Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 1

< 31 October	2 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List NCAA Division I Basketball Coaches Who Coached Their Alma Mater to a National Championship[edit]

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

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To all available evidence, this is a classic "list of people who happen to have accomplished X", with no properly referenced indication that X is actually an encyclopedically notable (as opposed to "compendium of sports trivia") thing to have accomplished. Obviously of interest to some stats geeks, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per it being unencyclopedic trivia. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure all this information is elsewhere. Such a narrow topic has no possibility of expansion, and all it is doing is acting as a webhost for a narrow intersction of data.Curb Chain (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, even fascinating? Absolutely. But encyclopedic? Nope. I'm not even sure a category would best suit this topic, honestly. But I've pinged Wikiproject College Basketball for their insight. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No obligation, but would the closing admin be so kind as to give us an extra day on this one? I just realized it's due for closure tomorrow, and I'd like some comment from Wikiproject College Basketball. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not. m.o.p 17:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other comments - interesting but not encyclopedic. Rikster2 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the content is encyclopedic. It should be WP:PRESERVEd somewhere. Since I can not think of where to merge it, I think it should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nom says it all. To Tony: WP:NOTWEBHOST. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Trivia belongs on other websites. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 17:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memories of a Time to Come[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, the album is going to come out soon, the page will be created anyway.--FalkVonBicken (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — FalkVonBicken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

On wiki, to KEEP, something, we write Keep not Don't delete. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally, we do not create articles "in advance". Until the album actually comes out (or ends up one of those "legendary unreleased albums" like SMiLE or the original Bat Chain Puller), this does not merit an article. Badger Drink (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect for now. There isn't a whole lot of information about the album known right now, so it doesn't need an article at this point. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 22:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An individual article seems premature at this time, as I'm finding little meaningful coverage for this upcoming release in reliable sources; does not yet appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 03:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—WP:HAMMER is an essay, not a policy. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 17:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Hanson[edit]

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

BLPPROD was contested ~~(in my opinion incorrectly)~~ based on the presence of an unreliable source. This British radio DJ fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:ANYBIO. I'm unable to find any references whatsoever in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BLPPROD requires that To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography. (Confusingly this is not the same standard as used to determine whether a valid BLP PROD tag can be removed.) At the time this article was tagged for BLP PROD the article did cite a source, albeit an self-published one, so it was not eligible for BLP PROD. Various discussions in the past have not produced a consensus to enable articles citing only unreliable sources to be tagged under BLP PROD. I have no opinion on the notability of the article subject. Hut 8.5 23:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I hadn't appreciated that detail before. Thanks for pointing it out. Pburka (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:PEOPLE. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 23:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. Sparthorse (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not at all notable. Likely self promotion. Elton Bunny (talk) 12:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no outstanding delete recomendations. GB fan 12:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matilde Artero[edit]

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

I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The article currently has only imdb as a source. GB fan 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this sad one-line stub, and allow it to be properly expanded and sourced through regular editing. SIGCOV is not a mandate for an actress whose career was non-English and predated the internet by many decades. The individual's body of work from 1926 through 1961 meets WP:ENT and is easily verifiable. In looking at the article history, I have concerns. While respecting the work of New Page Patrol in preventing inappropriate articles, this one was tagged for speedy just THREE minutes after its creation, so I wonder if the tagger found the numerous book sources on the actress to be somehow unconvincing that the brand new article has any reasonable chance to be improved or sopurced. The speedy was properly declined, and the brand new article was then sent to AFD 24 hours later. Even as a new stub, we do not delete notable topics. Tagging for expansion and sourcing would have been far more appropriate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If MichaelQSchmidt is right then there should be no difficulty in adding one or more reliable sources to show notability. Just saying "allow it to be properly expanded and sourced" without actually doing so is no help. MichaelQSchmidt seems to be saying, in effect, "you can take my word for it that she is notable, even though I haven't provided any sources to show that she is. I am not yet saying either "keep" or "delete", to allow time for sources to be provided. However, it is now two days since the lack of sources was pointed out, and nobody has so far produced even one reliable source. Elton Bunny (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouuth, as it makes it appear you do not see the search results linked above... results offered so that 1) others might judge for themselves if WP:NRVE was met, and 2) to encourage others to help in fixing it. WP:SEP, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEADLINE, WP:WIP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article tells us "Matilde Artero is a Spanish actress who appeared in many films" and that is all. That does not tell us whether she was a major star or a minor bit-part actress. Nothing I can find settles the matter. In its present state, even if the content of the article were supported 100% by reliable sources, the article would be worthy of speedy deletion under CSD A7. T keep this we need both reliable sources and evidence in those sources of significance. If those can be produced then we should keep it, otherwise delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh... a delete argument based upon current state. Under the CSD-A7 criteria, and while terse, "Spanish actress who appeared in many films" IS an assertion of notability that prevents this being A7'd. Passing WP:ENT or WP:GNG is a higher standard. Sources were offered above, but sources need not be in the article, as that is not how topic notability is determined. The article is the extreme stub, no doubt... but even that one sentence has content, context, and an assertion of notability. Just. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go do some work, as apparently the unspoken suggestion here is that someone else has to do the work in order to molify. Okay. But the other issue being overlooked here is a well-intended NNP who, in giving a brand new article a FULL three minutes, was perhaps a bit hasty on the trigger... specially when tagging for concerns would have been far more appropriate and far less bitey. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even before MichaelQSchmidt cleaned up the article it should have been kept as she is inherently nobility per WP:NACTOR. Thank you MQS for cleaning up the article. Bgwhite (talk) 07:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NACTOR does not say anything anywhere about inherent notability. The additional criteria section which NACTOR is a subsection of says, that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Based on MichaelQSchmidt's additions and reliable sources that I couldn't find I am withdrawing my nomination. GB fan 12:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Fighting Championship 1[edit]

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

Non-notable mixed martial arts events. Consensus in other similar AfDs is to delete events that do not feature notable fighters, that do not have independent reporting beyond match results, and are for bottom-tier promotions according to WP:MMANOT. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following events based on the same failure to meet notability criteria:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Non-notable events from a minor MMA organization. The articles are just the results and the only source is sherdog reporting the results so there is no significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of these event pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I agree with the justification given by Papaursa.--Phospheros (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Self-closure, nonadmin. sorry. I misread the notability guideline. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norfolk Christian Schools[edit]

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

There are 169 hits on newsbank for this school, every single one of them a routine event or a mere mention. There are a few gbooks hits that seem valuable, e.g. IRS hearings, but they turn out to be passing mentions as well. Nothing on JSTOR, nothing on gnews. This seems to be a non-notable school. Note: before nominating, I blanked what seemed to be their entire school catalog, which you can see in the diff if you're interested. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Ronhjones as "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement". Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Alain[edit]

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

Non notable makeup artist. all references either non-reliable or in passing. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (already tagged) as a copyvio. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 17:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Marley[edit]

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

Little known rap artist, notability per WP:NMG is questionable. Also poorly sourced. bender235 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. No reliable independent sources. Two of the four references don't even mention him, one is his not an independent source, the other is doubtfully independent, not reliable, and doesn't give substantial coverage. Elton Bunny (talk) 13:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The lawsuit information in the article from the NY Post doesn't even bother mentioning Blue Marley. And even if it did, that's not going to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 17:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foster Natural Gas Report[edit]

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

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

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

AfD opened with article at FOSTER NATURAL GAS/OIL REPORT - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable product produced by a company of no discernible note. PROD declined by author (with no explanation). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless the article is rewritten with independent references to assert notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Canadian trade publication: The Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report addresses significant regulatory and business events that impact all segments of the natural gas and oil industries. Topics of interest can include, but are not limited to, production, marketing, transportation, distribution, and end use. Advertising: was started ... (by) a group of noted economists under the auspices of a new company – Foster Associates, Inc.... Over the years it has grown and become a media source that is well-respected beyond the field of economics. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis, are you arguing that it should be deleted because it is Canadian, or because it is a trade publication, or because anything that is both of them is inherently non-notable? Or because the article originally had some promotional language that can be removed? DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trade periodical that reaches a limited, specialized audience. The alleged third party sources are brief descriptions that read like they were provided by the publication itself. At any rate, they aren't significant coverage with this publication itself as an in depth subject. FWIW, being picked up by news service aggregators may indicate that it's a reliable source, but that alone isn't going to turn this into a notable publication. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the outcome of this discussion is to delete the article, please note that the article has been moved to Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. The deleting admin should delete both the original title (now a redirect) and the final article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please keep this article. It is about a great company in the natural gas and oil industry and a very important player. The admin who proposed that this article should be deleted stated that he did not find it on google? Clearly he did not look hard enough (or not at all) and knows nothing about the natural gas/oil industry. Foster’s competitor Platts has a page. Why are they allowed to have a page and Foster isn’t? If you delete this page, please delete the Platts page as well. Otherwise it’s not fair and you are creating a monopoly on the market.

Below, this editor changed their vote, so I have struck-through their original !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also WikiDan61 (who so adamantly wants this page deleted). Said that “PROD declined by author (with no explanation).” What does this even mean? And I never declined anything. I tried to explain to him/her what Foster is. And he/she just deleted the page without any warning or explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) — Katya Foster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Some points for Ms Foster to consider:

I am not an admin. I'm just another editor.
Claims that this is a "great company in the natural gas and oil industry" and "a very important player" need to be backed up with references in reliable sources, of which none have been provided, nor can I find any.
If my searches on Google have been ineffective, perhaps Ms Foster can provide the sources that I was unable to find.
Ms Foster has already been informed that the existence of other articles on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for keeping this article.
Ms Foster removed the proposed deletion template from the article after I placed it.
Clearly, I did not delete the page, as it still exists. I merely nominated it for deletion.

I can understand that, as a new user, Ms Foster may be somewhat confused by the deletion process. Hopefully, as this discussion continues, she will become better informed about what is required. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear some things up. I am not Ms Foster nor am I in any way related to the Foster company. I simply chose it as a user name as I am a fan of their work. Moreover, I have provided you with the company website on several occasions. Please refer to your talk page. Furthermore, if you believe that Foster does not have enough of an internet presence, it is because it is an established company in the natural gas/oil industry which everyone knows about. Foster does not need to advertise themselves. However, if you would like to know more about Foster and its work you are more than welcome to speak to any major oil company in the United States and I am sure they will be happy to enlighten you.

Furthermore, I did not delete any deletion template. And if I did do so, it was done in error. I am a new user and I beginning to feel very unwelcome in the wikipedia community. Perhaps Wikidan61 could refer to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. It is very helpful and educational site about how to speak and treat others.

Furthermore, I would like to ask you to leave this page and any other page that I create in the future alone and let other users of the wikipedia community to determine if it is appropriate or not. I feel like you are being hostile toward me personally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 15:56, 3 November 2011‎

Please see WP:CORP for guidance on how to establish that a company meets Wikipedia's content guidelines on notability. Related to that, please see WP:RS for an explanation of what constitutes a "reliable source" in Wikipedia terms. A company existing and having a website are not enough in themselves. To meet the WP:CORP guideline, you'll need references to reliable, published, third-party sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand that simply being a company and having a website is not enough. You are quite right. Thank you Barek for your contribution.

Please refer to sites below for more information on Foster:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/academic/1univ/envir/3newssource.asp (LexisNexis (who I believe we have all heard of and know as a good company, uses and promotes it)

http://www.natgasamerica.com/s1115/ (here you can find Foster as part of the North America Gas summit)

http://www.energycentral.com/reference/directories/publications/660/Foster-s-Natural-Gas-Report (this reputable site in the natural gas/oil industry is promoting Foster)

There are others but I think there is no need to continue. We now all understand the importance of Foster after looking at such reputable sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 16:21, 3 November 2011‎

Note: A notification has been made at WT:ENERGY regarding this AfD discussion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review the guidelines of WP:RS. The citations provided are merely indications that this report exists; not that it is notable. They amount to directory listings at best. The single possible exception is the inclusion as a source for the LexisNexis Environmental Report, but even this inclusion is only marginally notable. Evidence of citations to this report in other documents and / or news reports would be needed. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother to look at the links? The North America Gas summit is not a directory listing. It is an important event that only the top players in the industry get invited to. On top of that, now you are saying that LexisNexis is not an important database. I don’t know what you have against Foster, but please end your hostilities and allow an important page to be published. Katya_Foster

Comment "Foster Natural Gas Report" gets some results. I'm tagging this article for rescue and seeing what others can find. Dream Focus 19:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 19:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I greatly appreciate all the help and support that i am getting from users on saving the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report Page User:Katya Foster

Comment Please keep this article. The Foster Natural Gas/Oil report is not a company. It is a publication. This publication makes the most thorough review of activities at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and National Energy Board of Canada of any publication in North America. It is a widely acknowledged and important resource. I did not write this in the article, because I was trying to comply with wikipedia’s rules and I was not making it an advertisement. I am simply trying to contribute to wikipedia and create an educational page for an important resource. Katya_Foster

Conditional keep, if rewritten. By my understanding the correct title of this article should be Foster Natural Gas Report, which is notable journal for the oil and gas industry. Its LexisNexis overview page is here. It is in the Factiva's Major Publication List under energy section (Factiva's page for Foster Natural Gas Journal is here). However, in its current form the article does not satisfy different criteria and for keeping the current article should be totally rewritten. I hope that the rescue action will resolve this. Beagel (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was cleaned up and notability is established, so I changed my vote from 'Conditional keep' to 'keep'. Beagel (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the report is cited by various sources in the industry, then its clearly notable. Dream Focus 08:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are correct the report used to be called the Foster Natural Gas Report. However, in August Foster entered the oil industry. The report has now been renamed the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report. But it is still the same report. Thank you for all of your help. --Katya Foster (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added citations from various sources in the industry. The report is clearly notable.--Katya Foster (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This AfD has been closed twice before the seven-day AfD period was up, once as "keep" and once as "delete". I have re-opened it in light of the ongoing discussion so that the full AfD period can run. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This report has been documented with six references, showing that it is used in the oil and gas industry, much like its competitor, Platts, a McGraw-Hill publication. --DThomsen8 (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The wrangling over whether this report is called the Foster Natural Gas Report (as given in some references including the one I just added to the article), or the Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report, as claimed by the creator of the article (Katya Foster), should not be an issue for whether the report is well documented and well respected within the oil and gas industry, and therefore whether it is notable and worthy to be kept on Wikipedia. A redirect can take care of the name with or without the "/Oil" addition to the name. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hello everyone!
I created this page. However, since then, things on it have been changed. There is now much information which is incorrect. I would like to end this discussion and ask you to please delete this page once and for all. I am uncomfortable with how it looks and no longer wish to have a page on Wikipedia. I thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --Katya Foster (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC) • contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2011‎[reply]

This is the only edit of this IP editor, who is most probably another editor who previously !voted and who is logged out from their account to !vote again. As such, I have struck-through this !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, the editor Katya Foster signed the above !vote with her account, and removed the strike-through. However this editor already has a delete !vote below, so I have reverted their edit and left this note to explain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify which information exactly is incorrect? Removing promotional tone does not make information incorrect. However, if there is incorrect information, please provide correct one, but only (and only) supported by reliable sources to verify the content. Please be also aware that there is no such thing as an ownership of pages in Wikipedia. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if you were the only editor of the page to have contributed the substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page, then the article could be deleted under WP:CSD#G7. However, at this point, several editors have been involved with adding sources and making content changes to the page. Therefore, that CSD criteria no longer applies. Please do not blank the content as you did here and here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I never asked or invited anyone to edit anything. So this does not apply. If you want to continue making things up and writting wrong information go ahead. I dont have any more time to waste on this. --Katya Foster (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out to you before, there is no such thing as ownership of articles (see WP:OWN) - no one needed your permission to be able to edit the article (see WP:BOLD). If you have disagreement on the content, identify the specific problematic statements - don't blank out the whole article. If others reverse your edits (ie: disagreement over the accuracy and/or appropriateness of specific statements), you can discuss them on the article talk page with other editors at talk:Foster Natural Gas/Oil Report (see WP:DR). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - basic level of notability has been established with existing sources - at least enough to barely meet notability requirements. Additional article cleanup can proceed from here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article looks like promotion. There is nothing educational about it or its topic.--Katya Foster (talk) 05:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This editor voted "Keep" above, so I have struck-through their previous !vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given the issue some thought and changed my mind. People who claim that it looks like a promotion are right. It is. Lets keep wikipedia clean and delete junk like this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katya Foster (talk • contribs) 00:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely, you're annoyed that you haven't been able to get your way, and want the article deleted because you cannot own it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete your previous comments. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, and deleting prior comments makes the discussion unintelligible. You're allowed to change your mind, but not to try to erase what you said earlier. I have restored your deleted comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted something and you put it back? Thank you so much that is so helpful of you.--Katya Foster (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you deleted something that you should not have deleted, and yes, I put it back. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I earlier wrote elsewhere that notability could go either way, I've taken a closer look, and based on the Factiva, Clarion and LexisNexis citations, I think it squeaks by. The article is also now in much better shap and lacking in promotionalism - just straight-forward description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and since absolutely no source can be found, or was offered, to support the contention that the report's name was changed, and since all the references in the article refer to it as "Foster Natural Gas Report" (FNGR), including the publisher's webpage, I have moved it to that name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the reference for the various names is the LC entry on WorldCat which gives the various names, though not the dates of change. Like many databases it can be referred to by more than one title, depending upon physical format. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This article is so short it serves no purpose. Its just a promotion for this Foster woman. Delete it immediately. Also, many things still need to be referenced! --Mr.BobyJones (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Mr.BobyJones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE OFCOURSE This article is even missing citations. Immediate delete according to wikipedia guidelines--SamtheWiki (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — SamtheWiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

DELETE An article written about some report? If every piece of paper ever written had a spot on wikipedia it would explode. What is the value of this article exactly? None!--Rachel Rich (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Rachel Rich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Just plain delete. This is what the majority wants anyway. Thank you.--JoeBlackMorceau (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — JoeBlackMorceau (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Any database included in the Lexis- service is notable, as they are the most important collection of professional databases.It's exactly the same principle as that in which we include all journals which are covered by Web of Science. The delete comments are essentially IDONTLIKEIT. The article is descriptive and not promotional. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a vote but DGG seems on the right track Greglocock (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IBM GERS[edit]

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

non notable software, all references self published. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as spam per G11, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 85[edit]

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

One of a series of articles all about various individual papyri. Possibly notable as a group, but I dont think each individual paper is notable. All articles by same author, using same references (2) - even further indicating it is group notability (if any) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we do already have an article Oxyrhynchus Papyri ~~into which these could conceivably be merged as you suggest~~ --Miskwito (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They can't effectively be merged there as there are thousands of them.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—has anyone been able to craft a search string which will pick mentions of this papyrus out from the vast literature on these papyri? i can't seem to do it, but i hope maybe the nominator was able to?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only encountered a couple examples where Oxyrhynchus Papyri are written out like this. More likely searches (and titles) in descending order of common usage:

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

As for notability, could someone point me toward a policy that would come close to applying to this type of object? I'm (full disclosure) a papyrologist, so I could use some guidance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—i think WP:GNG will do it. there's grenfell, the source that's already in the article, and there is this which makes two that discuss this papyrus at length.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment—Additionally, Grenfell and Hunt, the main reference in the article, is essentially an encyclopedia, which has at least a page on each of the papyri. We accept the presence of articles in other encyclopedias as prima facie evidence of notability. I think that we should do the same here.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per alf.laylah.wa.laylah. This seems to be notable enough on its own--and have enough written about it that it can be reasonably detailed or expanded--to justify a separate article. --Miskwito (talk) 19:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I wasasked to come here, but would have seen this anyway. All such documents about which there is any degree of scholarly discussion or publication is notable. The jstor article proves the notability, though I would include this even without it. I wouldn't be the least concerned about overwhelming WP, because very few of the available papyrii have yet been formally published, and in any case we're not ~~paper~~ papyrus. It would be very helpful if we are fortunate to have a professional available, if they were to write as many of these articles as possible. they're exactly the sort of article WP needs. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was also hinted in this direction, but, as noted above, I have a fondness for sifting through ancient garbage and should have noted this discussion when it began. I, too, think that this piece, at least, satisfies both the letter and the spirit of WP:GNG. The articles in this series that User:Leszek Jańczuk has been creating are, while not currently classed as stubs, kernels. Not a single piece in the P.Oxy. series has not received coverage outside of their initial publication. These papyri are constantly being studied and reevaluated in the light of new evidence or, as is the case with Coles's ZPE article that ALWL found, simply improved readings which increase the value of the piece. And, building upon DGG's points about notability of the initial publication itself and the ratio of published-to-unpublished papyri: pieces aren't published because of the inherent interest of being ancient--if it's been published in P.Oxy., it's been chosen from a collection of over 400,000 fragments because something about the piece is unique against the backdrop of our current knowledge of antiquity.

Comment. In theory, I agree with the reasoning of those voting "keep." In practice, however, I wouldn't want to see an editor create a whole series of these stubs, virtually indistinguishable from each other. The point of having an independent article should be to offer a more in-depth look at that individual papyrus. Unless an editor or a group of editors is willing to do the kind of development that demonstrates independent notability, I'm wary of keeping it. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that since the volumes become progressively more topically organized that it might make more sense to present them as units, since the groups might be easier for the reader to contextualize and for the editor to write an informed description? But, then, we might run the risk of going from mass stubbing to mass listing. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over some of these, I'd say that since they all begin with an identical paragraph and depend on the same sources, they'd make a better list article, perhaps even a table. They differ only in identifying the sender/addressee, the physical size of the fragment, and perhaps a sentence of the content or situation. Although WP:Other stuff exists#Precedent in usage can be invoked to justify independent articles, I don't see as they stand what purpose they serve other than to create a great number of "articles" that are no such thing. The existing pages could be changed to redirects to a new list article. If someone wants to write a proper article on an individual papyrus in future, the redirect page can be converted to a proper article. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Against my bryteophilia: I should note that glossed over in my panegyric of P.Oxy. above is the fact that an editio princeps of a papyrus involves nothing more than description, transcription and brief explication. One could argue that a papyrological editio princeps is in fact equivalent to a primary source since it is the base element of text necessary for anyone other than the editor to have knowledge of it. (The Odeon isn't showing papyri this Friday.) When one speaks of significant coverage, I don't then know what the threshold really is. P.Rev., the Milan Papyrus (sic), the Derveni papyrus, the Artemidorus papyrus--these are items as equivalent as they can be in coverage with a MS like Venetus A. (There are more landmark papyri than Venetus A's.) I guess my question is, before moving to a list (we already have one anyway), do we judge papyri in relation to manuscripts, in which case next to none should really have articles, or as realia, in which case lists would be the default (like coins), and still the precious and beloved few would have articles? An example: a friend of mine published this text: "Markianos to his brother Thonios, greetings. Go to our brother P[...]on. And if he makes a payment to you (sing.), receive it (?). Deposit into the account of the men from (?) Apollonios. For I thank you very much that you are going to the auction (?)[...] thus. Other [....]s have been bought which (?) I sent ... not ...". Wikipedia article or not? To what list would it belong? Is a list an academic way of politely saying notability isn't inherited? (Not that anyone poo-pooed Broughton's list.) The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not opposed in theory to this series of articles, nor to the "keep" reasoning. Just that the new articles don't seem to add much info not already in the individual entry for the papyrus in the main article's tables. So why should a separate article be created? (My suggestion for a separate list article should've been framed as "Should the tables in the existing article be moved to a separate list article?") Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there's enough information on each of these in Grenfell and Hunt alone to expand each article. As the IP noted below, people are already doing this. I'm doing it in passes, with a little more each time, but even without moving into the 20th and 21st century literature, there's enough in there to expand them all quite a bit. Grenfell and Hunt is PD, so I think that this is roughly analogous to a WP:CATH situation, both for notability (not directed at Cynwolfe, who agrees that they're notable) and for possibility of expansion. Having separate articles will allow categorization through specialized lists organized along multiple dimensions; I'm thinking e.g. by date, by topic, by language, by number, etc. A stub for each one seems like a natural place to start this process.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The papyrus (and others like it) are discussed at length in reliable sources on the Oxyrhynchus papyri, and in books on archeology, on Roman society, or on whatever else the papyrus sheds light on. Plenty of material for a good article. There do seem to be quite a few of these stubs, but they can all in principle be expanded, and existence as a stub is an invitation to do so. Some have already been expanded a little. -- 202.124.73.219 (talk) 12:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? I was encouraged to create manuscript articles by many users on several wikis and I like manuscripts. Biblical, non-biblical - every ancient or mediaeval manuscript is interesting for me, but I prefer Greek manuscripts. It is my hobby. It is close to my job (exegesis of the New Testament). I am also translator of the New Testament (ecumenical). Series of the articles? Yes, I have completed Louis de Funès films (118 created by me, 29 by other users), films of Jean Marais (43 arts), papyri of the New Testament, Uncials of the New Testament. I am intending to create articles about manuscripts of Homer's poems, as well as manuscripts of other famous ancient works. Only six manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas were survived, I have created articles for four of them. When I had started with Oxyrhynchus papyri I thought about 10-20% manuscripts. Perhaps I like series. I do not like red links (de Funes, Jean Marais, etc.). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably to a list (e.g. Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1-100) many papyrus fragments are notable but my experience in this field (which is actually one I have studied though not worked in) is that not all are notable and I don't see sufficient evidence that this one is best covered in a separate article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- No merge, just keep. The list would be too long. Additionally, there are reliable sources and PO85 needs its own article. Kmicic (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. There's enough content to expand this and other similar articles, so keeping it makes sense. It looks like we have some expert attention on this one, which is all to the good. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Epperson[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league figure. Minor league managers are not inherently notable. He only managed for six seasons in the lower and mid minors and never won a league championship. Alex (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lengthy career as a manager/coach/instructor in the minors... Manager of the Year award clinches it for me. Spanneraol (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he'd won a championship I'd reconsider, but a minor-league MOTY award doesn't cut the mustard. Not-notable per the relvant baseball notability policy/guideline/essay I can't remember the shortcut for - delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. There is no reason to believe that winning a minor league championship or MOTY establishes notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. m.o.p 18:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brick Mansions[edit]

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

Film, seems to be mostly unsourced speculation at this point. Notable star but it doesn't appear to have gone beyond planning at this stage, or to have started filming Jac16888 ^Talk 18:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to District 13#Renake per WP:TOOSOON, and no need actually to transate from French. While this planned remake of District 13 is getting some coverage,[1][2][3][4] it is still in early pre-production,[5] and does not have enough persistant and in-depth coverage of its production to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. I Suggest that for now we redirect and let the information grow there until we have enough for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree - no need to translate and TOOSOON. Even the referenced page is ifs and buts. (In case anyone tries it and gets an advert for Winter, click a button near top right.) Peridon (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adivo Ltd[edit]

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

The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced software article with no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another company that provides authoring software for technical documentation advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Otis[edit]

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

non notable makeup artist. page created by management agency Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again, passing mentions don't make notability, PR agency creating articles without regard to policy. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per Dennis Brown, non-notable per WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly mentioned on blog posts or credits for covers. Dougbremner (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree, there's no indication of notability as per our policies. Sources that contradict this would be welcome, of course - but I can't find any. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Hong[edit]

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

non notable make up artist.

4 refs 1) cant view from my work (could be valid) 2) non specific link to entire magazine 3 & 4) only mentioned in passing. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passing mentions don't make notability, PR agency creating articles without regard to policy. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Per Dennis Brown, non-notable per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of clear notability. I can't find sources that show this subject to be notable - though it's always possible that my google-fu is weak this morning. If sources are found, it's a different question. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty Sarsfields GAA[edit]

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

unreferenced OR essay. copy of Template:Infobox_GAA_club which makes no sense and should also probably be deleted Gaijin42 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense. I find it hard to believe this is anything but. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my speedy/delete !vote based upon the fact that the current article is substantially different than the article was when it was nominated, ie: it is readable and appears to be about a completely different subject matter (although this may be simply due to it being readable). Since I'm not familiar enough with the new (?) subject matter, I would be neutral about it. It still needs work, but I can see why someone would possibly think this is notable enough to keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Limerick GAA - After learning more about the Gaelic Athletic Association than I thought I would ever learn, I believe this article is essentially a sourced essay about the history Limerick GAA. There may be plenty of useful information but at this point, it's written very colloquially. I'll invite a few Wikiprojects to take a look and see if there's content that can be salvaged but as it stands, the article incomprehensible able to me and probably the vast majority of English readers. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is written as a very confusing Limerick, for a meta joke :) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i have made quite a few changes. I have taken out any personal opinions and every bit of history re the Treaty Sarsfields GAA is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iverus (talk • contribs) 14:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would take that as a keep !vote from you then. Good job cleaning it up. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article is not about Limerick GAA but about a specific GAA club in Limerick. Notability guidelines for sport mainly cover persons and are not helpful for clubs, but I would suggest that any club that has won county championships could be considered notable. The secondary sources provided in the article are probably in themselves evidence that the club meets the general notability requirements. In addition, this editor found the latest version a more interesting and enjoyable read than many articles about weightier topics! ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun, go back and read the original version that was nominated ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First reason: a clearly notable club. Second reason: a nomination after just eleven minutes, so denying the author to finish the article. Third reason: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want WP:DANNO for that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Och, I dare to confess that I had my collision too with the Flying Spaghetti Monster Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under criteria A7 by User:Toddst1. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cut N' Dry Talent Radio[edit]

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

non notable podcast, no notable references Gaijin42 (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smalltimore[edit]

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

Negative term, barely sourced. No indication given that this is anything more than a neologism. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete as a poorly-sourced neologism. --Miskwito (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (1) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article consists of a dictionary definition only. (2) Non-notable. No evidence of the term receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. (3) Unsourcable. No sources currently in the article and no evidence that it is capable of being sourced. (4) Soapbox. The purpose of the article appears to be to attack Baltimore and its residents. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyvio JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nilimma Devi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP autobiographical essay. deleted and recreated by subject/creator. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Butler Arms Hotel[edit]

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

pure pov original essay, fairly incoherent to boot. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guests were historic, both Irish and English. There are addresses that nobody knew for landlords etc. The setting up of the Congested Districts Board and the 1903 Land Act settled the Land Question. The hotel had the most extraordinary guests in a remote part of Ireland. It shows how well Government policy was followed. I cannot say more on the subject. --Kemiah (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already removed the speedy deletion (which was accidental on my part) and moved it to AFD. You would need to comment there. (there is a link in the template on the article). The issue with the article is that it is an WP:Original Research essay, and does not meet WP:Notability or WP:Verifiability. It is quite possible that notability could be established, based on some of the information you have, but you would need to delete everything you cannot find a source for. I will copy your comment and mine to the AFD.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment the creator is adding quite a few footnotes to the article. I note that they are all referencing the hotels own registry book. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, however, a ton of hits for this on Gnews and Gbooks. I would think that rescuing and improving this article is probably possible. Also note that the creator is a brand new user and is likely unfamiliar with most of our policies. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Researching this subject on the Internet is hampered, not by lack of sources, but by hundreds of specific incidental mentions dating back more than 100 years. 1910 directory for sports fishermen, as an example While I understand the nominator's concern --- and no, the hotel register is not a reliable independent source --- the results and historical depth convince me that this is a long term, historical subject of the sort that gets an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lot of famous people stayed there, lot of notable history. One of the hundreds of book search results mentions it, and hey, Tiger Woods stayed there. [6] Dream Focus 02:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its WP:Imperfect but very salvageble, a notable location meeting the requirements for WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criteria G11 - unambiguous advertising. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ReGives[edit]

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

non profit, claims notability, only google news hit is PR site. no references. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. not a deletion nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Kate Ryan[edit]

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

unreferenced, wife of politician. Non notable. merge to politician's article. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into husband's article, as non-notable in her own right. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A10'd The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher roper[edit]

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

Non notable journalist, references are :own twitter account, and article from the magazine he works for. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A10 as a duplicate topic to Christopher Roper, and tagged as such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Engagement (Star Trek novel)[edit]

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

No indication of noteability through third-party sources. Only external link goes to Memory Alpha, a fan wiki. Book has a low number of reviews on Amazon and most links on Google are merely to various online retailers selling the book. Jtrainor (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But... but... WP:ILIKEIT!!!! *sob* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per JClemens' suggestion below, unless Diane emails me some useful sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per documented 4 weeks on NYT list. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant GBooks hits include [7], but 95+% of what I see on Google Books is just listings of that book in other ST novels. Note that there is also a DS9 episode with the same title: [8], so getting hits on just this novel is problematic. Still, my review of this would support an up-Merge to List of Star Trek books, which already includes a link to this article. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this novel spent four weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list (and I've added sources to back up this assertion). - Dravecky (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Dravecky. Four weeks on the New York Times best seller list implies notability. Given the date published, there may be additional offline sources. Outside of these four New York Times sources, many of the Google news sources are behind a paywall. I'll tag the article for rescue. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search does not contain every single source that exist, of course. Reliable sources that review science fiction related things, would've surely reviewed a bestselling novel in such a notable franchise. Dream Focus 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rather lame nomination for a NYT bestseller and a very notable topic. A bestselling Star Trek novel to be deleted? Are you kidding? PolicarpioM (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best Seller, spent a month on the NYTs List, passes WP:NBOOK. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SmartSE (talk) 13:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation R.E.L.P Trilogy[edit]

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

Article about an ... Australian independent not-for-profit film ... that ... had only had two public showings. It's an amateur animated short video only released through video sharing web sites. Even the production teams website is a free space provider. A Prod has been declined giving two totally forged sources (NME link is a search link [9], and the expert Howitt, Rohan is a high school student [10]. Ben Ben (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't realise that NME is a search link - nevermind it, then. And just a correction, Rohan Howitt is no longer a high school student - you're referencing a document from 2008. He is currently working on the National Syllabus in conjunction with the Department of Education in Australia and has been published multiple times in publications before. And regardless, he is not referred to as an expert in the article (although I would class him as one), simply as the 'Young Historian of the Year'. His quote is completely valid. Just wanted to clear that up. CriticalPictures 11:57, 1 November 2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've speedily deleted this per WP:CSD#G11 as unambiguous promotion. SmartSE (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) by Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs)

Xhuliano Poci[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to be a 10 year old football player from Albania, and though he appears to have starred in underage teams, this article fails the general notability guidelines. Best of luck with your football career, Xhuliano, and hope you will be back as a major football star in a few years. Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A ten year old kid, playing for a couple of local clubs. Love the ambition, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (self closed) —Ryulong (竜龙) 10:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sydnee Michaels[edit]

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

Based on WP:ATH#Golf, it does not appear that this young woman is notable. And most of the references used on the article are merely sports profiles that barely list any sort of information, with the last one being a primary source. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. After ten minutes of Googling, I've found sources from Reuters, ESPN, Market Wire [11], Yahoo Finance, as well as [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18]. --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters. While only a couple of "votes" explicitly mark this as a first choice, it is the logical outcome when considering the persuasive arguments that she lacks independent notability but also that coverage within the context of the television show is present. Thus, as in many similar cases, "redirect" is the best reading of the debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Pope[edit]

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

Is a fictional guest character on Greys Anatomy really notable enough for their own article? Claims to notability are Reaser earning a nomination for a Primetime Emmy and a Prism Award as a guest actress while playing the role. She gave the sixth most memorable patient performance on Greys Anatomy, which I guess counts for something. AIRcorn (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete stated references are evidence of actresses notability, not the characters. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contra the above, when an entity like EW recognizes an actress on the basis of her work with a particular character, that counts towards the notability of the character. Based on refs 12, 13, and 15, it does appear the GNG has been met. Failing that, Merge to a List of Gray's Anatomy characters, which is how such roles are usually covered. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 says nothing about Pope. Neither does ref 13 really, it calls her a Jane Doe and is a just paragraph mention in a Season review. Entertainment weekly is listing the fifteen most memorable cases in Greys Anatomy (Popes case is number 6) and consists of two sentences. AIRcorn (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is notable. She is just as notable as Denny Duquette who has an article. The refs are fine and it's a substantial article. No need for deletion. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In short, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no "significant coverage" from RS, just cites to award nominations and series episodes. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The TV show had her as a recurring star for two seasons and was the highlight of the season 4 finale. Unless you know the show well, you really can't say the page is of no significance as it's a major part of the plot. Yes, in storylines I used "cite episode"; what else do you use? You don't even need refs in storylines. Reception is all referenced and she is known as the 6th most memorable guest star. She's important to the show; just as important as all the other pages in the Grey's Anatomy scope. TRLIJC19 (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any "significant coverage" in WP:RS, so this clearly fails the WP:GNG. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article only has four secondary sources (and only one focuses on the actual character!- even then she's in a list, and is briefly mentioned). Based on these (mainly poor) sources, I don't see any indications of notability. I don't see anything that couldn't be merged into the Grey's Anatomy character list (the article has no development section anyway, and the reception section is terribly short, probably because there's not much out there to cite). As for Denny Duquette, I would cite WP:OSE.Ruby 2010/2013 17:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tough call but it doesn't really make much sense to delete such a well-written article. It's even nommed for GA, character seems notable enough considering the actress was nominated for an Emmy for her portrayal. This is potentially one more high-quality article on the 'pedia, so there's my vote. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 01:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well written? The plot section alone gave me a headache: "They develop a close bond and spend much time together leading to Addison asking Alex if there was another "Denny Duquette incident" in the hospital referring to Izzie Stevens' romantic relationship with previous patient Denny." Ugh... :-/ Ruby 2010/2013 02:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps that sentence is a little awkward, but nothing a small cleanup wouldn't cure. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is fixed to no longer sound awkward. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Her character also got a major part in the Grey's Anatomy Video Game which obviously means she's a significant part of the show IMO. Not only that, but, Elizabeth Reaser was nominated for two awards for her performance as Rebecca, one being an Emmy Award. She was covered through several articles on the internet listed in the reception section. She is not the most major character so the amount of info given in the reception section is fine. Just because articles are not written about her does not mean that she has no significant value. I gave several references to importance in the Reception section. TRLIJC19 (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient notability of the character demonstrated through Primetime Emmy and Screen Actors Guild Award nominations. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that this fictional character had been nominated for any awards. The character hasn't received any significant coverage in WP:RS. The actor playing her has been nominated. Do you see the difference? Jezhotwells (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking to pedantry a little here no? The actor portraying this character has received those awards for her part. If you're suggesting they're not linked then I wouldn't know what to say without pointing out something obvious. Aranea Mortem ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jezhotwells, unless you are alleging that the actress was nominated for playing herself, then the character shares the notability, as well. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are really clutching at straws there. Take a look at the list of Academy Award for Best Actor. Check out how many characters are considered notable enough to have an article. You will find only notable real people or major fictional characters such as Fagin. The fact that an actor is nominated for an award does not confer any notability on the character portrayed. They are nominated because others perceive their acting skills are worthy of note. Any useful content in this article can be merged into the series article as has been suggested by others. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage of this character in independent reliable sources. The actress is not the character. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- A character does not have to have 20k articles written on her to be significant. Reaser was nominated for her performance of playing Rebecca. Not a different character. The character is a major part of the Grey's Anatomy storyline.

No, and the GNG doesn't say that or anything like it. Can you point to any significant coverage of this character, as opposed to the actress, in independent reliable sources, at all? Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was known as EW's 6th best GA appearance. There's more in the reception section. She is a significant character. Just because people aren't writing articles about it doesn't mean there shouldnt be a page for it. There are many pages on Wikipedia that are significant that do not have independent sources. It doesnt mean theyre not important. She was mentioned plenty of times on the internet, as shown is her page. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Just because people aren't writing articles about it doesn't mean there shouldnt be a page for it" -- actually, that is the precise opposite of our policy on verifiability and guidelines on notability, the latter of which state "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article". As to the other articles you mention, I have already referred to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage really consists of three sources, and none of them seem to say much of importance on the character. And Jezhotwells is correct: the character is not the actor. The notability of the one is not the same as the notability of the other. We're not a paper encyclopedia, it's true, and that all too often leads to the creation of articles on every single thing. We could leave a redirect, maybe, but there is nothing worth merging here. BTW, the GA review was put on hold--but even if this is kept, there is no way this qualifies as a GA: it's plot summary sourced to, what, nothing. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what else you would reference storylines to. Storylines dont even require refs first of all. So referencing episodes is more than needed. Hence storylines. The show is the source. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit, and please don't talk to me like I'm stupid. I've written tons of articles involving plot summaries, and if the shit is notable you can find a source for it. We don't necessarily need to reference all plot summary, but what's the problem here? The article consists of basically nothing but summary. How is this collection of plot lines and a note on an Emmy nomination for the actor going to be a GA? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly. A bigger case might be made for its notability if the article actually had a development/casting section in addition to an expanded reception section. A quick Google search really turns up nothing reliable however, hence the deficit in these sections and the perceived lack of notability. Ruby 2010/2013 04:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking to you like you're stupid, you are just acting with arrogance. The actress received the award because she portrayed the character so well. And actually, if you look at most articles the "storylines" section is just refs to episodes. And there's no need to curse at my statements. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought a well-chosen expletive might help you hear--I guess I was wrong, so fuck it. Some might think that it's arrogant to nominate a collection of plot summaries for GA; others would call it fool-headed. Oh, telling me that plot summaries this and that, yeah, that is talking to me like I'm stupid: if you have fourteen hundred edits, don't tell me what the rules of the game are here. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it quite comical that you still feel the need to talk to me in this manner. I'm not getting heated over this discussion, you are. I'm just lightly stating my reasoning. I don't know why you think you're so important to Wikipedia. Maybe I don't have as many edits as you, but that means nothing. And if you acted like you knew the rules, maybe I wouldn't have to tell you. TRLIJC19 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's enough. Everyone, please act on the notice we all see on editing this page, "that commenting on people rather than the article is considered disruptive". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Grey's Anatomy characters - it's a plausible search term, but all that needs to be said about the character can be said there, and information about the actor belongs in the article about her. LadyofShalott 00:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be a consensus that this subject does not meet the standards for a stand-alone article, and the content has already been merged elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 7 May 1968[edit]

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

Action not notable, issue discussed at length on military history page here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 106#Is the shooting down of 1 aircraft during the Vietnam war notable? Does it deserve GA status?. All salvageable information added to the page for Vietnamese ace Nguyen Van Coc Mztourist (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - As expressed in the original discussion, I have concerns both about notability and neutrality (balance of sources) here. It's an intriguing article, and I'm loathe to reccomend deleting a Good Article. But I don't see this being notable enough for its own page. That said, it might be possible to merge this, and the other article (Action of 16 June 1968) into (say) Aerial victories of the VPAF in the Vietnam War)? - The Bushranger

_{One ping only} 15:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per The Bushranger. The incident definately has a place in Wikipedia, but does not warrant an article of its own. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced to reliable sources. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources do not a notable article guarantee. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see you notable and raise you Verifiability, I also have concerns that if the result of this engagement had been the other way around, it would not have been brought to AFD.Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - For better or for worse, WP:N/WP:GNG hs become the sine qua non at AfD. And if the result had been the other way around, this absolutely would be at AfD and would be slam-dunk not-notable. Aircraft get shot down in wars. A lot. It's kinda what they do to each other. That this one had an unusual result merits mention on the page of the pilot scording the kills, but not its own article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I feel that this article should also be given mention in Operation Rolling Thunder, that's not a reason to keep a redundant article. Weak Keep but ONLY because the size of Operation Rolling Thunder is too unwieldy to merge it into. The engagement itself is notable, and a subject of discussion and debate in US Navy and Air Force pilot training. Trusilver 06:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trusilver please explain, how you see this as notable? I have already copied the details of the engagement to the Nguyen Van Coc page, everything else is just padding Mztourist (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I had forgotten to watch it and it slipped my mind for a few days. Trusilver 01:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, the article needs some work - as it stands, it depicts the engagement almost entirely from the VPAF's POV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge or keep. Although probably not a common way to voice support or opposition to a deletion, this is the only way I can express my thoughts on the matter. The article is certainly well-written and deserves its Good Article status, but it may look better in the Operation Rolling Thunder article. However, this article is long, and the merger of the two would make it overly so. If merging is not feasible, then I'd have to say keep. DCItalk 00:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, if kept it needs work. While the article is currently neutral in tone, its presentation is strictly from the VPAF's side of the engagement. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is completely BS. We have articles on here which are written completely from the American and Australian perspectives (such as Battle of Khe Sanh, Battle of Coral-Balmoral, Battle of Gang Toi etc.), but no one has any problems with that. I find it extremely hypocritical that articles written with greater Vietnamese perspective are placed under such scrutiny. If this article is judged to be too pro-Vietnamese and therefore needs greater improvement, than naturally I would expect the same standards to be applied to ALL Vietnam War articles including the aforementioned articles. Anything less would be an unfair representation of history. Canpark (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was pro-Vietnamese. It isn't. The article itself is entirely neutral. It's hard to put into words exactly what it is, it just "feels" like you're seeing the VPAF pilot making the engagment, without "seeing" how the F-4 pilots viewed it. It's very very difficult to describe without sounding like accusing the article of being non-neutral, which was never my intent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canpark if you have specific POV issues on articles please raise them on the relevant talk pages or alternatively provide balancing sources Mztourist (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canpark, unfortunatly I think you may be starting to take this personally, which is completely understandable (I would feel the same way about a GA I had contributed to suffering the same treatment). The issue for me is not so much the POV but the fact that the actions you have chosen to write about are not notable in and of themselves to warrant an entire article. Lastly, if you have reliable Vietnamese sources for any of the articles you mentioned above please be my guest to add them (as I was one of the main contributors for a couple of them). In my research I was unable to find much and as far as I am aware it doesn't exist (in English). Anotherclown (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DCI. Per Mztourist above the relevant details are already included in the article in Nguyen Van Coc. As such a merge has already occurred. Anotherclown (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is true. I have crossed out my comments above. I am still ambivialent on the matter, and will "recuse" myself from this debate. DCItalk 01:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if relevant information from this article, which has already been merged into Nguyen Van Coc, is merged to at least mention Nguyen in the appropriate section of Operation Rolling Thunder here. This is basically a 'delete' vote, since I don't think this article can stand on its own, notability-wise. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Outright deletion is hasty. Rather than erasing an article, WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is better for this article. Perhaps merge per statements above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the discussion above, the action itself is not notable and any useful information has already been "rescued" into the Nguyen Van Coc page. The Operation Rolling Thunder page already contains sufficient background information. Mztourist (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eee-O-11: The Best of the Rat Pack[edit]

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

This compilation is not notable and has been tagged as such for almost a year. Labalius (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffery Sports Club[edit]

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

"contest deletion - this campaign to eradicate our coverage of cricket in Kenya is starting to get disruptive" - quite the contrary, just because you feel it is "disruptive" isn't an adequate reason to contest. You seem confused on this one. There are two Jaffery Sports Clubs in Kenya. One in Nairobi, which is notable. This one which you claim is notable and claim held WCL Division matches (it did not) is completely non-notable and fails WP:CLUB, WP:GNG, WP:SPORT. Those are the policies I go by, not your personal opinion. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you need convincing here is Jaffery Sports Club in Mombasa. Here are the two matches held at the ground, one in 1986 and 1993. Here is the Jaffery Sports Club in Nairobi. Here are the 2007 ICC World Cricket League Division One matches played there. A search for sources which imply notability pretty much turns up trumps. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The article has apparently been created in error because of confusion over two clubs with the same name. As the CricketArchive evidence proves, it is the Nairobi-based club that meets WP:Notability. This one in Mombasa unfortunately does not. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 14:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loon News[edit]

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

No reliable sources GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nominator created the AfD discussion at the article talk page [19], I moved it here to complete the nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems like the subject should be notable, but as the nomination points out, the article is unsourced, and my attempts to find some to at least establish notability have not succeeded. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 18 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. The article may or may not be factually accurate, and the paper may or may not have a strong cult following, but the simple fact is that there is no evidence the Loon News has ever received significant coverage in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With all due respect to HBWS, the delete !voters here make the stronger argument here. Maybe later. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Casilla[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league player no longer affiliated with any team. Minor league players are not inherently notable per WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Minor league all-star as recently as 2010, was with Giants system last year and most likely will stick with a team in 2011... another case of Alex jumping the gun... lets give him a chance to sign before deleting. Spanneraol (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casilla is "no longer affiliated with any team" because he had arm surgery this year, and will be unable to pitch until 2012. Once he's recovered (typically 12-18 months for TJ), it seems likely that he'll be active again, given that he was considered a good prospect before the injury, and the recovery rate from that procedure is very high. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's only 22 years old. His career is not even close to over. As stated, he's not with an organization now because of injury, but with his youth and past prospect status, he will get at least one more opportunity. – Muboshgu (talk)

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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding the above !votes: Please remember WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If he becomes notable than the article can be re-created. Wikipedia does not work by creating an article and waiting to see if someone becomes notable, you have to be notable first, before creation of an article. Ravendrop 01:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of ballplayers seem like they're on the way to the majors in low-A, yet by high-A they've fallen off, like this player has. The fact that he was released tells me all I need to know. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carrite, I sympathize with your IAR argument but sorry, no can do for a living person. Also, it is unclear if the coverage that Sgtrinaldi claims to exist is significant. However, there are no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and the article does have some sourcing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob L. Wagner[edit]

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

Article about a journalist that fails to assert sufficient notability and which is an BLP that relies solely in primary sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really hate this challenge. It is very difficult to source out biographies of journalists. This is clearly a good one, informative and seemingly accurate, for a veteran journalist and newspaper editor of 35 years' standing. Owing to what I consider a major defect in WP notabiity doctrine, it will probably end up being blown away for lack of so-called "reliable sources." It's very annoying, actually... Ignore All Rules Keep — use common sense for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In many ways, I agree with Carrite's argument. On the face of it, Wagner appears to be a solid journalist with years of experience and a significant voice for Islam from a non-Islamic perspective. The problem with Carrite's argument, and the problem with the article itself, is that none of this information is verifiable. While it appears that Wagner has a great deal of credibility and influence, there is nothing to prove this. Based on the sources that are available, all we know is that Wagner is a former minor journalist and author writing about some minor issues in local California history who has gone on to be a prolific writer on the topic of Islam. Prolific does not mean influential, however. Evidence of such influence would really help this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 19 October 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, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you care to share said sources?? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originated this article based on following this person's work for a couple of years. The Media Line news website keeps its archive behind a paywall, so there is no evidence of his work there as an independent source. However, as of 6-11-2011 the home page has three articles by this person. Peace and Conflict Monitor archives his work and has a brief bio on him, as do the Eurasia Review and MidEastPosts. The Saudi Gazette from my understanding did not digitize its archive until 2008, after this person left its employ. However, there is enough data from these websites in my view to confirm his biography. I also understand the University for Peace (Peace and Conflict Monitor) has a fairly high standard for publishing white papers, so they certainly vetted this person before publishing his work. This individual does not generate much controversy, but is a consistent presence in Middle East political reporting, so it shouldn't be ignored.--Sgtrinaldi (talk) 11:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Addendum: There are at least three recently published film/politics/crime books that identify Mr. Wagner as a journalism historian. "The First Lady of Hollywood: A Biography of Louella Parsons" by Samatha Babbas (2005) identifies Mr. Wagner as a journalism historian and uses his book "Red Ink, White Lies" as a primary reference. Mr. Wagner's writings are also cited as a scholarly source in "Big Daddy: Jesse Unruh and the Art of Power in Politics" by Bill Boyarsky (2007) and "The Black Dahlia Files" by Don Wolfe (2006). These books can be found on google.books with references to Mr. Wagner. There are other books, but these are the ones that can easily be verified online. --Sgtrinaldi (talk) 11:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but add more sources. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long Now Foundation[edit]

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

Promotional article. No reliable sources that mention the subject. Fails WP:ORG. causa sui (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Article could probably establish notability, but as stands seems overly promotional/NPOV in tone, with no independent sources. Article has numerous notable members going for it. 78.26 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our editing policy is to improve such articles, not to delete them. The topic has great notability; see The Internet: A Historical Encyclopedia, for example. Warden (talk) 07:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources as Colonel Warden points out. Here's an IEEE Spectrum article, and there's mentions in The Guardian. (That said, deleting the article would be an amusing counterpoint to the stated goal of promoting "long-term thinking".) —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable foundation; sources were easily found for it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly Notable, easily found many strong sources, as others have said already. We'd better strengthen the article to make things clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every so often I come across a deletion nomination that leaves me completely gobsmacked. This is one of those. It only takes a couple of seconds, for example by looking at the search results spoonfed by the nomination process, to see that this flies way over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the amount of editorial energy that has to be devoted to blunting the assault on good articles at AfD ... is really a pity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Metzl[edit]

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

Previously was nominated for deletion in 2006. Result was delete. Article later was re-written. But circumstances leading to deletion have not changed. Biography of entirely non-notable individual who ran for congress in Missouri in 2006 and soundly lost in primary. Article plainly was designed to promote its subject, rather than being an biographical, encyclopedic entry. In fact, the subject has admitted in a web screed that he himself is responsible for most of the content in this article, as well as the article's post-deletion rewriting (see [20]). Article makes numerous unsubstantiated and editorialized claims. Does not fit WP:BIO or meet WP:N, and clearly violates WP:BLP and WP:ADVERT for extreme self-promotion. Urge strong delete. Wikophile (talk) 05:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Note that the article has been subject to tag bombing by the nominator, a form of disruptive editing. As noted by the nominator, one of the contributing editors is User:Jamiemetzl, which suggests a conflict of interest. It all seems a bit dubious. That being said, there are news ghits on Jamie Metzl from Bloomberg/Washington Post, so he may prove to be notable. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep for now: A search on Google brings up several mentions of him and his work in published books (see for instance here, which provides biographical information and is published in a reliable third-party source--note that even if Metzl or his staff presumably wrote the sketch, it was still approved by the editors of the book, and so should qualify as reliable). His essays have been published in numerous major publications (frequently cited is one from 1997 in Foreign Affairs). It's disingenuous to describe him as merely a politician who lost a primary once.

That said, I agree there are serious COI and other problems here. The article needs to be substantially rewritten to remove self-promotion and unsourced statements, and Metzl and his staff or friends should refrain from editing it. It's unfortunate that so many of the stuff I can find on him online is little biographical blurbs on sites he is affiliated with, but there's enough reliable stuff there that a short article should be possible (see, e.g., the book I linked to above). While on the subject, I should also say I disagree with Wikophile's interpretation of Metzl's piece here. There's no indication that he was ever seriously involved in the editing of the first incarnation of the article (all he mentions is that he'd "occasionally ask my assistant to add a link"). The essay seems to me mostly a jocular piece written for fun. To summarize my position then, the subject seems notable enough (numerous publications in major journals/newspapers/etc., frequently interviewed on major news networks, on the boards of several non-profits etc., mentioned [albeit often in passing] in various reliable books, has written several published books, was on a task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, and so on). There are major COI concerns here, and User:Jamiemetzl and other users in any way associated with him need to stop editing the article, but ultimately I disagree with Wikophile's characterization of the subject of the article, at least on the basis of what I've found so far. This seems like a case where major rewrites are needed, rather than deletion.

As one final point, I'll mention that I'm a bit concerned that other concerned parties like User:Jamiemetzl or User:Alansohn haven't been notified on their talk pages of the nomination... --Miskwito (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of the subject's governmental, international and organizational roles, as well as his extensive body of published work, backed by numerous reliable and verifiable sources, all establish a strong claim of notability. I am responsible for rewriting this article after deletion, as the most cursory check of edit history will demonstrate. I urge the largest possible trout slapping for the nominator, whose tag bombing includes demands to source statements that had already been sourced and are easily verifiable. The tag bombing attack still has 25 citation demands remaining, all of which will be addressed shortly, and could have been addressed by the nominator if there is any serious interest in improving the article. Alansohn (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't "tag-bombing." None of the tagged material was sourced, and much of it was written like an advertisement. The tags were/are appropriate. A "cursory check of edit history" reveals that, for the most part, this article was written by User:Jamiemetzl himself, as he admitted in the above-cited article. Also, User:Alansohn's own edits are mere WP:OR and have an equally strong WP:COI problem; he posts User:Jamiemetzl's quote praising from the above-cited article in his own userpage! The subject of this article, User:Jamiemetzl, who wrote most of it, is simply not notable; he isn't the subject of multiple secondary biographies, as WP:BLP requires. Most of the links here, which all were added by User:Jamiemetzl, are primary sources. In short, Jamie Metzl is just some well-educated rich kid from the Kansas City area who worked in a few minor, low-level, quasi-political roles, wrote some non-notable editorials, ran for Congress, and lost miserably in the democratic primary. The original genesis of this article was to help his failed campaign. Its continued existence on Wikipedia is entirely, as User:Jamiemetzl admitted himself, for self-promotion. Delete this unencyclopedic article. It sets a terrible precedent. Wikophile (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding nearly 30 citation needed notes to an article of this size, often including a half dozen in single sentences and ignoring sources already present in the article is the definition of Tag bombing, which specifies that "Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page" and that such "Unjustified tag bombing is a form of disruptive editing." The addition of a single "unreferenced" tag in the lead followed by discussion of specific issues on the article talk page would have been appropriate. It's hard to see someone who has served in policy-making roles in the White House, and served in senior positions in numerous international and quasi-governmental articles, not having a strong claim of notability, especially given the dozens of sources added to the articles per the nominator's demands for sources for such non-controversial and easily verifiable details, such as the name of the high school that the article's subject attended, in conflict with WP:V. I agree that it has been inappropriate for User:Jamiemetzl to edit the article, assuming that this editor is the article's subject himself or someone with a direct connection to him, and that such editing would violate WP:COI. I'm not sure what the nominator's claim of WP:OR even refers to, so it can be easily ignored, as all of the material I have added has been to support claims in the article with corresponding sources. I still find it funny that the real-life Jamie Metzl mentioned me in an article he wrote about the previous deletion travails of his Wikipedia article; I do not know him, I have never met him, I wouldn't recognize him if he ran over me multiple times with his bicycle while competing in an Ironman race, and all of the material I have added and edited has been written / rewritten to reflect his notability in the WP:NPOV fashion required by Wikipedia policy. WP:COI defines that "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest" and I can assure you that I couldn't care less about advancing the interest's of Jamie Metzl, but that I do see the continued existence of this notable article to be advancing Wikipedia's body of knowledge. Alansohn (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't agree with your interpretation of that essay of his you keep linking to. I don't see it as anything more than a humor column. And he certainly never says in it that he was a significant editor of the (initial version of) the article. Obviously he or someone affiliated with him is probably making substantial contributions to this second version of the article, and I agree that whatever the outcome here that needs to stop. Also, "Jamie Metzl is just some well-educated rich kid from the Kansas City area who worked in a few minor, low-level, quasi-political roles, wrote some non-notable editorials, ran for Congress, and lost miserably in the democratic primary" is simply not an accurate description of him, from everything I can find. I think there can be a genuine question over his notability, but we need to be honest about what those claims of notability/non-notability rest on, and the sources I can find (and I freely admit that a lot of them are, unfortunately, primary or at least closely connected with the subject) don't support that generalization of him --Miskwito (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, above, & WP:YOURSELF. Article clearly was primarily written by its subject to make him, a non-notable individual, sound notable. Check of edit history reveals that, of the 251 edits to this article, 67 (more than a quarter - and nearly all the major edits) were by User:Jamiemetzl, the article's subject. Clubwiki (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. COI doesn't automatically mean the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia--it might just mean we need to substantially rewrite the article, but the subject may still be notable. You've just asserted his lack of notability without providing any justification for that. Personally, as I've said above, I'm kind of ambivalent on the question--there's lots of sources I can find that seem to suggest he's notable, but a frustrating lack of genuinely independent sources which discuss him in-depth. --Miskwito (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Editors with COI are strongly discouraged from contributing to articles about themselves for a reason. User:Jamiemetzl and User:Jlwong10 are single-purpose accounts that basically crafted this article, and only that. While Mr. Metzl's contributions to the field of international relations is commendable, in my view his profile he has not risen to the level of notability required for a Wikipedia article per WP:BIO. Do you know how many 'senior advisors' or 'senior counselors' there are in politics? Perhaps soon, he will rise to greater notability. But I would encourage Mr. Metzl to heed WP:COI and stay out of directly editing his article, and keep it to the talk page, if the page ends up being created again, or ends up not being deleted. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not look to an earlier version of the article that is untainted by WP:COI issues and revert back to that version? If you take a look at the article history, the main content of the article was written by me, an independent editor, while most of the material added by those apparently associated with the editor consists of lists of articles written. This situation is far from ideal, but is easily addressable. Alansohn (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zen (2007 film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:NFILM. Has not won any major awards or received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:NF. This might be a released and screened film but, away from being verifiable as existing, it has not received commentary or review in reliable secindary sources. Sometimes a film simply does not have the sourcable notability we require. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC) (Struck, See below) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - Very weak. I've cleaned up the article a bit, cleared out the cruft in external links, referenced, and added information about the 2009 sequel(!). However I can't find a single actual review of the film. It obviously fails WP:NFILM's "other evidence of notability" section; the first part obviously, and the second part, #2, based on the fact that DeZolt just had his own article deleted for lack of notability. As for defaulting to the WP:GNG, however, it has been mentioned in the film section of a nationally prominent newspaper (the South Florida Sun-Sentinel), with regards to it being made by a prominent local filmmaker~~, but~~... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the expansion work done by Bushranger. Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made. I never mind being proven wrong. Big kudos to The Bushranger. Nice job! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per The Bushranger's additions; subject meets WP:NFILM. Gongshow ^Talk 03:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Crawley (headmaster)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 05:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an entry in Who's Who in Australia, the inclusion criteria of which is "People are included if they have significantly contributed to Australian life on a national or international level." That by itself is enough to meet the general notability guideline in my book. Also has a few mentions in major news sources: [21], [22] and [23]. Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet general notability guideline or WP:BIO? In addition, minor mentions in news sources do not meet notability requirements. reddogsix (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know that the news sources I provided do not prove notability, I was just showing that he does get some mentions in gnews. The reason I believe he is notable is because he is covered in Who's Who, which counts as the significant coverage that GNG requires in my book. Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few source of information, because in fact his done nothing notable to meet wiki standards Ray-Rays 20:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymond88824 (talk • contribs)

Delete Being in "Who's Who" is not by itself satisfaction of WP:BIO though the bio details provided by the honoree can be useful in writing an article if they are shown by other sourcing to be notable. The three newspaper articles are passing references and do not furnish significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Entry in Who's Who in Australia plus sources suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Where in any notability criteria does it state that inclusion in a "Who's Who" is a standard for establishing notability and how are the sources significant? reddogsix (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the "Who's Who" publications around the world print bios of everyone who agrees to buy a copy. The bio is generally submitted by the person in question, and is thus not "independent." See Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 3#In reference works Wikipedia is not a mirror of "Who's Who," and there is no inherent notability for every person the authors of such a publication chose to include. Edison (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One has to distinguish different Who's Whos. The US Marquess Who's Who is a low standard publication. The British one is independent and reliable and so is the Australian one. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Crawley has been head of three notable schools (they all have Wikipedia articles) and deputy-head of another (also covered by Wikpedia). His listing in Who's Who in Australia also suggests notability. Who's Who in Australia is selected by an editorial panel and inclusion cannot be purchased. Castlemate (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Where in any notability criteria does it state that inclusion in a "Who's Who" is a standard for establishing notability? reddogsix (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. High school principal is clearly not enough for any WP:PROF criterion, and "Who's Who" is clearly not enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this "Who's Who" clearly not sufficient? Yes, there have been many vanity publications using this phrase in their titles, but this isn't one of them, rather being a respected biographical encyclopedia. The best possible indication of suitability for inclusion in an encyclopedia is inclusion in a reputable print encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one thing, GNG requires multiple in-depth reliable sources, and this particular "Who's Who" is only one source. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to argue that the headmasters of Eton and Winchester are not notable because they are only the headmasters of "high schools"? He appears to have been headmaster of similarly elite institutions in Australia. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The point of the general notability guideline is to determine whether a subject is suitable for an encyclopedia on the basis of what independent reliable sources say. When the available sources are the like of newspaper articles or coverage in books then we have to take a view about whether the coverage is multiple enough and significant enough for encyclopedicity, but when such a source is an encyclopedia itself, and is from a reputable publisher, then that decision has been made for us. This is supposed to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, so shouldn't be more restrictive than traditional print encyclopedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to delete these headmasters as well; Tony Little (headmaster), Ralph Townsend, John Lewis (headmaster), Ian Lambert? To the contrary, I would suggest that more profiles of Heads of schools are required given the influence they have on our communities. Castlemate (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm arguing that all headmasters are automatically non-notable, you're sadly confused. What I'm arguing is that they're not automatically notable by virtue of their office, even when the school they head is itself quite notable. Rather, we need evidence that they pass our general notability guidelines: there must be in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources. So far, there have not been enough sources presented in the case of Crawley to convince me. For the four others you mention, some already do have sufficient sources, some are very badly sourced, and should either be deleted or (more likely) have their sources improved, but see WP:WAX. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing that he is automatically notable by virtue of being included in the Australian Who's Who, which is a biographical dictionary of repute in contrast to some others. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, I'll bite. Where does anything in WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO say that someone is "...automatically notable by virtue of being included in the Australian Who's Who?" reddogsix (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say say that someone is "...automatically notable by virtue of being included in the Dictionary of National Biography "? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have added quotations from The Sunday Age and National Library of Australia catalogue references to his publications. Castlemate (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My mother is in a Who's Who publication, and I regret to say that that doesn't make her notable. Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR as well. Joefridayquaker (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:NSPORT! Please note that none of the keep votes have claimed he passes WP:AUTHOR. As to Who's Who, as has been noted above the Australian version is a respected publication, while there are many others that are not. Don't tar them all with the same brush. Jenks24 (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may have a point with the "broad brush reference. However, the lead section of the article states that "He is the co-author of two books on educational issues." Therefore, whether or not anyone "voted" in that manner, he is an author, and fails that subject's notability guidelines, along with dubious notability elsewhere. I'm just throwing it out there. Joefridayquaker (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. I was just trying to point out (probably in a manner that was over the top) that the SNGs (such as AUTHOR, NSPORTS and PORNBIO) are all 'trumped' by WP:N. Jenks24 (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the entry in "Who's Who" is something, but there doesn't seem to be all that much else on Crawley that addresses him in depth. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Being in a "Who's Who" book, no matter of which country, does not contribute to satisfying WP:NOTABILITY or WP:BIO. Unfortunately, while the individual has written books, I still don't think this meets the notability standard. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 05:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Barral[edit]

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

Searches for any substantial reliable sources about this person have yielded nothing. Delete as non-notable. 4meter4 (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A French official, posted to various African colonies, who published a book of poetry in 1968. No notability claimed nor found. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. French Wikipedia has exactly the same information and English (Ok, I'll grant it's in French....) Online search turned up copies of this Wiki article. 78.26 (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Andreas Tzortzis[edit]

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

An AfD-request was asked for on his talk-page. The reasons are, that is no proof whatsoever for this person's notability and that this guy is without any relevance in public life or science. Furthermore, the article relies heavily on his personal websites (like [24]) , thus violating the WP:SELFPUB-rules. Also, it has only one link to another wikipedia-article, what made me place the WP:O-tag above it. On the other hand his name gives a lot of hits on internet (though mainly though his own websites and some films on youtube) and he debated several notable people, like Rick Lewis and Simon Blackburn. Moreover, there is an OTRS verification for the copyright release of the SPSource of the talkpage. Not much in search results that is independent, but there is stuff in the search results like http://richarddawkins.net/videos/549391-debate-islam-or-atheism-with-hamza-andreas-tzortzis-the-president-of-american-atheists - he's written a book or two, its a judgment call - the question is if he is over WP:GNG.Jeff5102 (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is this article in The Daily Telegraph, but I don't think that it's enough as a basis for a neutral article about a living person. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Proselytising at universities is hardly enough to make him notable enough to have a Wiki page Tiller54 (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing with people, self-promotion, and appearing on Youtube without any original thoughts, achievements, or discoveries hardly qualifies for notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.34.100 (talk) on the talk-page, 06:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sufficient material to meet WP:PEOPLE or WP:GNG. Only one major news article found. HurricaneFan25 | talk 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the page should be retained as Hamza is gaining credibility on the theological/philosophical/political debating circuit, and has engaged in dialogue with many prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and more recently, Dr Lars Gule in Norway. In the same manner that these people are famous for being atheist, and are approached to always give that point-of-view, Hamza is the Islamic equivalent (in much the same way as William Lane Craig is for Christianity). In Oct 2011 when iERA was to launch in Canada, the Canadian Parliament discussed preventing Hamza from entering the country on the basis of the views of Islam. Hamza has also authored a research paper concerning Embryology in the Qur'an (soon to be released), and lectures on theism around the world. If credible information on Hamza is required, I'd be happy to provide it — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamShady (talk • contribs) 11:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jam, thank you for your contribution to this discussion, and to the article. However, your edits have only Tzotzis' own website and some youtube-vids as sources. These sources do not meet the standards as described in WP:SOURCES. Please find some 'reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy' to support your claims.

Furthermore, you argue that Tzortzis "has engaged in dialogue with many prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers." Unfortunately, I only found this youtube-video in which Tzortzis is talking in the street to Myers, and is asking a question to Dawkins at a convention.

That is hardly notable. If I am missing something, please correct me. But so far, I am not yet convinced that Tzortzis' article should be on Wikipedia.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celia (singer)[edit]

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

The only "source" is this, a self-published fan bio. No independent sources indicate she passes WP:ARTIST. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. – Richard BB 21:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Richard BB. Article contains more information about mundane personal life than about anything that could establish notability. Single source may not be reliable. 78.26 (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - one of the most famous pop acts in Romania. In fact, one of only two I can think of. Just because she hasn't been covered in the English-language media doesn't mean she isn't notable. If anyone had bothered to glance at the Romanian-language version of the page they would have seen a host of good sources. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look. Half the links were dead. Of the other half, some were routine coverage in tabloids, some were track listings for CDs, some were blog posts - that sort of thing. Even setting aside WP:ARTIST and WP:ENT, I'd perhaps revise my opinion of her notability if you could point out how she meets the basic criterion for inclusion of biographies - "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Specific sources, please, not generalities. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper sourcing available, the article is just a promotional tool - for the sake of the argument, she may become famous or whatever, but this is clearly not the case now. Dahn (talk) 22:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When she scores a big hit in Romania (or elsewhere) AND when this is properly sourced, I'll change my opinion.Jeff5102 (talk) 13:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid arguments are made by both sides. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States[edit]

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

Article is Unencyclopedic and fails to meet General Notability Guidelines. Coverage of most of these incidents is not significant. Notable incidents already have their own article. EricSerge (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia: Five pillars, entries do not need to be encyclopedic. “Wikipedia ...incorporates elements of ...almanacs...” The linked article on almanacs states that they contain “... tabular information in a particular field or fields often arranged according to the calendar.” --ThaPolice (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists with bold added:

”Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.”

--ThaPolice (talk) 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now includes a well-referenced introduction to the topic to clearly establish General Notability of the list as a group. Specifically, the group of people killed by law enforcement officer is studied by the Justice Department, FBI, CDC, academics and media outlets. The group is notable.--ThaPolice (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is comparable to similar lists which are also in an almanac format of non-notable individuals forming a notable group:

List of Philadelphia Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

List of Australian Federal Police killed in the line of duty

List of New Zealand police officers killed in the line of duty

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty

List of British police officers killed in the line of duty

List of Royal Malaysian police officers killed in the line of duty

List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

--ThaPolice (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF comes to mind. Also, the fact that the above lists are of officers killed in the line of duty, while the list in question here is one of criminals killed by officers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list of criminals killed by police officers, it is a list of people killed by police officers. That would appear to include wholly innocent people. James500 (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i was going to say something about this too, in fact, they're all innocent in the u.s. since they're killed before they can be tried, but it doesn't seem to me to affect notability one way or the other.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this may be one of those lists tagged as never being able to be complete, it is a noteworthy list; as noteworthy as the aforementioned lists by ThaPolice. Joefridayquaker (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No, it's not hardly as noteworthy as the ones mentioned in the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument above. A police officer being shot and killed while on duty is a very different thing than a hoodlum being shot and killed. Cop killing is rare and significant; criminals getting shot is routine WP:DOGBITESMAN stuff. The vast majority of these incidents are rampantly unnotable, while those that are notable are notable enough to have independent articles on the subject (thus calling for a category, not a list). As it stands, though, this is a wildly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i think actually that this is the opposite of an indiscriminate list. when a person is thought to have been killed by officers there's a required investigation, which determines independently whether the person was in fact killed by officers. the results are invariably printed in a newspaper article, which states clearly that the officers killed the person. the criterion for inclusion is completely objective from our point of view. if a newspaper says killed by officers, the person was killed by officers, otherwise no.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My use of indiscriminate in this case isn't so much undefined inclusion criteria, as the fact the page is going to be browser-crashing long if it was ever completed. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha! if it survives the afd i'm going to propose that it be split chronologically whenever it gets too long.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bushranger: As for WP:DOGBITESMAN, we do have a list of people killed by dogs in the United States. So I suggest that that policy doesn't apply to fatalities. James500 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—this clearly meets WP:LISTN, which tells us that a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. here are two examples from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service:

Deadly Force: A 20-Year Study of Fatal Encounters a study of 78 killings by minnesota police officers
POLICE AND THEIR USE OF FATAL FORCE IN CHICAGO

there are others there, but this seems to be enough to show notability. criminals getting shot may be routine, but criminals getting killed is not considered routine by law enforcement. it's studied and discussed endlessly by criminologists and police scientists. the individual incidents may very well be unnotable, but the notability guideline for lists tells us specifically that as long as the grouping is notable, the individual items on it need not be.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The above links do not work for me. alf.laylah.wa.laylah has directed me to this set of search results instead, which seems to work. James500 (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. There are many lists in WP that are composed of non-notable elements that as a whole are, apparently, considered notable. Here are a few examples of pages with long histories:

List of Brookside characters

List of Degrassi characters

List of Star Wars characters

List of past Emmerdale characters#Last appeared in 2003

List of past Coronation Street characters

List of Bionicle characters

List of characters in the Hunger Games trilogy#Major Tributes

List of EastEnders characters (2011)#Others

List of Shameless characters

List of Pokémon characters

List of Hollyoaks characters (2009)#Others

List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters#Others

List of The Fairly OddParents characters#Other characters

List of Arrested Development characters

List of Shrek characters some descriptions are long. Would the List in question be more acceptable if the incident descriptions were longer?

How can a list of killings of real people by government employees be less notable than a list of fictional characters?

Regarding the size issue, as alf.laylah.wa.laylah noted, if a page gets too big, the solution is typically to subdivided. In that case, this page may eventually become a list of links to lists of killings. Even in that case, the number of persons killed will probably never exceed the number of fictional characters described in WP.

--ThaPolice (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oh come on, if this list exists then we will eventually also get List of people killed in World War II! It's more appropriate for people killed by the police in countries where the police are generally unarmed such as the UK, where every single shot fired by the police makes the national news, but in a country where the police are routinely armed and routinely use their firearms? No. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is on a completely different scale. 400 a year is not even close, to give the example that comes to mind, to over 57,000 in one day for one belligerent, many of which are unverifiable due to the use of high explosives, and which effectively represent a single incident (the Black Day of the German Army at the end of the First World War). James500 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, reductio ad absurdum arguments are pretty unconvincing in afds. first of all, so what if we do get list of people killed in world war II? and second of all, what's the connection between the two? also, would you like to support your statement that u.s. police use their firearms "routinely"? 400 per year in a country is an annualized rate of 0.000128%, or a little more than one in a million per year. people died in WWII at a rate of about 10,000,000 per year, ~~which is 100,000,000,000,000 (100 trillion) times higher.~~ the comparable figure for UK police killings is...oh, wait, i can't look it up, there's no list of police killings in the UK.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

duh, sorry. apples and oranges. no time to recalculate taking population of europe into account, but i stand by my general point.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I was being ironic. So, you're saying that 400 police killings (not shootings, but killings) a year doesn't equate to routinely using firearms? I give up! As to your comment about a list of people killed in WWII, oh good grief! In that case, why not a list of everyone born every year in the whole world? There's being an inclusionist and there's being an inclusionist... -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i did see your irony, it's inherent in reductio arguments. if there were such a list, and if it came up as an afd, i'd probably support deletion, because it's inherently unsourceable. this is inherently sourceable. anyway, the routineness can't be decided by looking at the absolute numbers, or even the rate by population, because it depends on social circumstances, which (esp in terms of civilian gun ownership) are quite different in the u.s. and the u.k. the two places just aren't comparable on this statistic. however, both should have a list of police killings.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Necrothesp: As this list is not about shootings, it is irrelevant whether or not they routinely use firearms. Are you saying that police officers in the United States "routinely" kill people? James500 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read my original post again. Most killings by law enforcement officers are with firearms. Police officers who carry firearms are more likely to kill since they have the means to do so. Countries in which the police do not routinely carry firearms have far fewer police killings for obvious reasons and so the killings that do occur are far more likely to become newsworthy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uses of deadly force by police are consistently reported in local newspapers and TV news, the vast majority of which maintain online accounts of stories. Having the incidents documented is not a problem. Each event is already considered newsworthy by local reporters.--ThaPolice (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying they're not covered at all. I'm saying they don't make national news (which makes them far more notable for Wikipedia purposes than cases only covered locally) anywhere near as often as similar killings do in countries with unarmed police forces. However, since I don't really think there should be any such lists for any country this isn't a particularly relevant point in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see value in the list, and a lot more value than much of what WP consists of. The value is not in the names, but in a chronicling of the events. Not everyone will find the list useful, and some will find it offensive, but I think it is worthy of the space and resources it takes on WP. --Mikebrand (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Notable as a collection, and certainly some of the individual elements in the list are individually notable. Could possibly be a category rather than a list, but that would remove all of the non notable individual examples. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo right here, surely you understand the difference between a list of killings in the line of duty compared to a List of plane crashes do you see how the article (the latter list) makes sense and is encyclopedic? See WP:NOT and compare the plane crash list to the criteria, then you'll see how the police officer list isn't comparable in basic inclusion for an encyclopedia. 완젬스 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The group appears to be notable as a group. James500 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (Earlier rationale struck). James500 (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although a list of notable perps or notable incidents might be encyclopedic, almost every entry in this collection would be rejected by failing WP:NOTNEWS. It does not gain notability by sheer numbers. Location (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, it gains notability like every topic does--by being discussed in reliable sources. as this one is.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's bad judgment call here. For the individual elements in the list which are individually notable well there is already unlimited room on Wikipedia to create those pages, as some/all probably already exist right now? To create a complete list is just some guy's blog, appropriate for a blog audience--not for an encyclopedia article for a universal audience. The reasoning is so thinly veiled atop WP:ILIKEIT and WP:Otherstuffexists. At the end of the day, the keep votes simply detract from what is the issue here. Whether or not this list, per se, is encyclopedia; and, therefore, if it merits inclusion. I say give the notable incidents their own articles, create a category which ONLY collects the notable incidents, but lack of notability doesn't need more than the basic reasons given by users Location & Bushranger. 완젬스 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia: Five pillars, entries do not need to be encyclopedic. “Wikipedia ...incorporates elements of ...almanacs...” The linked article on almanacs states that they contain “... tabular information in a particular field or fields often arranged according to the calendar.” Examples include tide tables. Certainly each tide is not notable, but the organized collection of tides is notable. Similar for this list. --ThaPolice (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (1) Intersection of topics is overly specific ("killings", "law enforcement officials", "United States") (2) Unclear scope. Are the killings taking place in the United States? Or is that the officials have to be officials of the United States? Do we only mean killings of humans? Do we only means killings in the course of duty? Are we including state-authorised executions, which of course are carried out by "law enforcement officials"? (3) The scope issues under point 2 make the article inherently POV, because it requires a definition of the three topic elements "killings", "law enforcement officials" and "in the United States" other than their ordinary English meanings. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The above argument is entirely POV.~~[retract statement] That argument does not conform to deletion criteria in WP policy.--ThaPolice (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously accuse people of POV on AfD debates. Opinions are what we express here. AfD debates are inherently POV or they wouldn't be debates; they'd just be decided by an administrator using policies and guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That was poor wording on my part. I agree with what alf.laylah.wa.laylah responded below.--ThaPolice (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DustFormsWords, you have a good point about where the killings are taking place. this can be solved in the intro. i think your objection about killings of humans is a little minor, but can be solved by renaming list to list of people killed by law enforcement officers in the united states. the executions thing is a red herring. executions are carried out by executioners, not law enforcement officers. see Ivan Solotaroff (14 November 2002). The Last Face You'll Ever See: The Culture of Death Row. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-093103-2. Retrieved 2 November 2011., for details. the line of duty issue, as well as other scope questions that you didn't mention, have been and are being actively discussed on the article's talk page, which is where such discussions belong. there are no extraordinary uses of any of those words here. there is ambiguity about where the killings take place due to phrasing. this is not a deletion criterion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

alf.laylah.wa.laylah, I am fine with changing the title to "List of people killed in the United States by law enforcement officers", or some other wording that would clarify ambiguities. Thanks for having provided DustFormsWords a better response than my brief retort.--ThaPolice (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I would say (a) your proposed list re-titling represents a different list. Re-titles and renames are a matter for the talk page. At AfD we must deal with the article brought to us, not some hypothetical differently titled-article that may share some or all of the current content. (For example, your list now is about people rather than events.) (b) The proposed list re-titling retains the problem of the list being an overly-specific nexus of topics, requiring entries to meet four different qualifiers (people, killed, in the United States, by law enforcement officers). (c) It doesn't answer my objections regarding "killed" - the list appears to be about shootings in the line of duty, but it doesn't address the question of lawful killings (executions, euthanasias, military actions). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It represents the same list with a slightly different title. James500 (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People are seriously arguing that the phenomenon of American police officers killing people is not notable? I'm sensitive to the argument that most of the individuals are not in themselves notable, and under other circumstances I might agree that a list composed mostly of non-bluelinks was inappropriate, but given the existence of many lists of non-notable police officers killed on duty (thanks ThaPolice), I feel it is necessary to keep this list in the interest of WP:NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list can have encyclopedic value, and serves to link related articles together. While the broad scope of the list is concerning, it can easily be split into narrower articles or combed of non-notable instances when too long. Mamyles (talk) 13:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily notable as historical, public policy, and current events documentation. Dualus (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a noteworthy topic, not to mention valuable for educational purposes. Also, encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for several reasons. This is unencyclopedic because it is divided into "2011" and "everything else", and also because there's no encyclopedic justification for this material ("existence is not notability", remember). There are a lot of people killed by law enforcement officers, and many times because said people were violent criminals. Therefore, WP:NOTMEMORIAL would seem to apply. We have safely established that these incidents are not notable in the GNG sense (as that has not been contested), and there is spurious intersection because none of the cases is related to any other. The individuals themselves are not notable (WP:BIO1E at best). We have a whole category of Category:Deaths in police custody. There is also a POV, NOTNEWS, and overcat problem - the 2011 stuff is easily as long as "everything else" (time bias) and is culled from news (which we are not); "everything else" is from material already on Wikipedia and covered in categories (as noted earlier). MSJapan (talk) 19:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there is a category for deaths in police custody is not a reason to delete. The scope of that category is not co-terminus with the scope of this list, and even if it was, that is still not a reason to delete, see WP:NOTDUP. James500 (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there is a time bias in the list is not a reason to delete the list. Firstly, unless sources actually don't exist, it is something that can be fixed by doing some research. Secondly, there is an inherent time bias in everything that we do because, in the past, people had immense difficulty keeping permanent records because they did not possess solid state devices. Thirdly, if there is a time bias, so what? Why should we delete anything for that reason? James500 (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for WP:NOTNEWS, what is wrong with the sources offered by alf.laylah.wa.laylah above? James500 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Chung T'ien Television. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CTI television[edit]

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

a content fork of Chung T'ien Television. Also according to the creator's username, he/she may come from from this company, I afraid this is a COI article. Mys 721tx (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Chung T'ien Television per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, blatantly promotional. 78.26 (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Faculty of Health Sciences[edit]

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

I'm nominating these 3 articles: University of Queensland Faculty of Health Sciences
University of Queensland Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
University of Queensland Faculty of Business, Economics and Law.

They are all not even stub quality, they're simply lists. Moreover, those lists already exist verbatim in the original article University of Queensland. I don't see any possibility of them expanding either since they are just lists of schools underneath each, of which some have their own articles (like TC Beirne School of Law). If the sub faculties need articles they can be on each one specifically, but we don't need 3 hierarchies of lists to do it. Shadowjams (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplicate material. Also fails criteria for list inclusion. Joefridayquaker (talk) 02:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete all direct copy from faculty's website with no assertion of notability. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated all three Faculties with more information about research and activities. If these three pages should be deleted than all the University Faculty pages should be deleted, namely regarding the University of Queensland Faculty of Arts, University of Queensland Faculty of Science and University of Queensland Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology. The faculties include lists of research and other activities that should be included. EntropicPonderer (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at your changes and I think the majority of my original reason remains accurate. In a way the "expanded" version only confirm my original fears for what these mid-hierarchical pages were expected to be. This applies to the ones you added as well, but I won't try to add them to this nomination, although I think they are fair game for a later nomination depending on the outcome of this one.

I don't have a problem with useful,e expanded pages about university departments, but these sets of pages to me feel totally unnecessary. There's no glory in creating pages just to create articles. And how does this possibly help a potential reader? Shadowjams (talk) 03:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as information is duplicated in University of Queensland, and not yet long/significant enough for its own article. Mamyles (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of surfing terminology[edit]

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

This is the sort of unreferenced list cruft that belongs on Wikia not Wikipedia. Bob Re-born (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a reasonable enough topic, and could be referenced since I'm sure this info is published in various places. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only if additional, non-commercial sources found. This article would be very useful, but the single source listed seems dubious to this outsider. 78.26 (talk) 06:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia contains numerous glossaries of this sort. We might change the title but deletion would not be appropriate. Warden (talk) 07:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can definitely feel the unease about it in its current state (and smell the suspicion of anyone wanting to review the veracity of such a list) - the whole ambit of information of surfing and its terminology on wikipedia is calling out for a level headed hard work editing to a more universal and better referenced set of articles and lists - maybe this is a starting point for someone to improve the lot?.. Satu Suro 10:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was going to believe that this list did not meet WP:NOTESAL requirements because the only sources for the terms were blogs and forums, ie. not reliable sources. However this search [25] revealed a variety of published sources that include glossaries of surfing terms. Thus WP:NOTESAL requirements are met. Someone needs to add these sources to the article. Clean it up from a WP:SAL MOS perspective and it should be renamed Glossary of surfing to better comply with WP:LIST. I will withhold judgement until this happens. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the article is notable and already contains useful information. It could use improvement, but that will come in time per WP:CHANCE. Mamyles (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be improved with reliable sources, not deleted. As can be seen by Category:Glossaries on sports articles like this are not "cruft", but are perfectly acceptable. I do agree with Mike that it should probably be renamed to Glossary of surfing, though. Jenks24 (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added that demonstrate notability IAW WP:NOTESAL, all the entries need to be verified against sources but that's clean-up. Most of not all are verifiable. Requested Move made to Glossary of surfing. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a move to Glossary of surfing. Surfing has its own particular subculture, and the terms they use are very specific. A dictionary as a source would be a blessing, but probably hard to come by. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centralazation[edit]

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

This is a very common term that's been given a new definition that I can't find any source supporting in this way, and it's certainly not the widespread use. There's no sources, and perhaps the creator has some particular author's interpretation in mind, but that is not the common use of the word.

Nor do I think the more common form of "centralisation" has any distinction from say Centralized planning, etc.

tldr - a neogolism or a very specific use of a term that's not a widespread notable use Shadowjams (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to centralisation as a plausible typo →Σ τ c. 01:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't seem very likely typo but that's just my spur of the moment opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research essay, lots of POV, no references, possible neologism. not sure redirect is appropriate, as the proposed destination article does not actually talk about this subject. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Google gives 603 hits and it seems to be a misspelling (or alternative spelling) of centralisation. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I suspect the author meant to share their (POV, totally unencyclopaedic) views on centralisation but misspelled it. In so doing, they proved that at least someone thinks centralisation is spelled that way so we may as well redirect to centralisation. --Lincolnite (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete misspelled word to begin with. Article is OR, NPOV, and completely un-sourced. 78.26 (talk) 06:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing here worth keeping. It consists of a mixture of point of view and factually inaccurate statements. It is not a plausible misspelling, and the argument "one person in the world has once spelt it that way, so it must be a worthwhile redirect" is invalid: we keep likely misspellings, not possible but highly improbable ones. Also, if for some reason the redirect is considered worthwhile, then that is not a reason for keeping the history of the present useless article. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per et cetera. JBW, how about just deleting this is a hoax? The content is a bunch of nonsense. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as hoax or just delete, unsourced essay. Hairhorn (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete pure essay. Safiel (talk) 02:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I undid the redirect of the article, as this AfD is still active. Safiel (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR or essay at best, hoax at worst. EricSerge (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - semi-literate nonsense, possibly an attempt to coin a neologism or to totally redefine an existing word in order to promulgate some incomprehensible ideological suggestion. No place here; not a genuinely plausible redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect. Sufficiently plausible for a redirect in my opinion. After all "redirects are cheap" but no need to keep this content in the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here favors the view that this organization is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeusM[edit]

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

Listing at AFD per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_24#:DeusM . I am neutral at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have won some major awards, wouldn't that be notable? Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 00:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I looked for notability on the awards themselves, and Ghits are primary, PRweb, and the like. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im fairly sure this had been deleted before, and recreated. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem familiar... Olaf the Shakinglord: Mailbox, ??? 01:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had some CSD controversy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_24#:DeusM Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I pasted in the wrong review at first. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three sources provided by article: a press release, and two regurgitated versions of the press release from non-WP:RS sources. Ghits are primary, press releases, directory listings, and their mirrors. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a misreading of WP:GNG here. While Press Releases are clearly not WP:RS, it can't be the intention or effect of WP:GNG to exclude any article based on press releases (in whole or in part) from WP:RS. The consequences would be incalculable. Journalists regularly use press releases; that's why they exist. Is there any reason to think the sources are not independent of the subject of the article?WebHorizon (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another integrated marketing services company advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced to absurd little trade awards. Launched a year ago. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT.WebHorizon (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

You are quite correct. I don't like spam. But seriously, it must have occurred to someone that if they announce a Mins WOW Award, somebody is going to laugh at it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least you acknowledge it. Laughability not a criterion for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHorizon (talk • contribs)

Clutching at straws in an attempt to manufacture notability for a year old marketing business does appear to be relevant. FWIW, I've never made a secret of my underlying philosophy and assumptions when evaluating articles about businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is premature. Quick dateline: I created a stub article on October 20. Eighteen minutes later it was proposed for speedy deletion, and deleted one hour after that. This was reversed as premature on November 1 but immediately sent to AfD. The result it that we are having a discussion about sources here which should be taking place on Talk:DeusM. This is a sure sign we are in the wrong forum. So be it:

Is there any evidence that the bylined articles published in Direct Marketing News and Min are "regurgitated v ersions of the press release"? Which press release? Ref or link, please.

I am now adding further sources, e.g. bylined article in Folio, a national magazine for the publishing industry, obviously based on research and interviews. Assertions that any of these sources are questionable or self-published should be supported. Otherwise, there's a prima facie case for WP NOTABILITY: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No reason to claim at this stage that the article cannot possible be made encyclopedic. Very concerned that article is being hustled to the exit by editors who dislike the tone or style of the marketing industry.WebHorizon (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

The speedy delete was not "reversed as premature". It was reversed because there was consensus that it did not meet the strict requirements for speedy deletion. The closing admin's determination of consensus was to "List at AfD." See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_October_24#.
Q:"Which press release?" A: The bits from non-WP:RS Direct Marketing News and non-WP:RS Min Online appear to be retreads of this press release.
"I am now adding further sources..." - It's just one source, added twice, or are there others forthcoming? And, again, Folio Magazine (not to be confused with the literary journal, is not an RS source, it's more of a fluff machine as far as I'm concerned, but I invite anyone to go to their site and judge for themselves. I also notice that it's ultimately owned by the same company that owns the Min folks who provided the other blurb and dubious industry awards. These awards, by the way, appear to be a significant chunk of their business model, if you look here. I am curious if the "article", the blurb, and the awards were all part of a package deal, actually. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for cluttering AfD with this:

(1)Doesn't really matter.

(2)Not true. You haven't compared the texts. The articles discuss topics not mentioned in the press release, such as "social networking amplification", together with multiple quotes from interviews. It would rewrite WP:NEWSORG - drastically in fact - to exclude as WP:RS news articles where the writer may have relied, in part, on a press release.

(3) "I am curious" "as far as I'm concerned" and "appear to be" clearly flags WP:OR, in other words "I don't know but maybe..." We can't rewrite WP:RS here. Reliable sources are required to be "independent of the subject". There is no policy against using multiple sources which happen have the same owner (The Times, New York Post, Fox News). Let's just apply existing policy.WebHorizon (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Note: Not Properly Nominated - Has anyone else noticed that the editor who nominated the article gave no reason for deletion? I asked him at his talk page and it looks like he's not going to give one. Which reason for deletion are we discussing? I think someone needs to propose this properly - I will try to get some other eyes on this. Otherwise I guess we have to continue with what is really a talk page discussion about individual sources.WebHorizon (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

I originally nominated the article for CSD as C7, G11. The nominator closed my CSD as not appropriate, and moved to AFD. The reasoning should have been moved over as well, but was not. So the reason is "notability, advert" I guess. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks:

"Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)." Does anyone really think that's applicable here, any more than to other articles about businesses?

"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." On its face, it has. The only objections raised are WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The source conversation should take place on the Talk Page in a consensual attempt to improve the article.WebHorizon (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Well, I think it hinges on hoe reliable and independent those sources are. I think its fair to say that they are not really objective sources, but niche magazines intended to promote their own industry. Are they writing artiles about how such and such a company sucks/is bad? If not I dont think they meet "objective". Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does hang on notability, and theres nothing that strikes me as being promotional. Keep

With all due respect, I think some editors are "assuming" there are problems rather than actually "finding" problems. Just scan this list of articles at DMN. It doesn't even look like a promotional vehicle. Try Folio: problems of digital market, declining ad growth for consumer mags, magazines closing, "uninspired" social products. So, are they objective? Answered.

At this stage, is it fair that I ask someone to come up with an actual problem with these sources, supported by evidence, rather than "appears to me," "strikes me," "fair to say." I don't think AfD discussions are supposed to be about editors' intuitions.WebHorizon (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

The business notability guideline generally discounts purely trade-related sources where notability is involved; media of "limited interest and circulation" do not make a strong case for notability.

One source is from a website called "Min Online". It appears to be advertising industry related. It begins: United Business Media is following the user and marketing trends—straight into social media. A newly formed DeusM company from UBM will help marketers create and leverage specialized online communities for their segments. This does not read like an objective and independent reliable source. The closest thing I found to an 'about' page for the site [26] says stuff like Saluting the Media’s Leaders, Innovators, Brand Builders and magazine brand enthusiasts. MIN apparently stands for Media Industry Newsletter. As to circulation, it's Distributed to 9,000 media professionals by mail and at industry events and Distributed to 20,000 online readers of minonline, Digital Magazine and Digital e-letter series. Not the sort of circulation that makes a case for notability. Not written like a reliable source, either.
Another is a routine announcement announcing the opening of this business last year. This one's from a "Direct Marketing News" website; again, limited interest and circulation.
The last source is obviously not independent and not objective: /PRNewswire/ UBM TechWeb and DeusM received three prestigious Min's Integrated Marketing Awards yesterday at New York City's Grand Hyatt. It's a press release. "Min Online" is involved again.

I do not believe that these three offered sources establish any notability for this year old advertising business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, WP:NOTE is not resting on the last source, which is clearly a press release (included only to verify awards). As for the main sources,I agree that Min is the weakest, but what's the problem with DMN and Folio? Did you follow my links to pages describing their content. Looks to me exactly what you'd expect from magazines covering media and marketing with proper editorial direction. DMN is of "limited interest" in the same sense that "Sports Illustrated" is of limited interest: but any basis for "limited circulation"? Folio is broader. I still haven't seen any verifiable problems with these independent sources. Again, this is a Talk Page discussion about improving sources.WebHorizon (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Smerdis, I re-read the criteria at WP:ORGIN to which you linked. It doesn't say "discounts purely trade-related sources" or anything close to it, at all. If I'm wrong, please point me to it. It says "reliable sources unrelated to the organization or product." We have some of those. It also warns "arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." An example of an arbitrary standard is "year old advertising business" - relating age to notability is just inventing policy on the run (it's not an advertising business either, suggesting a lack of familiarity with the article we're discussing). We have to get beyond this general WP:IDONTLIKEIT from editors who aren't interested in social business or social marketing.WebHorizon (talk) 14:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

As to notability, the question is simple. Do people outside of nu-media, marketing, and advertising industries pay attention to "Min Online" or "Direct Marketing Online", or for that matter, "Folio", which was not cited in the article when I wrote that? If not, they are media of "limited interest and circulation". Nobody outside the industry reads them, except for Wikipedia editors fingering spammers.

Because notability is not temporary, age does matter. To find a subject notable means that it is notable for all time. If this business is notable, that means that 500 years from now, this business will be considered worthy of mention in the history of advertising. I don't see any evidence for that kind of achievement in what the alleged sources actually say about this business. It's not a head count; it's a question of whether this business has done anything that should get it an encyclopedia article apart from being open and creating campaigns for its clients. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I mentioned elsewhere, the three references consist of a stated press release, and two others which are in sources which have not been demonstrated to meet the reliable source criteria and which read like press releases albeit without the fact that they are press releases being mentioned in the articles. The awards show no evidence of meeting the notability criteria - and non-notable awards would not help to demonstrate the notability of the company. While WebHorizon is correct that journalists do indeed often use press releases as a starting point for articles, in this case - despite re-reading the cited references several times - I see no evidence that this is the case here, as the overall tone of the two pieces appear to me to be almost press-releases anyway. I'm sure that WebHorizon will pick up on my phrase "appear to me...", but at the end of the day, we are all saying what we think is the case. WebHorizon may not be using the phrase, but to all intents and purposes s/he is saying "it appears to me that they are not press releases". While making allowances for a relative new editor (just under 3 months), I find myself asking what WebHorizon's particular interest in this company is?
As always, I am happy to be persuaded that this company does in fact meet the notability criteria, but so far I see nothing that convinces me of that fact, and despite repeated searches, I have not found anything which would indicate their notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we are all saying what we think is the case". But that is precisely the problem. Nobody has offered one verifiable reason to doubt that two of the sources given (DMN and Folio) are reliable. What we need to do is apply policy; deletion shouldn't rest on the personal tastes of this tiny sample of editors. Are any of the editors participating in this discussion interested in or knowledgeable about social business, B2B publishing, XaaS or other aspects of digital business? No (I suspect): and you don't need to be if you stick to policy. Nor should we be inventing interpretations of policy ("500 years from now, this business will be considered worthy of mention in the history of advertising"). WP:NOTE = significant coverage in reliable sources, period. And "significant" as everyone should know does not mean "lots of it," it just means the subject of the article should be the main subject of the story cited. I hope whoever closes is this pushes WP:IDONTLIKEIT firmly to one side.WebHorizon (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Delete - Editors have had over a week now to add content and references. But, upon looking at the article, I feel it fails to meet WP:NOTE, specifically, mention in WP:RS; they smack too much of regurgitated press releases. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 06:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the articles? Both based on interviews - evidently different interviews, as the content is quite different? Or the general contents of DMN and Folio? How can the conclusion possibly be supported? I agree the article can be improved; that's not the issue here. I am the article's creator, but would withdraw support for it, in all conscience, if anyone could provide a reason to think that these are not RS, and that DeusM does not have significant coverage in the articles cited.WebHorizon (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon.[reply]

Added a third independent source (owned by Crain's) - this one is entirely an interview. Significant coverage in independent sources.WebHorizon (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Burnham[edit]

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

Not notable. No evidence of notability for the person or the books; no reliable third party sources Hairhorn (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not persuaded by the sources available, though clearly there might be something out there I'm missing. As with any active author, Usual Caveats apply. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. gnews reveals no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queen's–McGill rivalry[edit]

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

Requesting the article Queen's-McGill rivalry be deleted as it fails a number of Wikipedia's guidelines. The largest of which, it fails Wikipedia's notability guideline. A thorough attempt to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. A Google web search and Google Books search shows that no reliable source makes any reference to this 'rivalry'. Finally, the few sources that do make any reference to the rivalry, cannot possibly be attributed as reliable sources, noting their origins (be it non-professional or partisan to either universities). This is clearly evident when looking at the sources provided in the article. Only one source in the entire article makes any reference to the school's rivalry, a 15 year old article published by McGill regarding the school's rowing teams. All the other sources in the article are only used to compare the two universities in terms of academic rankings, none of them does so directly and is done in the article itself. There also is no other sources used outside of academic reputation and the rowing section of the article.Leventio (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage documenting this subject. Neutrality^talk 19:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Material in the article mentions competitions between the 2 universities, but this does not mean there is a rivalry between these 2 universities.Curb Chain (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

20 Magna[edit]

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

Due to lack of sources I think this can be a hoax Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find no RS for a rifle cartridge, some mentions of an automobile, but nothing else. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No evidence of notability. 78.26 (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - little evidence of notability. Chris (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gurjar clans[edit]

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

Original research, nothing in reliable sources to show the existence of these clans, let alone that they belong to the Gurjars. Many of the blue links go to unrelated topics such as a town in Israel or a genus of butterflies and so on. While some entries like Jat are blatantly wrong and other entries like Patel or Gola contradict the respective articles. Delete—SpacemanSpiff 06:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Stuartyeates (talk) 03:00, 15 October 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, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Functional as a WP:SETINDEX article, about groups that share a similar name, at least categorically. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG per WP:LISTN. - Sudo Ghost 01:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SETINDEX as stated by Northamerica1000. Mar4d (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR mess. --JaGa^talk 04:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ...I don't suppose there's any chance of getting some arguments that aren't WP:JUSTAPOLICY? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—who can resist an invitation like that? it seems to me that this meets WP:LISTN because gurjar clans are discussed at length in the following reliable source, and thus probably qualify as a grouping that is notable qua grouping:
- Matthew Atmore Sherring (1872). Hindu tribes and castes ... Thacker, Spink & co. pp. 98–. Retrieved 31 October 2011.</ref>

the issue is complicated by the fact that every other source i could find seems to be autogenerated from wikipedia, sometimes even without proper licensing or attribution. it's that fact that's stopping me from saying keep right now, but maybe i will later.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, let's see - unsourced, poorly constructed (links to butterflies and Israeli towns?), and contains some definitely inaccurate material. If someone wants to rehabilitate this article, fine, but otherwise it's a blight to the wiki. It would be better to delete - there's simply nothing worth saving. --JaGa^talk 03:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The link provided above by user:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah seems to disprove the nomination to delete as original research:

• Atmore, Matthew S. (1872). Hindu Tribes and Castes. Thacker, Spink & Co. (et al.)

Matters regarding fixing links, etc. can be done by improving the article, not deleting it. — Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is there a Wikiproject that could be contacted to find people who are knowledgeable about this? Gurjar has different spellings, and of course most coverage on them would be in a language other than English. This article was created in May of 2006‎, by an editor no longer active on Wikipedia, so I can't asks them where the original sources were at. To confirm the information is valid, we'd have to find someone who spoke one of the three languages these people speak, and search for sources of them, they sure to have coverage in books listing this information. Does anyone believe that this article might be some sort of hoax? A list of all clans of an ethic group is clearly encyclopedic. Dream Focus 19:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunting of Sunshine Girl[edit]

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

Unremarkable YouTube series. No significant claims of notability outside YouTube, little significant coverage. Google news search on "Haunting of Sunshine Girl" shows only one article, published yesterday. Standard search shows mainly social media links, primary sources, or user-generated media sites. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Nominator's argument "No significant claims of notability outside YouTube" is highly valid - people who are online regularly and have an awareness of internet trends and memes often forget that they usually mean nothing to the wider world (no negative criticism implied here, I've myself been guilty of this and confused friends & family as a result). As yet, this show has only been reported in one reliable secondary source indicating lack of mainstream notability and popularity. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 18:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There have been two more independent sources showing up - one of them a radio interview, the other one from a movie review page (http://popcereal-badronald.blogspot.com/2011/10/haunting-of-sunshine-girl-why-are-you.html). I'm sure that there will be more to come. So if you delete it, the article will return in a couple of months fulfilling the creteria of notability anyhow. The show is still gaining popularity. Matthy1974 (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)— Matthy1974 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note - This is my first post - so who cares? Noone can know if this is a Single purpose acount. Since I'm German I'll be a) more often to find in German Wikipedia (not until now, but I WILL be) and b) I have nothing to do with the subject that is described in the article since people who created this series are Americans. I'm a newbie - so what? That doesn't make me a PR puppet. Note that nomination for speedy deletion, nomination for deletion and spa tag came from the same person. Matthy1974 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete I think it should be deleted. It have searched it and not any results came up.KF5LLG (talk) 00:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mathy, the best way to combat a SPA tag on this branch of the wikipedia is to get active and either help work on other articles or put an opinion in on some of the other AFD conversations. 05:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like it has received a bit of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. Sourcing meets WP:GNG. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novel American[edit]

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

Not a relevant band. They appear to be unsigned with a only claim to fame been 2 members used to be in paramore. Since when does wikipedia make articles for bands with nothing released. This should either be erased or turned into a redirect to paramore which would allow readers to read about the Farro brothers time in paramore. However I repeat Novel American have no cds as far as I can tell out and it looks like there unsigned. Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From what I can gather, you don't have to be signed or have anything released to be considered notable. Per WP:BAND (only needing to meet one of the listed criteria) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Article fills this due to both Josh and Zac Farro. Yes, both were in Paramore, but both have article on wikipedia (perhaps that should be checked) making them both independently notable. Also per WP:BAND and, to some extent, WP:GNG, there is enough significant coverage of the band from a number of reliable sources including MTV, NME, The Guardian [27], Kerrang! [28], Alternative Press [29], Spin [30] and Contactmusic.com [31] among others. Furthermore, the page statistics are usually pretty high since the article was created; [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. HrZ (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The independent articles about each of the Forro brothers are also unjustified and should be changed to redirects to Paramore. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage of their split from their old band doesn't make this new band notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage of their departures from Paramore is covered in two sentences only. Seeing as how their departures directly contributed to the band's formation, it should be mentioned. Well, that's what I think anyway! HrZ (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the combination of the covrage identified by HrZ and having 2 members of the band who are notable enough for articles is sufficient to meet the WP:BAND notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete/redirect or incubate. The only notable thing about this band is that the guitarist and drummer split from an actually-notable band called Paramore, and that event is more than sufficiently covered there. They have not released anything, and I don't even see any evidence that they've played any gigs. Even if you believe that they will become notable, right now it is WP:TOOSOON. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hobbes Goodyear above ... delete, definitely way WP:TOOSOON

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's pretty much an irreconcilable difference in this discussion between those who consider the coverage significant, reliable and independent, and those who don't. The views on both sides are reasonable and evenly split. Mkativerata (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Onward State[edit]

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

Unofficial student-run blog on Penn State topics. The only basis for notability is winning a "Best Alternative Media Outlet" online poll at USNWR's side-blogs, not the main periodical. The website was not even substantially profiled. It was not selected on any other basis than online votes, which the blog attributed to "Facebook, families, a giant student body, a legitimately good blog." That's not significant coverage as require under WP:N. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) to boot. GrapedApe (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: U.S. News & World Report is a notable magazine in print and online. Winning a poll against Yale is a sign of notability. To quote Kristen Karas' report from Collegian Online: Yale student Max Uhlenhuth, the self-described "go-to guy" for the Timothy Dwight blog, had expected his blog to win because it had been leading in the poll. "It was a rough loss," he said. "But Penn State has a great blog, so no hard feelings." Even their closest competitor admitted Penn State has a great blog. Pmresource (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet, it was an online poll. Not a legitimate US News article.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times has a blog and online polls. WP:SPS notes: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Pmresource (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Pennsylvania State University. The reference in US News & World Report was a one-shot mention - the blog does not appear to have generated any national (or even regional) notability beyond this single artiiacle. I might also add that the earlier AfD was improperly closed, with only one person participating in the discussion - it should have been extended until there was a proper debate. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another mention from Mashable here. Pmresource (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which is not a reliable source as required by the general notability guideline: "... significant coverage in reliable sources ..."--GrapedApe (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's debatable. A quick look at Google Scholar will show you that Mashable is frequently cited in a widespread and consistent manner. It's a professional blog with editorial staff and credentialed members. Time Magazine noted Mashable as one the 25 best blogs in 2009. Mashable is not only reliable, it's notable as well. Also, Greg Ferenstein is a professional journalist that has results in Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar. This is a technology context where professional blogs are widely accepted as reliable sources by mainstream publications and the academe. Pmresource (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times also links to Mashable in its Other Technology Blogs section here. It's the 9th bullet in the first column. Pmresource (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By that interpretation, an article in Gawker or by Perez Hilton also passes WP:N.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If Gawker and Perez Hilton were noticed by Time Magazine, The New York Times and several academic papers in a non-trivial manner, then both will be reliable sources. Pmresource (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Time Magazine labels Gawker as one of the Most Overrated Blogs of 2009 while Mashable is one of the Top Blogs of 2009. Pmresource (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, alternatively, redirect to Penn State). Winning an online poll is a sign of notability? Absolutely not. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 08:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other sources on Onward State. Public Broadcasting Service, No. 1 in public trust for 6 consecutive years according to a National Roper Survey. State College News found via Google News. The Student Newspaper Survival Guide by Rachele Kanigel found via Google Books. A Usability Analysis of Onward State found via Google Scholar (primary source). Pmresource (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the verifiable, independent, reliable sources listed above, subject essentially passes criteria 1, 2 and 3 of WP:WEB. Pmresource (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stating your opinion three times doesn't manifest consensus.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has been presented was an elaboration in a discussion on the article, not multiple votes from the same editor. Pmresource (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that an unscientific blog poll does not equal notability. The statecollege.com reference is biased as the site appears be to closely related to Penn State and includes links to Penn State and Onward State accessible from within the main menu of every page. The PBS link is also questionable since it is from PBS Mediashift, an organization that refers to Idea Lab as "it's sister blog" suggesting that it is itself a blog. Tejanse (talk) 11:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They've been profiled in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is a reliable source. http://chronicle.com/article/Extra-News-Blogs-by-Studen/63474/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.229.4.2 (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow. The sweeping conclusion here that all blogs are not reliable contradicts the spirit and bounds of the WP:IRS content guideline. Market Monetarism shows that this is a gross error. This topic has many reliable sources including the blogs. The Chronicle of Higher Education is also undeniable. PolicarpioM (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Almost closed this but I'll !vote instead to avoid the appearance of WP:SUPERVOTE. Arguments to delete don't take into account precedent that reliable sources can be published through blogs, or explain why this blog by the reliable source U.S. News & World Report is not reliable, other than that it is a blog. causa sui (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was covered: because the US News blog post is simply describing the results of an online poll. Are online polls indicators of notability?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "'Keep'": This site has garnered national attention for the coverage of the Sandusky case at Penn State by updating a continual liveblog with the latest events. Many people have sent out emails saying how proud they are of the site and how they are keeping an up-to-date look at this case both from student perspectives AND news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.215.62 (talk) 02:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or in the alternative redirect. The coverage is not sufficiently reliable and independent to warrant an article. Although being formatted as a blog does not automatically render a source unreliable most blogs, even blogs hosted by major media companies, are not, in fact, reliable sources under wikipedia's definition of the term. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gartside[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 25 October 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, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say that the achievements listed do not in my view add up to much notability. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator The article's creator (an WP:SPA, and based on the comments below possibly a WP:COI as well) posted the following comment on the discussion page when he/she contested the prod. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to speedy deletion of the subject Robert Gartside

The important aspect of the article is Robert Gartside's role in the founding of the Pharmacist's Defence Association which is a unionised organisation focused on the defence of individual members of the profession against their employers and the Government. This is a landmark in the area of industrial relations where professionals who were once protected by their professional body (the Royal Pharmaceutical Society) responded to the co-option of that body by the government and its dominance by large employers such as Boots by forming a Union to protect their interests. Robert Gartside was instrumental in the founding of the PDA and his background in both industry and retail pharmacy, together with his long track record of being on the most senior governance bodies of his industry was critical in establishing the credibility of the PDA. I think in the future the founding of the PDA will be seen as a turning point in both the medical profession in the UK and in the history of the retail pharmaceutical industry.

In writing the article, I tried to remain as objective as I could and my apologies if that meant the importance of the subject matter did not come across. I am happy to be guided on the best way to rewrite the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archvats (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archvats, I'm sorry that your first attempt at editing Wikipedia has been met with such a disapproving reception. You need to understand why this is. Wikipedia is known as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit," but that does not mean that articles are accepted about any and every subject. There are criteria for what makes a subject "notable" enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. For people, those criteria are spelled out at WP:BIO. The problem with this article about Robert Gartside is not in the way it is written, and rewriting won't help. The problem is that there just doesn't seem to be any evidence from independent reliable sources that Mr. Gartside is notable as Wikipedia defines it. Please don't be discouraged if this article gets deleted. I would suggest you start your Wikipedia editing by making small improvements to existing articles while you learn your way around here. --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. Google News and Google Scholar find nothing. As to the creator's claim that Gartside played an important role in the founding of the Pharmacists' Defence Association, I could find no documentation of that. Even his official bio at the Pharmacists' Defence Association (where he is an advisory board member) does not say he had any role in its founding. (In case anyone is going to suggest redirecting this page to Pharmacists' Defence Association, I would oppose that for lack of verification.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan 25 00:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Beneš (photographer)[edit]

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

Article is about photographer. May be notable as google has lots of foreign language hits on him. No references in article, most content of the article is a gallery of images which do not have full licensing (share alike does not allow commercial license as required by wikipedia) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment on further review of the copyright tag page, I believe I may be in error on the validity of the license used. Someone more familiar with that rule may need to weigh in. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the article is still under construction. It has not been completed, which is why there are no references yet. They will be added during the process of creating the article. The gallery of images has been copied from the Czech Wikipedia article on Beneš, where they are posted without a problem (and I suppose they have a licence), so I can't see why they can't be posted here. Bodlak —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could this discussion be closed and the deletion template removed? I believe the licence is valid and I have added references, so there's no point in marking the article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.188.8.55 (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have extended the article and added sources - mostly texts on the photographer written by art historians - and I am still working on it. I don't know what more I can do. In spite of my efforts, the article is still marked for deletion and the template asking for more verifiable sources has beeen added to the top of the article. (Bodlak (talk) 21:21, 29 October 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, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The sourcing of the article as it currently stands is weak - rather thin, and a bit too much of it from a source (Český dřevák) obviously rather closely connected with the subject. In many ways, Bodlak has been doing a good job of writing the article, but he/she does need to become more familiar with English Wikipedia policies such as WP:N, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. As the nominator noted, the subject gets lots of Google hits from quite obviously independent (and mostly, to all appearance, reliable) sources. While some of them are clearly acknowledgement of use of a photograph, many look to be something more than mentions in passing, and over a period of thirty years. OK, I don't read Czech, but the GNews hits get quite a wide variety of what seem to be traditional press sources, and there are several English-language GBooks sources. We are looking at someone whose exhibitions seem to get press coverage and who gets at least mentions (and quite likely rather more) in surveys of Czech photography in recent decades. On the evidence I can see and understand, the sources seem far more likely than not to establish notability. PWilkinson (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jaroslav Beneš is a notable photographer in the context of Czech art. His works are noted by notable Czech media (see for example [41] (Czech Television) [42] (Czech Radio)) and art photography experts. His name and works are mentioned in the comprehensive and representative book summarizing the history of the Czech photography in the 20th century, see:

Mlčoch, Jan; Birgus, Vladimír (2010). Czech Photography of the 20th Century. Prague: KANT. pp. 252, 270, 321, 328, 373, 374. ISBN 978-80-7437-027-4..

I think it is enough to meet the notability requirements also here on en:wiki. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A horror of a layout, ironically for an artist, who appears to be notable. Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COST-TERRA[edit]

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

Non-notable project, no independent sources. COST actions are low budget grants, only covering some travel expenses to stimulate collaboration between participants. The references (further reading) present in this article are almost all from before the project started, the others are not independent (or -in one case- don't exist yet) and just show that the group indeed meets. As might be expected from any COST action, this does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is the original creator of COST-TERRA article, and I would like offering my opinion on the arguments brought up by Crusio.
(1) the fact that all COST Actions are low budget grants is mentioned like a condemnation, but I do not see why the amount of money (which is by the way not that small at some 70-100 kEur/year) behind the activity is relevant. The second part - stimulating cooperation between participants - is indeed the key and I think the simple fact that the activity is uniting researchers from 21 country is in itself a noteworthy evidence of something useful going on;
(2) further reading references were just meant to list some useful books for better understanding of the subject's background;
(3) the regular references show recognition of COST-TERRA by independent sources as important international cooperation partner, which all presumably demonstrate that the activity is considered important by parties external to the club. The references and achievements might still be a few, but we are just past one year of our operational cycle of four years;
(4) not-existing future reference is about the Joint Special Issue of the Telecommunications Policy Journal, which will be published in 2012, but the process has been already going on for a while and the issue is now in editorial review phase. But the point here is again that even simple fact of being a founding partner in such credible undertaking and such respectable company should be demonstrating noteworthiness and overall promise of our activity (while of course I am biased in all those interpretations);
(5) now to the final point, that the article does not meet the GNG. Quoting from there: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." My interpretation of this is that significant coverage by reliable sources is hopefully demonstrated by the provided external references, as commented above.
Thanks for your consideration, Amedeisis (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a pretty good description of what a COST action is (disclosure: I'm chair of a COST working group myself). Your points are well taken, but either not relevant for this discussion or constituting a misinterpretation of our guidelines. In order:

1/ The small budget is not a condemnation, just an explanation of what a COST action entails. And it is small, considering that most of these actions include dozens of researchers from many different countries. Generally, the money is just enough for one or two workshops/year and a few visits of some researchers or their students to other labs.

2/ That's not a problem, of course, I just had to make clear in the nom that these refs were not about the article subject.

3/ The references: the first two are not independent. The next one is just a list of names with one a contact person for this COST action, not exactly extensive coverage. The next two are again not independent. The 6th is an announcement of a special journal issue. While the journal is a reliable source, the articles are apparently going to be written by project members and, again, not independent. In addition, publishing is what academics do, that is in itself not an activity that would make a person (let alone a large group of persons) notable. The last reference is a meeting announcement. Again, organizing and participating in meetings is what academics do, so this is nothing out of the ordinary either.

4/ See previous.

5/ As seen under point 3, there is no " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", so GNG is not met at all.

Unfortunately, I don't see any reason to withdraw my nom. --Crusio (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Crusio. this is every bit as non-notable as the dozens of EC project articles we have been deleting, The arguments for keeping are basically "It ought to be notable", and "it will be notable someday" which are not, and should not be part, of our policy for including articles. The references are not substantial nor about the project itself. References have to be published before we take account of them--otherwise, a article depending on them comes across as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per Crusio and DGG's points. It does come across as promotional, without sufficient notability established. Mamyles (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was article has been redirected.. The article has been restored to a redirect - somewhat out-of-process, I might add. But it's what should have been done to start with instead of taking it to AfD. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights violations[edit]

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

Seems to mostly be comprised of information already found in human rights as well as parts of genocides in history -- I'm not convinced that this requires its own article or is completely justified as anything other than bits of and lists from other articles. – Richard BB 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Overview of human right violations seems like a notable topic to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This page has been a redirect to human rights for years until it was turned into a not-very-good article by a new user. I have boldly restored it to being a redirect. Neutrality^talk 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Christmas Album in the World...Ever![edit]

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

A series of compilation albums of Christmas songs by various individuals and groups. No indication or references are provided to show it satisfies WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Found only 1 passing ref in a list of Christmas albums at Google Book search: [43] Notability should not be inherited by a compilation from a notable musician or song contained therein. Edison (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. No notability established within the past two years.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments to keep are less grounded in policy: they do not take into account precedent over what counts as a reliable source or explain why this is an exception to precedent. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. causa sui (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auslogics BoostSpeed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable software. no mentions in news, books, scholar to speak of. nothing reliable or independent of topic on straight google either. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—didn't notice there'd been a previous afd which ended in delete. article seems to have same problems still, based on archived afd discussion.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three reliable sources on the article so the software is obviously notable. Laurent (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ghits are routine product listings and consumer digest reviews. WP is encyclopedia, not a shopper's guide. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep There are several softwares listed on Wikipedia. This is an important article and just because not a lot of people have gotten around to edit it does not mean it needs to be deleted. Avish2217 (talk) 02:03, 07 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources, except pro forma pieces, and press releases. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Download links are not sufficent coverage to establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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