailand's longest-running music awards" from The Nation, 22 March 2011, by Kitchana Lersakvanitchakul). duffbeerforme (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, this article seems to be a collection of eighteen stub-sized biographies, each barely meeting inclusion criteria when taken alone, connected only by the fact that they share a surname. Something needs to be done, though whether a multi-way split or simply deleting the whole thing, I'm not sure. Gurch (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Assuming the veracity of the article's claims, there's some information here worth keeping and adding to relevant articles. (For example, mentioning Edward Twynam in the Mount Twynam article). However, the severe, and long term, lack of references shouldn't be accepted. Perhaps the article could be relocated to some WikiProject's holding pen, if there is such a thing. LordVetinari 11:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with perhaps one exception the biogs aren't individually notable and there are almost no sources. It's basically a genealogical vanity piece. HeartofaDog (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Mkativerata (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:ORG, a product is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I find no such evidence for Sucanat. Slashme (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I missed some good sources. This is in fact a notable product. Could an admin please close this AFD? --Slashme (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A singer. There are no references listed. From what I can find out... Says she released an album called "Shape Shifter". I'm unable to find anything, but googling Lakoda and "Shape Shifter" brings up a ton of hits. She was in the band Deep Happy which had two albums released by the independent German label Deluxe Records. She was one of 15 contributing artists for the soundtrack of the web show, "We Have To Stop Now". It is a self-produced CD and only lists Lakotah with one song. She says she will be releasing a record soon entitled, "Falling". According to her website info, she will be one of five performers at the House of Blues in Hollywood on July 15 for a CD launch. She is also signing CDs at a Barnes and Noble the next day. It is being released by Del Oro Music which appears to be an independent label. Their website is on the broken side, so hard to get a complete picture. Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After doing a google source, there does not appear to be sufficient references to reliable sources to indicate the subject meets the criteria set forth in WP:GNG & WP:BAND. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage, as I didn't get any good sources on Yahoo either. SwisterTwistertalk 05:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just asking why have you singled out this article for deletion, while there are plenty of similar lists of other countries? Julius Sahara (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "Why this one?", it's "Why not this one?" It doesn't meet GNG. Any other articles like this one should be deleted, too. Kilmer-san (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete this page. Its the only source of info i have seen on the net on where to shop especially those visiting in Kenya. What can we correct? I volunteer to correct whatever is not acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmwaniki (talk • contribs) 05:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previous comment moved from talk page - frankie (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of the items on the list have valid articles, one of the external links is to another real shopping center. 3 items makes a list. the rest can be removed or sourced, but the subject of shopping centers in kenya is apparently notable, even if the list is small and the template is poorly filled out. If it survives deletion i will remove the unsourced items.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove all entries which do not link to a WP article. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the presence of a WP article by itself is not adequate sourcing. I did not look at all of the items in this list which have a WP article, but a couple I looked at are inadequately sourced. For example, Sarit Centre has no sources, and the references cited for The Village Market consist of either bad links or inadequate sources (not independent, third-party, secondary), or notable. The external links for the first two in the list are link spam. Kilmer-san (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Concept of list is notable, should at least contain significant size centers in the country. Kenya should (not) be punished just because Obama was (not) born there.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The topic of the list must be notable and adequately referenced by third party reliable sources for the list to qualify as a stand alone article. I have searched for this, and cannot find it, so please provide. See WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTRAVEL. Kilmer-san (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, good point, as the actual articles listed here are not well referenced. I added a bit of referencing, none of which conclusively establishes the individual mall's notability. While I have made a better case for some of the individual malls, the fact that the list is at most 4 (poorly) referenced malls, means by your referred to policies that the list may not be viable. If we had 3 solidly established articles, then both the subject and the actual list would pass notability. I've done as much research as i want to, and only hope others can provide better sources if possible. I wont change my Keep, but its getting weaker.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mercury, thanks for improving the references to the articles. I will say up front that the rather disjointed guidelines for stand alone lists to be less than clear to me, in which case I would welcome being schooled by an editor who can point out the more explicit guidelines that I did not find in my non-trivial attempts to do so. But I cannot find "three notable items makes a notable list" if that is in fact a policy or guideline. My understanding is that the "list topic" must meet WP:NOT, regardless of the notability of the individual items. Cheers. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:15, 10 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.
Maybe it's going to happen, maybe it isn't, fails WP:CRYSTAL, no reliable sources, nothing there but a link to an image on another site. Not even clear what this is. The previous prod was removed by the article's creator. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, sources are blogs Kilmer-san (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how this can possibly be considered non-notable, when it's so prevalent. It does need better sourcing, but I'd say weak keep. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like an article might be possible, but not without good sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is not a place to get sourcing done. Is the article sourceable or not? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tattoo. I can find a few mentions of such tattoos in media sources, but nearly all of those are articles about tattooed celebrities. The topic does not seem terribly notable in itself. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to tattoo. The article would fit better as a mention on Tattoo, rather than have a small article. SwisterTwistertalk 23:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable because: notability is not inherited.Curb Chain (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources incidentally mention the article's subject, but are not about the article's subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable departmental university award; has no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. An example of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Contested prod. Neutralitytalk 03:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge Non-notable award - basically never mentioned in any news articles, per google news. This shouldn't be cluttering up the UNC Chapel Hill article either. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 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 one in this discussion (not even the nominator) wants this deleted. Rangoondispenser (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comic strip from the US Navy in the 1940s, but the library of congress doesn't seem to have heard of it. The last paragraph appears to be a deliberate defense against lack of independent third party references. Not notable and possibly a hoax Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The version I have seen dates from post-WWII, and there was at least one paperback collection...I used to have a copy. Technomad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Its not a hoax. Found one newspaper showing an ad for it for their own newspaper. [14]DreamFocus 06:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was successful enough to be carried in newspapers, and was created by the guy who made Denis the Menace. Searching for the name of the comic strip and the name of the creator together I find some results. [15]. Warden has added some references to the article. DreamFocus 07:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved the article to demonstrate its notability. Warden (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw looks like I don't know where to do references to comic books. References have now been added. Sorry. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main claim to notability here seems to be that the subject is a member of the Writers' Union of Romania. Well, a couple of recent articles in the Romanian press underscore the fact that entering the union is not that difficult or that big a deal; even the head of one of its largest chapters has said as much. Membership in the union certainly doesn't rise to WP:PROF criterion 3. And we've recently deleted at least three articles on members: here (under Ionuţ Caragea), here and here. Other than that, I see no sources confirming the subject is notable under the WP:AUTH criteria. - BiruitorulTalk 01:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the author, I created the article after seeing it listed under the Requested article page, under Romania. I tried finding sources to assert the notability, but honestly couldn't find any, as online information for Eugenia seems to be hard to come by. Since Mihalea's work isn't that notable to begin with, and you provided evidence that being a member of the Writer's Union of Romanian isn't that hard to join, I would support the deletion of the article, unless someone else can find reasons to keep the article. So my vote, as the author, is to delete. theblueflamingoSquawk 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of enough sources. If there are sources out there, I didn't find any on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwistertalk 05:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Even if fully sourced I do not believe this newscaster would pass our notability guidelines. J04n(talk page) 01:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. TV newscasters are rarely notable and I see nothing to indicate that she's one of the notable ones. In fact I can't even confirm that she works for TVB. Googling for 'Cheung "Good Morning Hong Kong"' in Chinese on TVB's website doesn't turn up mentions of anyone by this name. No one by this name mentioned on the Chinese Wikipedia article for this TV show (zh:香港早晨). Closest thing I can find is a Hong Kong Discuss Forum thread about a Cable TV Hong Kong newsreader by that name [16]. cab (call) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per lack of notable mentions. Perhaps she's a well-known newscaster in Hong Kong, but I didn't find any English results in both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwistertalk 00:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG. Unfortunately Cheung Pui Ling is quite a common Chinese name but a combine Google search in Chinese of her name and 'Good Moring HK' didn't show up anything notable either.--Michaela den (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This orphaned article is relatively lengthy, but it does not particularly show that the subject is in any way notable. None of this content can be independently confirmed nor is it actually any relevant to the coverage of this individual, even if he was considered notable. In addition the subject who edits as Davidcapurso (talk·contribs) has heavily contributed to the article, inflating his own status on this project, as has his associate Georgewienbarg (talk·contribs) who Capurso recreated the article for located at George Jay Wienbarg. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regrettably. I like to save articles, where I can, but all I can find that aren't courthouse records on a LexisNexis search is in the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle (Cheyenne) on August 3, 2009 - and it's only a trivial mention. The Cavalry (Message me) 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of discovered sources. I didn't discover any notable mentions on both Google and Yahoo. Although it cites a Wyoming newspaper, and yet it's only one source that doesn't cover a major part of the article. SwisterTwistertalk 05:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is very lengthy, but it does not particularly show that the subject is in any way notable. Most of the article is full of useless puffery, parts of it are sourced to IMDB, and parts of it are sourced to the subject's own entry on an autobiography website. None of this content can be independently confirmed nor is it actually any relevant to the coverage of this individual, even if he was considered notable. In addition the subject who edits as Georgewienbarg (talk·contribs) has heavily contributed to the article, inflating his own status on this project. I have also put up a related article David Capurso for deletion, as these two worked with each other to create each other's Wikipedia pages and neither of them are particularly notable for coverage on this project. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has come to my attention that this is the fifth time that this page has existed, as there was an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wienbarg when the title was George Wienbarg and parts of it were previously userfied to User:Georgewienbarg. If at all possible, both locations should be salted to prevent this individual from ever creating a biography again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete all. No evidence that any of these are independently notable, and the copyright violation would require removal of all the plot sections, leaving basically the cast lists. Favonian (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. It must exist according to search results, but the problem is that there aren't notable mentions in newspapers, TV stations, interviews, etc. SwisterTwistertalk 05:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN health care clinic, fails GNG DigitalC (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor of a small town. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, other than very limited, and very local, press coverage. Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four Cumberland Mayor articles. Small town mayors and only coverage comes from the local paper, the Cumberland Times-News. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep; AfD initiated by a WP:SPA. -FASTILY(TALK) 04:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notability comes from being a reality tv star; not as a singer. He made the Top 10 of Deutschland sucht den Superstar, Germany's version of Pop Idol/American Idol, and advanced to the Top 7; making the Music notability irrelevant. Kingjeff (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WikiProject Idol Series states that "for contestants, it has been decided that only finalists should qualify for their own article based on their participation in the show. Semi-finalists who are not otherwise notable are redirected to their season's article". If you look at the season articles, then you would see that the finalists are every participant in the Top 10. Kingjeff (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: looking to the article: Top 3 - Semifinal. surely this is the understanding of the word semifinal at the wikiproject. --91.20.41.108 (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The elimination chart has all the shows from the Top 10 to the final show as the finals. This would make the Top 15 as the semi-final. Kingjeff (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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) 01:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. One of a series of stub bios by the same editor, about actors debuting in a new movie. Two film credits, only one on a film which has its own article, would seem to fail WP:NACTOR. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. One of a series of stub bios by the same editor, about actors debuting in a new movie. Single film credit fails WP:NACTOR. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON. One of a series of stub bios by the same editor, about actors debuting in a new movie. Single film credit fails WP:NACTOR. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Impossible titel. Most of the artikel written in Indian language and Indian script. Notability can not be determined from the present article. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't verify it either. Moray An Par (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historic (in India terms) upper high school. It is an authorised school whose existence is easily verified. The reasons why we keep high school articles are given in the essay WP:NHS. If this school had been in an anglophone country it wouldn't be here. Indian schools have a poor Internet presence so we need to give time for local sources to be found. It is important that we make every effort to avoid systemic bias and the way forward is to improve the page over time not to delete it. TerriersFan (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the WP:V issues have been fixed. We don't delete because of lack of sources we delete if the subject is not-notable and sources are unlikely to be found; and high schools are generally notable. This seems an important institution which should have a page here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who dares to change the name of the article? I tend to regard schools founded before the Second World War as notable. So if I can get a reference for the date/year of the foundation of the school, I will request closere as keep. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the name to VPM SNDP Higher Secondary School which is the accepted construction. 'VPM' stands for 'Valiparambil Paru Memorial' and 'SNDP' for 'Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana' the organisation that runs it. TerriersFan (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am doubtful if this musician meets the standards of WP:Music - I could find few verifiable independent and non-trivial references Porturology (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the NJ and Miami references are local media - the Miami one even has a form to "send in news of your event".The NJ one mentions his name as a future attraction in an article that reads like an ad. The HK reference only has a very small reference to him in passing. Porturology (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Porturology is right. If editors arguing for inclusion know of independent comment and criticism concerning the topic, they should add them while this deletion debate continues. The simple act of performance cannot establish notability. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real coverage or other evidence to show that it meets WP:MUSIC, announcements about performances don't really count. -- Atama頭 16:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 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) 00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of other reliable sources. When I did both a Google and Yahoo search, all I saw were Department of Education links. It boasts an awful lot of information for such a little amount of references. It would need a rewrite as well. SwisterTwistertalk 05:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
article of no substance or notability, really all these neighborhoods of Patras should be merged into a single article, there's simply nothing there. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree on merging all the neighbourhood articles in a list. Unless greatly expanded, they serve no purpose: most are orphaned and rather non-notable (I've lived in Patras for years and don't know half of them), and having one-line definitions of "X is a suburb of Y" is not what Wikipedia is for. Constantine ✍ 09:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 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) 00:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - books generally need to be reviewed in reliable publications to be notable and no evidence that this one has been. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge/redirect both to University of St. La Salle. The Spectrum looks as though it may have some notability but finding sources on the Internet, as with most Filipino educational subjects, is problematic. TerriersFan (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of meeting WP:ORG. References given are almost entirely press releases and directory entries. noq (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the author of this article, I've added citing to an independent new source, the Detroit Free Press, and moved press releases from article body (citations) to external links. Trying to prove Notability WP:CORP without seeming like advertising can be a tricky line to walk. Looking for help to improve article. A GNews Search and general Google test should help prove WP:CORP, which shows being named one of the fastest-growing private companies in America in 2009 by Inc. (magazine). Being included in the Gartner Magic Quadrant is also significant because it's only a very select group of industry leaders that make it to this status. I am an industry expert, but am not affiliated with the company (Nuspire). Editing from a neutral point of view NPOV since I noticed Nuspire is the only member in the Gartner Magic Quadrant not included in Wikipedia. Please advise on how to improve and meet guidelines. Thank you! ProfessorJ9 (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't think the evidence shows sufficient notability for this small company, except for the possible Gartner Magic Quadrant. How many companies does it list for this sector? I don't think the report is accessible to me. I declined a speedy because the actual article is descriptive not promotional, no matter who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article is promotional / spam, would like to nominate it for non-notable as well! Srck (talk) 20:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So these are the people behind those sexist Hydroxytone ads (I want to slap the guy who keeps being amazed one woman looks 'like she did from twenty years ago'). No true notability beyond being the television/radio equivalent of WP:SPAM and the only G-hits (of 293 uniques) I can find are directory listings, Wiki-mirrors to this article, gloat articles and dissatisfied consumer reports about how they can't get their money back. G-news is even sadder, only 13, and all of them are PR. Nate•(chatter) 21:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editing is a more appropriate remedy if there are legitimate shortcomings in the current article. The article is heavily sourced from top-tier print/online publications such as Inc. Magazine & the New York Times and the linked references are all clickable. The article is not promotional or spam. It is informational, properly referenced and the tone is neutral. Non-notable? The notes within the article refute this. WP:COMPANY Since when does not liking a commercial constitute grounds for deleting an article? Skinuser (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)skinuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinuser (talk • contribs) 16:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) — Skinuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Except for the one mention in the New York Times (in an article about a job fair), the required independent reliable sources are lacking. (The Inc. Magazine listing is just that - a listing, a company profile, not an article about the company.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated the article for deletion, as it contains little information, all of which is trivial and unworthy of it's own article. It is also lacking in references and while these would be fairly easy to add doing so would serve little purpose, as the article itself is useless. Dylan2448 (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Author has not advanced a reason about why wins on road courses are notable enough to merit their own list. Also, no sources. I, Jethrobotdrop me a line 03:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per TerriersFan. This article appears to have been copied verbatim from the campus's website, which explains why it is so incoherent; the article's creator added no context. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 10 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) 03:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have never heard of the term before, but google turns up a large number of results that use the term. And while google searches are not conclusive, it suggest to me there may be something to the term that would move it past WP:NEOMonty845 00:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be some type of YouTube thing by one YouTube poster. I've seen a lot of blogs referring to it, and they are apparantly quite funny. Without reliable sources, though, I think there is a WP:NEO problem: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." Singularity42 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you filter out the on-youtube results, there is still lots of discussion, but it is not clear to me whether that additional discussion exclusively relates back to the you tube videos. I'm not directly opposing deletion, only suggesting that this Neologism has a much stronger basis then many such articles that come through AFD, and should be examined closely. I suspect that in the pile of results there may be some secondary sources that discuss the term (or maybe not, I haven't actually found any, and they may or may not rise to the level of reliable sources). Monty845 03:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing here is reliably sourced so nothing is mergeable. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
