Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 November	25 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. non notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CompareData

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

No external references and nothing to establish notability Vrenator ^talk 10:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia. seems the consensus solution DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramada Plaza (Macon, Georgia)

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

unremarkable building, just 16 floors Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BUILDING or WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to have had won any awards and despite it being the largest in its county, it is far from being exceptionally large enough to be considered exemplary. No offense to Macon or the editor, but notable in one area does not always translate to notable on Wikipedia. There is also a huge lack of news articles and the like to show any sort of notability other than "it exists". Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia. There is no significant coverage about this building. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per above. Tinton5 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG. the list also has questionable value. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Yes, I agree with Redirecting it back to my page. Only problem with that is that List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia is the only page that links to it! What a conundrum... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshywillraindeath (talk • contribs) 23:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another building you people might enjoy: Aflac Building Theshywillraindeath (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. Neutrality^talk 06:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. m.o.p 05:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fickling & Company Building

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

Recently removed as Fickling & Company building by way of PROD as unremarkable building, but recreated. Building is still unremakable with only 15 floors. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever

I vote both keep and delete at the same time, as this is no longer my article, nor my pain in the buttox, so do whatever you want with it (which will probably be delete it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshywillraindeath (talk • contribs) 01:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Theshywillraindeath (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not pass general notability guidelines and is not considered to be exemplary as far as buildings go. There are no sources to show notability on gsearch either.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia. No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Ah, yes. I have made my way back here again. What a coincidence. Theshywillraindeath (talk) 23:12, 26 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 05:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louise (Bonnie Tyler song)

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

No indication of notability, no coverage. Charts mentioned in the article are false. PROD removed without explanation. Europe22 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wings (Bonnie Tyler album). The relatively poor chart performance of the single mathcing the relatively poor chart performance of the album would be appropriate information to merge into the album article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chart performance in France is fake, and the one in Poland is unofficial. --Europe22 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no references for the chart performance, so if these are unverifiable, then I'd go with a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wings (Bonnie Tyler album), the parent album. No significant coverage found; per WP:NSONGS redirecting a non-notable song to the parent album is appropriate. Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect somewhere; even the album page should likely be redirected to the artist or a discography page, as it failed to chart and there seems to be little or no coverage treating the album in detail. Neutrality^talk 06:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Bonnie Tyler is a major artist with a significant discography, it's counterproductive to punch holes in Wikipedia's coverage of the discography of a major artist. -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El Hijo del crack

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Great Adventure (1974 film). Film does not meet WP:GNG; I tried Google and Bing, but no reliable sources have been found. ~~Created by User:Dr. Blofeld who has been reported in WP:ANI.~~ George Ho (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are many reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have check it: https://www.google.com/search?q=El+Hijo+del+crack&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=#q=%22Hijo+del+crack%22+-wikipedia+leopoldo&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&tbs=ar:1,sbd:1&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=i7TOTubeOK38iQK9tfXKCw&ved=0CBgQpwUoAQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=3e3991b465e6d3c6&biw=1008&bih=599. None have been reliable or active. Even articles that mention this film have not fully covered this film at all. Even Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews at all. --George Ho (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, its a 1953 Argentine movie, what do you expect!! How many American reviewers are likely to have seen the movie? Jeez.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have checked the sources that this author has added. None of the sources have indicated notability of this film at all. Instead, they are just directories. At least one source said that this film was more of a commercial than artistic. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite mistaken, there is detailed coverage on it in books like the Historia del Cinea Argentino and a whole page here, [ detailed coverage discussing its neo-relaist elements in National Literature Institute of Argentina etc which you can't access online but you can only access the snippets. You're facing a losing battle Ho, trust me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can cite anything, and at least you provided Reception. Lack of sources of Argentine periodicals is very troubling. --George Ho (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedic and properly sourced article about a 58-year-old, long-pre-internet, non-English film. This AFD appears to be a disruptive and retaliatory act, shown by the nominating of an article created by an author with whom the nominator has a disagreement. Worse, the mention here of the ongoing ANI seems an inappropriate attempt to use AFDs as a forum to canvas input at that ANI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck that for you. Now the reception and its sources may indicate notability for Argentina audiences. However, I will still let this discussion be still active. I tagged this article with {{verify sources}}. --George Ho (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Dr Blofeld asked for comment. The article was a trivial stub when nominated, but it is clear from the material and sources added that the movie is notable. The quality of the movie is irrelevant. The nomination seems frivolous. Expanding is usually more productive than criticizing. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A rhetorical question for the nominator You say " Lack of sources of Argentine periodicals is very troubling" I presume you mean that on examining Argentine sources, you found no material. What magazines on cinema from that country have you examined? What newspapers? Alternatively, what did you find in Google and Bing (the places you said you searched) on other Argentine films from that period? (Dr. B asked me to have a look at the AfD , but, as i am entirely ignorant on the subject, I have no opinion on the actual notability of the film.) I added a note that the qy is rhetorical, because another admin has blocked the nom. indef., so he cannot really be expected to answer DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources themselves show notability and also insinuate the existence of many more sources that are likely offline in Argentina, considering the location and time period of when this film was made. Silver seren^C 00:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lots of reliable sources. The best known person connected to this movie might be Leopoldo Torre Nilsson, the co-director. Our article on Nilsson gives plenty of evidence for his notability, even though his reputation might not extend to all his films. The Nilsson article states "He is acknowledged as the first Argentine film director to be critically acclaimed outside the country, making Argentina's film production known in important international festivals" (though this claim should be provided with an inline citation to a good reference). A website called videomaniaticos.com (not a RS) says about Armando Bo: "Es un cineasta que puso el acento en la producción industrial, siendo el principal exportador de películas argentinas." If this observation could be confirmed from RS that would be of interest. I found some reliable references that comment on the importance of Armando Bo but they don't mention this movie, so I may add them to another article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FILM with no problem. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons already given, and suggest snow close -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:12, 26 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. Not a snowball's chance of this pointy nom ending in anything but 'keep' The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Adventure (1974 film)

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

This article has been created by Dr. Blofeld, who may have intentions of doing his/her best to contribute to Wikipedia ~~yet still have bias and slander toward me for my edits.~~ Anyway, this article's topic does not meet WP:GNG because nobody in the United States and in Europe is familiar with this film, no press has covered this film recently, and I have yet to meet an Argentinian person who is very familiar with this film at all. This article shall not be a substitute of film databases. Also, I have tried Google and Bing; no reviews have been found. ~~By the way, the creator of this article has been reported in WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents~~. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argentine cinema went through a very rough patch from the late 60s through to the late 90s. The worst periods were 1970s and 1980s when they churned out comedy after comedy, a lot of them sexual comedies which I understand were pretty lame films most of which are not widely talked about today in Argentina. We aren't talking about classic golden age Argentine cinema from the thirties to early 60s. But I believe the films have enough sources and a wide enough release at the time and starring notable actors to be worthy of inclusion. Víctor Bo was a major film star and Armando Bo a top director in Argentina during this period. Even if Armando's films were condemned for their sexual content (Isabel Sarli). ♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are many reliable sources. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to provide them for us? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try its Spanish title, La gran aventura, which should be the title of the article. Srnec (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This should help: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=gran+aventura+-wikipedia&oq=gran+aventura+-wikipedia&aq=f&aqi=d1d-o1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2018l4249l0l4439l12l12l0l11l0l0l185l185l0.1l1l0#q=%22gran+aventura%22+-wikipedia+1974&hl=en&gl=us&tbs=ar:1,apr:a&tbm=nws&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=cNPOTvPRLuKoiALc3ej1Cw&ved=0CBUQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=3e3991b465e6d3c6&biw=1008&bih=571. However, I could not find any good sources, yet one mentioned it as a Bond tribute but is just an article about the director. I'm still searching. --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources provided and I can find none. There may be Spanish sources which I am not aware of; if these can be found, I shall change my position. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; notable enough, although actually getting ahold of sources might be obscure. It's covered, for example, in Argentine cinema: modernity and avant-garde, 1957/1983, Volume 2 in what appears to be reasonable depth. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give us quotes and pages? I can't find them on Internet. --George Ho (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Books snippet view showed me enough to see the section was of reasonable length discussing the film (which for me establishes notability). I don't have the book. There is nothing wrong with offline sources. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Link please? I can't find it. --George Ho (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being notable enough for a 37-year-old Argentinian film. We do not expect nor demand that a long pre-internet film from a non-English country have ongoing coverage in English sources in 2011. And while hoping otherwise, the nominator's including his unfounded ANI complaint in hios nomination rationale makes this nomination itself appear to be done as a retailatory to a perceived affront. I suggest this be closed, and if deemed neccesary, re-opened by an editor not involved in a confict with the article's author. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your position, Schmidt, but so far, no reliable sources at all have been provided. You are right that the level of coverage required for this article will be substantially lower than recent, Engish-language films; however, I would suggest that at least one reliable source should be found if we are to keep the article. Until such a source is presented - and this need not be an online source, I expect it won't be - I shall maintain my position. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Patience is a virtue my friend.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability of a topic is determined by sources being available, and not by sources being present in an article about that topic. As we do have sources about the film[1] and the director,[2] this becomes a matter for regular editing, and not the disruption of a retaliatory nomination. If you do not feel that the available sources might be used for adressing an adresable issue, then let this be closed and renominated by someone who is not pushing a prsonal agenda. We do not reward pointy behavior, nor allow discussions such as AFD to be used as platforms for the canvassing input at ANI. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have stroke that for you. As for this film, this has not been covered in English sources. Maybe it is covered in Spanish ones, but who knows? --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles do not have to have English sources, in fact it would be unreasonable to expect anything about this film in anything other than Spanish. In future try googling the name of the film /director/actor in google books and it might surprise you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, clearly pointy nomination. Sanction nominator. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Note This nomination is not eligible for a speedy close, the relevent speedy close criteria does not apply if an uninvolved editor has endorsed deletion as has occurred here. It is however starting to look like snow... Monty ₈₄₅ 01:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Robjp21019 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know how notable this film is. I do know that the 'reasoning' in the nomination is disgusting. Greglocock (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A rhetorical question for the nominator : In the first sentence of the nomination you accused another Wikipedia editor of "bias and slander" towards you. Are you willing to retract that? Dr. B asked me to have a look at the AfD , but, as I am entirely ignorant on the subject, I have no opinion on the actual notability of the film. I do have some knowledge, however, about WP:NPA. I added a note that the qy is rhetorical, because another admin has blocked ithe nom. indef., so he cannot really be expected to answer DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's indicated that he'd like to carry on the conversation on his talkpage if you are interested. It may be beneficial Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The added sources express the notability of the film. Simple as that. Silver seren^C 00:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the sources now provided. Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:FILM with no problem at all. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate sources showing in footnotes. Whether sources are "recent" is completely irrelevant. Appears to be a bad faith nomination based upon the personal attack-laden rationale. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 26 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. I figured that was the most sensible compromise - if anybody would like to trawl through the histories and merge any useful information, feel free. m.o.p 05:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 1922 in the United Kingdom

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

Lack sources, unencyclopedic. Who would ever come to an encyclopedia for something like this? Srnec (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

—Srnec (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Each of the articles documents notable events which happened in the relevant month. They are mostly under-sourced, so sources should be (and could easily be) found. They need rewriting, too. None of that makes them beyond rescue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can see its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjp21019 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there is not a specific entry in WP:NOT, I would definitely call this a WP:BADIDEA. Having an extensive article on one month in the history of one country seems WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and just opens up the floodgates to 29 February 1912 in Weston-super-Mare and the like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an annual review/monthly journal/almanac. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into their associated Year in the United Kingdom article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but much work needed -- I cannot agree merger into a 1922 article, because it would be much too big. There is valuable material in the article, so that deletion should not be an option. BUT: I am not convinced that this is the best way of dealing with things. Many of the sections would be better dealt with elsewhere with a summary and a link in a dated article. In particular, under May, there are three sections dealing with the 1922 budget. This would be better as a free-standing article. I am also concerned that the present title is an invitation for editors to add trivia. HOwever I am not sure how we control that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is unsourced and of no value unless and until somebody sources it, so who is going to do that? The article has basically been an unseen orphan since 2004, when this project was in its infancy (or early childhood). Srnec (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We currently have articles on years (1922), months (January) and dates (1 January), all of which provide a slightly different perspective on historical events. I think that covering notable months (and most months are probably notable) provides a different perspective again, which would be useful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- June 1604 in the Ottoman Empire? January 2001 in Tuvalu? April 164 BC in Numidia? How are most month/place combinations notable? We already link together notable events through the articles you mention and through categories. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this isn't about June 1604 in the Ottoman Empire (etc). I do not think there is a need for articles on every month in every place; however, where notable events occur, an article would be helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, clearly. Remove the huge amount of unsourced material and there should be no trouble fitting it in. Neutrality^talk 06:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So merge the only three sourced statements in the January, May and June articles and just delete the rest? I agree. So vote delete. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the content there, though unsourced, could be sourced. Content of Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, not necessarily verified. Most of what is on that page could be reliably sourced. I think the actual issue is whether Wikipedia needs articles about months in specific countries, not whether the article in question is sourced well. Personally, I think that it will bring another, useful, perspective on Wikipedia's coverage of historical events. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: to 1922 in the United Kingdom. Any verifiable and notable content can be later added to 1922 in the United Kingdom or merged to create a separate topic by going over previous versions. Mattg82 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that this can be rescued. m.o.p 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking in the UK

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

Looks more like an essay and includes no references. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the user that has requested it is deleted. It is a new article and we can expect it will be improved soon. Most other countries have a article relating to this important subject. Why can't the United Kingdom have one?! This request is not useful in anyway to Wikipedia. Robjp21019 (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the nomination tag since it informs readers of the ongoing discussion — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject seems encyclopedic enough, and there are many articles covering it for other countries (see [3], although one of them is actually a song :P). There was an article for Smoking in England but it was moved to Smoking ban in England since the contents dealt only with the ban itself. The article doesn't have any references right now, but it was nominated not 20 minutes after creation, and it isn't unreasonable to expect that there will be sources available on this particular topic, so I think that this was a hasty nomination — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has to be judged on its own merits: what other articles exist is irrelevant. This article is completely unsourced, and, as the nomination says, reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. It is debatable whether or not the subject "seems encyclopedic enough", but without a doubt this article doesn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of other articles is not entirely irrelevant as it allows us to assess what is the current standard of the community on the topic. That doesn't mean that it should be kept for that sole reason, as there are other circumstances that could bar its inclusion. In this case, though, the usual suspects (namely non-notability, BLP concerns, and copyvio) are nowhere to be found. As for the article's prose or referencing, that is something to be addressed through regular editing, not deletion — Frankie (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why so hasty to delete wikipedia?! I will help develop this important page. Maybe you should look to improving an article before deleting it as wikipedia recommends Robjp21019 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~: Keep it to one vote please. Second vote striped. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Sorry, feel I have corrected the problem. Robjp21019 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue - There are certainly problems with the article: with puffery and NPOV, and the fact that it is unreferenced. However, these are not insurmountable and the topic itself is notable. I've tagged the article for rescue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue. I was going to say merge, but I can't find any obvious merge destination. There is nowhere obvious to put this in the Smoking article, and there are various things related to smoking in the UK dotted all over the place (e.g. Smoking ban, No Smoking day etc.). If no-one has time to properly rescue this article, this can temporarily be made into an index of all the other articles relevant to smoking in the UK. That would still be messy, but I can't think of an easier solution. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)

Useful Comment. Thought some might be interested to know that the article has and is being improved. Any delete voters may want to revisit the page. Robjp21019 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no doubt that many reliable sources have given coverage to this subject. Have one section listing the laws, one listing its history, a section to show how it was once advertised, how common it was throughout history and why, etc. Dream Focus 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Merge I think it would be good to merge it with Smoking under a new heading. What do you think? —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 07:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there are 30 articles like this by country. The one for England is a redirect, but could be a full article now that content has been created. Dream Focus 13:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient materials for the individual countries. The legislation and customs tend to be very specific. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous sources for this topic can be readily found such as Young people, gender and smoking in the United Kingdom, The effect of advertising on total consumption of cigarettes in the UK, The burden of smoking-related ill health in the UK, A microeconometric analysis of smoking in the UK, &c. The complaint that it looks like an essay is nonsensical as the content has no personal content or opinion. Warden (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its good for a start. Article would improve with time. Earlyriser10 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete by Fastily under A1: No context (Non-admin closure). France3470 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harikon

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

Too little content, fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A1. No context; subject is unidentifiable. Also, no indication of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 24 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woodchuck Hard Cider

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, and the company that produces it, which does not have an article, probably fails WP:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meet any of the notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoesn't meet guidelines Robjp21019 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons above (the same might apply for some others in this category eg. White Lightning).--Aspro (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously doesn't meet guidelines since it's company doesn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources exist and are plentiful, if anyone had bothered to look before voting delete, they may have found this or this or this (paywall) or this or this (paywall) or anything from this google news archive search, since I'm tired of individually linking each of these. There are dozens of reliable, independent, indepth sources going back over a decade from many locations. Passes WP:GNG easily. None of the deletion votes above has addressed the issue of existence of source material to expand the article with. --Jayron32 01:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic is meeting WP:GNG. Here are some sources I've added to the article:
Flowers, John (November 21, 2011). "Cider company plans big expansion". Addison County Independent. Retrieved November 24, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Bullard, Gina (November 7, 2011). "Woodchuck gets back to basics". Wcax.com. Retrieved November 24, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Thurston, Jack (November 14, 2011). "Vt. Beverage Maker Goes 'Green' With Brown Bottles". Wptz.com. Retrieved November 24, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as the sources above show. SL93 (talk) 19:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there is a consensus to keep the article, I would favor renaming the article to the company name as opposed to a product.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That can be handled later, through a seperate WP:RM discussion, and does not have to happen here. --Jayron32 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep, stub it. Meets WP:GNG, easy enough to fix, per WP:BEFORE. Chzz ► 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep PLEASE read WP:BEFORE and follow it before wasting everyone's time. You spend a second clicking the Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, and you'd find ample results. The first result says that Woodchuck hard cider is "the nation's top selling hard cider". [4] Others have found sources already and pointed to them. Dream Focus 20:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample material from Google to independently show the popularity of this cider. I added one source to the article. Improvement, not deletion, is the proper course. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI love cider and i want find what like to taste this kind of cider beverage.--Red October 14:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As shown above, there's substantial coverage in widely read sources about this consumer business and its namesake product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jayron, excellent example of how the steps listed in WP:BEFORE should have been applied prior to nomination. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources, even if they're not all (yet?) referenced in the article Jeffhos (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lots of coverage, and the company commands the most market share of any hard cider producer in the US. I've just added a bunch of sources to the article supporting notability and production. There's also this list of articles about Woodchuck from a trade/review site. This article from Ad Age seems especially promising for the notability/demographics of cider as a drink type and the Woodchuck brand in particular, and this for some background on the company. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Happy to userfy/incubate on request but the policy is clear that this needs to be deleted from mainspace Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Tower series film adaptation

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

(First nominator's reasoning:) "This article fails to meet any of the criteria of notability for future and unreleased films. For further explanation of Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they pertain to future and unreleased film see Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Future_films." — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Last I heard this was off again anyway, so as of right now it's more likely than not that no movie will ever be made. The small amount of encyclopaedically relevant information can be adequately summarised on one of the existing Dark Tower articles under a "film adaptations" section, in the style of upcoming or failed adaptation attempts in other franchises. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the original nominator. My issue is that fundamentally this article fails all WP:NFF guidelines. I believe it even fails WP:FFILM arguments, which seems to work toward defend articles for future films. As DustFormsWords stated only a few sources in the article are encyclopedic and the rest are conjecture and rumor. For instance an article of Stephen King saying what he *thinks* will happen now that the studio has dropped the project is not encyclopedic (at least not at this time). This article has existed for 13 months and in that time only a hopeful release date, a director and one actor offered a role have appeared on the horizon. This is not enough to warrant an article. Not only could the relevant sources be merged into The_Dark_Tower_(series)#Film_adaptation but in fact those sources are already in that article. This also makes the article proposed for deletion redundant. Danleary25 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a bit. Recent news seems to allude that the film may be back on track, but we can place it in limbo for a while and allow its return to mainspace when filming is confirmed to be imminent. However, editors might also reasonably consider whether or not this topic might qualify as an reasonable excption to WP:NFF: simply put, does the topic under discussion have the in-depth and persistant coverage in multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time so as to be presumable as "worthy of note"? In the meantime, and as events surrounding the topic of this film's production ARE decently sourcable,[5] we need consider the GNG and give serious consideration to redirecting this title to either Stephen King or Ron Howard where the topic of this planned film may be read of context to these fillmmaker's careers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I maintain it should be deleted. This article has existed for 13 months. I believe that has been an unbelievably fair length of time for an article that I believe has had grounds for deletion since day one. What point is there in incubating the article now when if we had done soon sooner it could have remained incubated for over a year with no noteworthy or encyclopedic sources to add in all that time? Realize that in the last year only a director, one actor and a release date (which both WP:NFF and WP:FFEVENT state is not enough to warrant an article) have surfaced in regards to this future film. No matter how much closer we get to the alleged release date (May 2013. Over 18 months in the future. See WP:CRYSTAL) incubation will not help matters. There is absolutely no guarantee that this film will happen, and all the sources are people involved saying they hope it will happen. If this future film keeps its article when it has no principal photography date, no shooting location, no current studio, no announced financiers, no cast (save the lead) then there is no debate for keeping any future film off wikipedia. Why are Iron Man 3, Arrested Development the movie, or Star Trek 2 (2013 film) (currently afd'd) not currently allowed articles when they have astronomically more substantial production activity and news coverage? Danleary25 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I do not see this article as well sourced. Of the 17 sources currently on the article only 5 are from the last year. Most of the remaining 12 sources are older news bits that are now antiquated and serve no function to explain current state of this future event. Also WP:FFCLARIFY says that the planned film must "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Five news blogs reporting the current state of the future film in the last 10 months is not, to me, significant coverage. Finally, the currently up-to-date sources laid out in this article make the article little more than an RSS feed for news regarding a Dark Tower movie. Danleary25 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but we do not gauge "old" news coverage as "no" news, and we do not discount coverage in multiple reliable sources simply due to age. And since I am the author of WP:FFCLARIFY (thank you for quoting my essay), please do not try to even imply that I am supporting blog talk, as A) I am in no way asserting that blogs are reliable coverage, B) I am not stating that this is an allowable exception... only offering a consideration, and C) I am not suggesting that the article be kept in mainspace. And while WP:NOEFFORT is not the best of deletion rationales, I concur that the article not being improved in 13 months is a decent indicator that it is currently not suitable for main space. Your references to other articles aside, apparently it seems what we have here is simply that you do not even wish the topic to exist for even a very short even if nowiki'd temporarily in the limbo of the article incubator... from which it will be deleted anyways if not improved in a reasonable amount of time. To those parts of your argument, I politely disagree... as D) collaborative editing is always a preferred solution, E) if it does not improve it will disappear with no fanfare, and F) redirecting the title of a topic not meriting its own article to a place where it can be sourced and discussed in context is reasonable and per instructions of both policy and guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Dark Tower (series) as per suggestion at WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis there is enough information known to write an article, and it is sufficiently complex that a separate article is less confusing. This is a matter of convenience more than principle. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yaxkin Restrepo

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

Fails WP:GNG and to the extent it is applicable, WP:ENT. Written by subject. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 25 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 as G11. Non-admin close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ajkun Ballet Theatre

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

No reliable references; walls of promotional, unverified text; can't find assertion of notability (tl;dr); created by someone with an obvious conflict of interest (WP:COI) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are expected to read articles before nominating them for deletion, however long they are. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You just made that up because you have an infavoring view of me based on previous interactions. If someone made an article with 500 pages worth of gibberish, no one would be expected to read that before making a judgement that, yes, this should be deleted. Show me a policy that says I should read the whole thing, otherwise I'm not going to waste my time. I did read a lot of it, just skimmed through the rest. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? I made up the obvious requirement that articles should be read before being nominated for deletion? Get real. I also don't feel inclined to read the whole article, so I am not offering an opinion as to whether this should be deleted. Let's leave the discussion to editors who have read the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So if someone did post 500 pages worth of unverified text in an obviously unencyclopedic manner, it should stay on the grounds that no one can be arsed to read through it? You're being ridiculous or obviously biased against me. Thankfully the article is deleted already, and, again, I did read a necessary portion. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: speaking as someone who did skim the whole article and who, by the way, has seen this group perform, I successfully nominated this for speedy deletion as spam. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 25 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 VistaJet Holding SA. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skyjet International

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

Fails WP:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bombardier Aerospace - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not an expert here, but as Skyjet was sold to VistaJet Holding SA, it should rather be redirected?merged to there. --AdAstra reloaded (talk) 13:26, 28 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 NPM/CNP. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ERBE

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

Fails WP:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to NPM/CNP. This is a non-notable link in a chain of holding companies; it apparently exists only to hold 42.5% of NPM/CNP. The same (merge/redirect) should be done with Frère-Bourgeois, another holding company which is the major owner of ERBE. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete: G7 - )non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Celebrity Performers On X Factor

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

Will take very long to write fully, and very messy. ----Bruvtakesover (talk!) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 24 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest

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

Azerbaijan never appeared in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest [6], and there is no indication that they may appear in the near future, as shown in 2010 and 2011. Until they do appear, they do not deserve an article. Fails WP:FUTURE.

I'm also nominating the following article for the same reason:

San Marino also never appeared in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest , though initially applying. [7] Until they do appear, they also do not deserve an article per WP:FUTURE. Kosm1fent ^{Won't you talk to me?} 18:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contra Both countries applied and were in untill the end. They had to withdraw, due lack of participant, which makes it surely a unsuccesfull attemp. --Tranquilian (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to cover. A failed attempt at participation is a news item, and not an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appear to be left overs from articles created prematurely. Both attempted participations are mentioned in the appropriate main contest article. CT Cooper · talk 11:05, 29 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 merge to List of All My Children characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madison North

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

This fictional character has no significance or influence to the show All My Children. This article has been previously redirected to "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" which was then-active yet now-deleted. List of All My Children characters#N mentions this character very briefly. However, this character and this article do not meet WP:GNG: 1) she has been not mentioned in soap opera periodicals, besides in articles of the actress who portrayed this character; 2) she has not been mentioned in non-soap periodicals, such as TV news, newspapers, TV Guide, and internet news; 3) no one, not even soap opera fans, knows this character at all or are experts of this character at all; 4) I don't know at all or am not interested with at all this character and her storylines; 5) her storyline made no influence to the show at all. This article is not good enough to meet WP:ATD (i.e. to be redirected to List of All My Children characters#N): 1) its entry does not mention storylines and reception which are very essential to help articles stand themselves well, and 2) other characters, such as Ryan Lavery, were either barely influenced or not influenced by her at all, based on the entry from the list. Previous revisions previously violated WP:PLOT and copyrights and have become inaccessible. I don't see hints of violations in the current revision of any other kind aside from lack of references. George Ho (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of All My Children characters per WP:ATD. I'll note that the nominator has been blocked for, in part, WP:POINTy AfD nominations. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with a requirement that the information be truly merged, and not diminished. I do not completely AGF with respect to merges in this field--all too often the merged material disappears. Additionally, this is one of the areas where Wikipedia is both reasonably complete and reasonably reliable, and we should keep to our strengths. If there were genuine doubt the character existed, or if there was no speaking role, it would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vega Vinyl

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

No reliable sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 17:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 25 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. Per cognet argument by DGG Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Play based learning in preschool curriculum

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

Essay →Σ τ c. 04:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge salvageable contents into Learning through play. This is a notable topic, but one that is poorly written. Joefridayquaker (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we should give the author more time to develop this article. I wouldn't object to merge it with Learning through play if the author does not improve it. Rotorcowboy (talk) 00:11, 19 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why are so many good articles being discussed about deletion?! Good article just needs development! Should be merge if not improved! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjp21019 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Learning through play. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiversity and redirect to Learning through play. I'm not sure if it's really encyclopaedic in its current state. --Xijky (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the author of the article in question, I agree that the article does need work. This article was written as part of my Master's cognate project. My mentor has been giving me feedback. I fully intend to make changes and fix some of the issues. I do not agree with merging this article because it is a distinct topic. My overall goal in posting the article was to begin a conversation in a public forum, where supporters of play based education in preschool curriculum could find others to support that cause. I also expect those who oppose play based learning in preschool curriculum to voice their opinions as well. Millsjennifer (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete The contributor seems to be saying that he wrote this article as a separate article deliberately in order to advocate for a particular theory, to provide a [lace "where supporters of play based education in preschool curriculum could find others to support that cause." Given such an overtly promotional non-encyclopedic intention, the material would distort any article in which it was merged. I don't think it's even a standard term, so even a redirect would be promotional. and I would additionally warn the contributor that editing with such principles is what gets people blocked. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The opinion that the building is notable has not convinced the other contributors to the discussion. Sandstein 12:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Serbia, Minsk

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

fails WP:GNG. embassies are not inherently notable, unless the building has some historic notability, or the embassy is a place of many notable events. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with Stuartyeates & LibStar. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the embassy might not be notable, the building is. Its the only surviving building by Konstantin Melnikov in Minsk, and features in many books on Soviet avantgarde architecture. Pantherskin (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources to back your claims. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from this Konstantin_Melnikov#Completed_buildings the buildings listed are all in Moscow not Minsk. LibStar (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the authoritative monograph by Khan-Magomedov on Konstantin Melnikov, page 384ff for a complete list of his buildings, and page 34-35 for a discussion of the building in ~~Belgrade~~ Minsk. Added to article.

Belgrade? We are talking about Minsk. How did you find this source? LibStar (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

even from a google search I find no reference Melnikov designing the Serbian embassy in Minsk. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a good practice to base articles in an encyclopedia on google search results. In particular on ENGLISH search results, when the article is about a building in a region where English is far from being widespread. I am sure other sources can be found, given the prominence Khan-Magomedov gives to building of Melnikov. But for that a trip to the library is needed. Pantherskin (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my local library does not have that book. i'm open to foreign language sources but Konstantin Melnikov is a famous enough designer to have english language coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nor does this appear to be coverage in Russian or Serbian that confirms Melnikov's involvement in this building in Minsk. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you don't build an encyclopedia by relying on Google search results. We now know that at least one authoritative monograph attaches enough importance to the building to discuss it in detail. I am sure other books on Melnikov discuss this building too. In other words, this is sufficient to establish notability. It's the deletion discussion of Consulate-General of Japan in Saint Petersburg all over again - despite reliable sources provided by Russavia you were not willing to reconsider your deletion nomination. I am wondering why? Pantherskin (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you search in Russian for a building build by Melnikov you should use the genitive case. Pantherskin (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we are not here to debate the notability of other articles, nor can this be used as a basis of arguing keep here for something far weaker in notability than the Japanese consulate. Unless evidence of significant coverage is found this fails WP:GNG. You would have expected at least a passing mention in Serbian but zilch. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP may not be built on google searches, but it's built on significant coverage in reliable sources which is clearly lacking here. also nothing in Ukrainian. LibStar (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 24 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 Howard McKeon. smerge so redirected and anything source/salvagable can be moved across Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia McKeon

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

Spouse of an important U.S. Congressman, but the only reason she is possibly notable is as a candidate for state assembly, which isn't enough. Notability is not inherited (or obtained by marriage). NawlinWiki (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - her notability as a spouse goes beyond just being a spouse; coverage is on her being a spouse on his staff and drawing relatively large salary. Still, the most that gets is a couple paragraphs in Roll Call. Add that to her candidacy, and you get more than nothing, but less than enough, I think. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Don't Delete - her notability is beyond that of a candidate for state office. She is the wife of one of the 10 most powerful sitting congressman and is running for state office. This is unusual at least and flat out unprecedented at best. Also I have done a lot of research and have articles and sources for her and the controversies as a lobbyist and her and her husbands campaign improprieties to go along with the sources already referenced. they come from sources such as The Politico, The Hill, and other major news sources. I'm still not an experienced enough wiki'er to know hoo to present all the data. I guess I can gather it and post it here and then let the community decided(I'll work on that). Ultimately though I think she is prominent enough and the situation out of the ordinary enough to warrant an entry. SCVPolitik (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — SCVPolitik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unusual and unprecedented does not grant notability; significant sources discussing the things that make her unusual and unprecedented would. If you have sources that talk significantly about her, rather than mention her as an aside or as an item on a list, present those. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to the article about Howard McKeon, her husband. She is not notable enough for an article of her own at this point; she is merely one of several candidates for the Republican nomination for state assembly, and Google News has barely noticed her. If she gets the nomination and wins election, she will then be notable by definition, and the article can be restored from the redirect. Meanwhile, the Howard McKeon article should have a mention of her current candidacy, as well as info about her role in his campaigns etc. as mentioned above. Currently his article contains none of that info, but it is relevant to him and should be there whether or not she retains her own article. SCVPolitik, feel free to go ahead and add info about her to his article, even while this discussion is pending. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding her info to his Article seems like a good idea. I'll go ahead and add as much of her article as would make sense to his article page. SCVPolitik (talk) 20:38, 23 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge - for the reasons listed above. Keep it salvagable for a later date if needed. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 19:45, 24 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 consensus below is that the coverage is yet sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Giraffes? Giraffes!"

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited, and my searches have produced their own web site, Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc etc, plus a Wikipedia article created by a single purpose account, but no sign of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. In fact I found exactly the sort of thing I would expect to find for a non-notable band desperate to get publicity. Speedy deletion was contested with the edit summary "There's a claim to have released several albums, which is enough to avoid A7". I don't agree, and think CSD A7 would be valid, but I am willing to allow discussion to see what consensus says. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:BAND. No hits in a google search except for those put out by the band themselves. They do not seem to have been picked up by a major label or charted at all. Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokyogirl79
Delete. I was I who declined the speedy, based on the claims of five albums (including two live ones), but I may indeed have been mistaken in that the claims are perhaps not that credible. Anyway, yes, I can't find any reliable sources attesting to notability, so away with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. They do ahve those albums, but they appear to be self-published digital downloads. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable band with non-notable albums. SL93 (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually there is a staff review at Sputnikmusic [8] and a writeup at Vice (Italy) [9], as well as a good deal of local coverage [10] [11] [12] and a great deal of blog coverage. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vice has a brief four-sentence mention. I am not sure how significant, independent, or reliable the "local" magazines you mention are, but in any case we need more than just local interest. Most blogs are completely irrelevant, as they are not reliable sources. The one piece which you mention that does seem to be the right sort of coverage is the Sputnikmusic review, but on its own it is not enough to establish notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree with JamesBWatson's assessment of the sources. The Sputnikmusic staff review is fine, but I'm not convinced the Vice review qualifies as significant coverage. I'm not finding anything else that would help put this group over the top in terms of meeting WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 19:42, 27 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleves junior school (weybridge)

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

Notability, no references. silly billy piggy 16:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ordinary primary school, nothing notable about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a school — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjp21019 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, but not speedy given schools are exempt from CSD under A7. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as usual. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Weybridge, where the school is mentioned (but as existing). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge with the town, which is what we almost always do with primary schools unless they can be shown notable, which is the rare exception. I see no argument why such a merge or redirect is inappropriate, and it's preferred to deletion DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Till I Go Home (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Smith (professor)

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

All of the sources that I can find leads back to his book which doesn't seem notable also. SL93 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Smith was one of the most important researchers in his field - his book "Kingdoms of the Yoruba" had a real impact on the study of the history of Nigeria. --Xijky (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any sources for this or is it just your opinion? Currently there are no independent WP:reliable sources on this article. noq (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One can assume that someone becomes a professor only after having been promoted through academia by being an expert in his field: I knew little of the history of the Yoruba, until I read his well-researched book. Wikipedia needs every article about Africa that people can contribute.Duncanogi (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've never read his books (there are multiple) but "Kingdoms of the Yoruba" has gone through multiple editions, and I see it being used as a reference quite a bit... Oyo Empire#Notes is an example of this. He seems to me to be a leading scholar on an important and under-represented field. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 19:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps From other votes seems to be quite important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjp21019 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some reviews of his Kingdoms of the Yoruba. There seem to be loads of them. There seems enough for a pass of wp:author in addition to passing WP:prof via the notability of his work and the festschrift (which is also now mentioned). (Msrasnw (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The number of reviews listed so far is not by itself completely convincing (lots of academic books get reviews) but the fact that they span a nearly 20-year range is. And the festschrift is also helpful. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right that lots of academics get lots of reviews. But I take this to mean that they then might meet WP:Author #3 The person has created .. a significant or well-known work .. that has been the subject of .. of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Perhaps WP:Author needs rewording if academics are to be excluded from using it as I think our current guidelines suggest academics may be judged notable under it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Consider this withdrawn. SL93 (talk) 19:00, 25 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) Till I Go Home (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Show

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

Article lacks sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 16:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lack of sources in article is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see WP:BEFORE. Plenty of sources seem to be available on Google news. Perhaps a Spanish speaking editor could help determine which of these constitute substantial coverage: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Pburka (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Pburka. The links provided do constitute significant coverage as expected by the WP:GNG. The article needs some work to meet WP:NPOV, and some claims need to be removed unless properly sourced, but that's no reason for deletion — Frankie (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep actress in question has plenty of coverage to make it notable and add more to it. Tinton5 (talk) 21:24, 25 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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek 2 (2013 film)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prematurely created article. Direct contravention of policy guideline at WP:NFF which states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Any pertinent information can therefore be included at Star Trek (film) or Star Trek (film series). Rob Sinden (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is ridiculous. We've had this tango twice before. The Lone Ranger i understood because it got shelved soon afterward. This is a well-sourced and well-discussed film. There is a filming date cited in the article, which is in two months. There is a bounty of sources that confirm this film is happening. You constantly cite WP:NFF. That is for films that are announced and hasn't got alot of news stories that aid in it's notability. If i created this article when it was first announced for release in 2012, yea, i would have understood why you would redirect it. But now, they've begun casting rumours, they're scouting locations, and there are new stories on the film each day. I spent two hours digging deep through clusters of stories about this project, so this meets WP:GNG. It's notable. Just look at sources like this [20], now why would they be announcing what format of filming they would use if there was a slight possibility this wouldn't happen? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:48 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:NFF. It is not "for films that are announced and hasn't got alot of news stories that aid in it's notability" - it directly applies in this case. All the casting rumours, etc can be included in the "Sequel" section at Star Trek (film) or at Star Trek (film series) until filming commences. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I implore you to look at these [21], all those sources, and you think this isn't a notable film? And i'll analyze WP:NFF a little more while you look at WP:GNG, which it clearly passes. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:04 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the number of references - there are no special circumstances here which mean we should not follow WP:NFF which says "Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available". WP:NFF also states "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks" - this is what you are doing. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help any if i moved this to my userspace (which surely wil be recreated if i do) or to Star Trek 2 (film project) (per WP:FILMPROJECT)? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:12 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No - film project articles are not accepted policy, and to me seem like a way to cirumvent WP:NFF. I understand the use of WP:FILMPROJECT in exceptional cases - where there is so much information that it can't be housed elsewhere - but this is not the case here. Userfying is fine though... --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you this is an exception for FILMPROJECT. I'm concerned about the article being recreated if i do userfy it. It's happened when i created The Three Stooges and Skyfall, the articles got recreated while the articles i userfied got forgotten. This is well-sourced and very close to filming. If it was Indiana Jones 5 and i created it because i heard it's now announced, i would grok the reasoning of why it was redirected. But here, when the article constitutes a vast amount of confirmed activity, is when i get upset. It's frustrating and infuriating when an article you devote alot of time on is redirected, or when you userfy it, it's recreated, and when you inform people "I created this already", they excuse theirselves by stating "This is a better article." Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:24 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I can appreciate your frustrations, this isn't really relevant to the point here. And perhaps this is a reason not to userfy, but to include information "in articles about its subject material" as per WP:NFF, so that when the time comes, it can be split to its own article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you use WP:NFF as reasoning, but i always felt if a topic has obtained enough media coverage and discussion from those involved, it deserves, no, warrants a seperate article. There are now 30 reliable sources on the article confirming the project is essentially all ready to go. As before, filming has a set start date (January 15, if anyone's wondering). And again, i got hot under the collar when The Lone Ranger got the nom, but it got shelved and is now in User:MichaelQSchmidt's userspace. Star Trek 2 begins in a month and a half. Hell, it could start filming tomorrow, it's that close. If it was to begin filming 7 months after an article for it is created, yes, WP:NFF would come into effect for me. But here, it's too close to filming to still be considered unnotable. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:36 24 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFF exists for a reason. This is an established guideline, and a good one. You say the film could start shooting tomorrow. It could also get cancelled tomorrow. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely. WP:NFF exists to prevent actual premature articles from being created. This isn't prematurely made, it's basically on standby waiting for filming to begin, and when it does, we could be able to add a Filming section to the article to talk about it. Remember when we had this similar talk at Man of Steel? I created it in March, whereas filming wouldn't commence until August. Here, i created this article this month, November, and filming begins in January, again only a month and a half away. Man of Steel had a 5 month wait to begin filming and others found it met the guidelines for an article. But for now, our discussion has already took a huge amount of space on the discussion, let us wait for some outside opinions. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:47 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep per WP:BEFORE. Alternatives to deletion, like merging to the first movie's page, exist. These should have been discussed at the talk page before the deletion was considered. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, rather than voting "keep", you actually favour an alternative? I'm confused by your input here? What alternatives would you propose? --Rob Sinden (talk)

He was perhaps addressing that guideline encourages discussion of one of the multiple alternatives before sending to deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retitle to "Star Trek" (2013 film). The movie itself is notable and will happen, per Robsinden. However, no title has been released, and it is not the second installment in the franchise. Joefridayquaker (talk) 19:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that confuse people into thinking the 2009 film is being remade? What about Star Trek 2 (film project) or, since the series uses Roman numerals, whatever number it is in the film series? And actually, it is the second installment of the new series. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:18 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If this article survives the AfD, it should definitely be renamed. No-one has any idea what this film will actually be called (another reason why WP:NFF is a good policy!) How about "Untitled Star Trek proposed sequel" or something. Maybe a title will be confirmed when the film actually goes into production. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek XII (12 in roman numerals). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:48 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look, the topic has plenty of coverage. The fight over "film" vs "film project" belongs in an RfC, not an AfD. There's no question in my mind that the topic meets the WP:GNG for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why does everyone choose to ignore WP:NFF? Maybe this policy needs to be rewritten in order to accommodate speculative articles like this one. And why not WP:CRYSTAL while we're at it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not being ignored, it's just that this film is notable to remain seperate. WP:NFF should be put at full force at things like Big Eyes, as i've shown you. That has casting, but no production discussions or anything leading out of Rope of Silicon. Star Trek 2 has received alot of coverage, passing WP:GNG. WP:CRYSTAL is predicting when a film will begin production, but it surpasses that as there's a source for when it begins filming. Hell, WP:CRYSTAL even state "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:24 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read the wording of WP:NFF, it directly applies to this article. I'm not sure why people think that "their article" should be exempted from this guideline. Maybe it's the same mentality as when people write "first post" on a forum entry. With regard to your comment on the wording in WP:CRYSTAL which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", I bring your attention (yet again) to that in WP:NFF which states "The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production". Just because a future filming date is planned, doesn't mean the film exists! --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist, it is being made, and there is plenty of coverage proving it. I pretty sure at this time Paramount Pictures wouldn't scrap one of their high-profile projects due to budget or director issues, Paramount began financing before Abrams even signed on! That guideline, in my opinion, should be altered to which films that are announced or haven't begun pre-production shouldn't be given a seperate article. This film, currently, was one of the most talked about this week, due to the announcement of it's release date. It's happening and it's notable. And if that "first post" remark means that i create articles to be first, that's wrong. I'm battling this fiercely due to this occuring several times. Each article i make always faces deletion because "it hasn't begun filming yet". Star Trek is one of Paramount's crown jewels, why would they cancel that? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:37 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It is generally accepted that a film does not physically exist until it starts shooting. Hence WP:NFF. Everything else you just said is pure speculation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... but speculation is allowed on Wikipedia, as policy specifically instructs that such may be indeed be discussed as long as properly sourced and not involving original research. You even concede as much in your nomination when you recommend places where the information might be placed. What we have in WP:NFF is a portion of a parent SNG that seeks to prevent premature and poorly-sourced articles about things unlikley to happen... but even IT grants that exceptions might be created if coverage of a planned film's production process itself can be determined notable per WP:GNG. SNGs do not "trump" the GNG. The GNG does not "trump" the SNGs. Failing one does not mean the other is failed. A topic may meet eiher or both to be considered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if "It is generally accepted that a film does not physically exist until it starts shooting" we have the quandary that follows when trying to judge a not-yet-film by criteria appropriate for made-films. Why not look at it in the same manner we might ANY topic, and judge the topic by its coverage? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't mean that everything in the article is speculation, just the post where RAP says "Paramount won't cancel this" and "it is happening". --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not including that in the article, though. And here an unsourced personal opinion will be discounted. I do understand his frustration about userfication though. It's sometimes discouraging to be sitting on an article in userspace only to have it be recreated unopposed later when its time is ripe. It's hapened to me, so I know. His angst is caused by not being able to accurately gauge that correct time of ripening. This is why I think incubation is the better solution in this instance. His contributions as author remain in the histories, the article benefits from more eyes and collaborative editing, and it is far more likely to return to mainspace at just the right moment of ripening. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe if this keeps happening to you, you shouldn't keep creating articles that fall foul of WP:NFF! --Rob Sinden (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but WP:NFF i feel has grown outdated. To the point where essaies have been written overriding it. And essentially WP:GNG got it by the balls as well. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:54 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so much outdated, but rather being used as it it were policy or a trump of the leading instruction at WP:N which itself states that IF failing the GNG we may then look to subject-specific notability guides. WP:N does not say look at the SNGs first before considering the GNG. Quite the other-way-round. NFF does have its place, and we will continue having these discussions about it at AFD... but like all guidelnes, it is NOT policy, and should be treated with common sense and the understanding that occasional exceptions DO apply, for it is a refusal to accept that occasional exceptions exist where we have unneccessary drama. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL directs the reader specifically to WP:NFF in the case of judging when it is appropriate to create a film article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or with good faith Incubate or Userfy. While the sub-SNG WP:NFF is sometimes seen to conflict with policy WP:FUTURE, the policy itself does allow properly sourced discussion of events that have not yet occured... even planned films. And as long as we have proper sourcing, we can find always find place for contextual information, even if not in a separate article. I believe that at a minimum, we can allow the article to be userfied or incubated out of respect to NFF and the willingness shown by editors to continue improving the article. After which we can then without prejudice set a redirect of the title to a parent topic elsewhere where the unmade film might be discussed in context to the film franchise... such as either the suggested Star Trek (film series)#Reboot or at Star Trek (film series)#Films and allow its return to mainspace when principal filmming is more imminent. Seems a reasonable compromise that meets both policy and guideline without rewriting either or bending either into pretzels. Looks like we'll have a very short wait. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge fan of userfying these days after some instances in which the article was recreated while it was in my userspace. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:49 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. But incubation is often better than userfication. More eyes. Collaborative editing. Preserved edit history. And a return to mainspace when "ripe". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we follow WP:NFF and delete this article, it's just going to be recreated in two months by somebody who watched the calendar like a hawk for when principle photography began. Deleting this article would be both wasting the time of whomever has already worked on this article and potentially wasting the time of whomever works on the article if it has to be recreated sixty days from now. Also, the odds of something happening in the next sixty days that completely cancels this project is slim to none. IndigoAK200 (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy. A good bit of work has already been done here, and it would be a waste to throw that all away. Also, it seems to me that Rob Sinden is being overly stringent to the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. This film appears to be as close to a sure thing as Hollywood can deliver; you keep pointing out that it's not "in production" until filming actually begins, but even the start of filming is no guarantee that a project -- even a high-profile, big-budget project -- will progress to completion. EJSawyer (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not a fan of Userfying. I've had too many bad experiences upon moving articles to my userspace. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 19:34 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Userfying isn't the optimal choice, but it's better than chucking it all out the window.

FYI, some notable films that began filming, but remain incomplete are Dark Blood; The Man Who Killed Don Quixote; and a surprising, but notable entry, The Other Side of the Wind. Enough examples to show that just because principal photography begins doesn't mean that it will ever see the light of day. High-profile, big-budget, major names...none of these are a guarantee.

On the other hand, we have an example from the Star Trek franchise: Star Trek: Phase II. This series was aborted just days before principal photography was scheduled to start. And yet it's notable enough to warrant a WP. EJSawyer (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But these examples follow the spirit of WP:NFF which states "films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this film were to fail at this stage, even if not a frame of film (or digital media, as the case may be) were shot, it would most certainly qualify as a notable failure. So your argument has become: it's not notable until it either starts shooting or doesn't start shooting. That's quibbling over questions that will be resolved in a matter of weeks. Surely there are other articles that could better use the time spent debating this one. EJSawyer (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Completely incorrect assumption. If this film were to fail at this stage, the failure itself would not be notable enough to warrant its own article, merely a mention in the development of the series. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to "Star Trek (2013 Film)". According to WP:NFF, the policy states that "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles UNLESS the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". The references are enough to recognize the article's Notability so deleting it would be a waste of good research. However, the name was not officially announced yet so please have it renamed.--Bumblezellio (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to renaming, i'm going to rename it Star Trek XII (Star Trek 12). Calling it Star Trek (2013 film) will confuse people into thinking the 2009 film is already getting remade. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:40 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're quoting the bit of WP:NFF that covers "films that have already begun shooting". This is not one of those. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I could go with "Star Trek XII (Star Trek 12)". There's no better title for the article than "Star Trek XII (Star Trek 12)". I agree with Rusted AutoParts.--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would just be Star Trek XII. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 4:23 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep, a well sourced article. Even if this film is somehow cancelled, there would still be cause for an article, no doubt its cancellation would recieve a great deal of press--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. Well since Rob Sinden stated that film has to be deleted unless the film began shooting. I would suggest the article to be incubated till the film begins shooting. I wouldn't think it's necessary to discuss this right now until the film begins shooting in January 2012, then the discussion can continue. Does that sound fair enough?--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? It doesn't have to be deleted at all. This can act as a film project page like several other articles created before filming started. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:11 26 November 2011 (UTC)

My decision is clear now. Keep and Rename to Star Trek XII. No more second thoughts for me cause it's clearly a Keep anyway according to the consensus.--Bumblezellio (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that we shouldn't delete because we'd just have to start another article in January anyway, so I'm going to say Keep. True, the article was a bit premature, but now that we have it, we might as well keep it.TheLastAmigo (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, and Move to Memory Alpha-

The film will definitely will not be called Star Trek 2. see this. So changing the name of the site would make sense.
I know consensus will probably preserve the page. I think the incubation for this page would be more appropriate for memory alpha, not this site. I consider myself an inclusionist, but the production is simply not far enough to make a full fledged page. Oldag07 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Memory Alpha calls it Untitled Star Trek sequel. [Untitled Star Trek sequel] Oldag07 (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha? It will be renamed Star Trek XII and stay where it's at. We don't move pages on Wikipedia to Wiki's. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 23:15 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep. The important thing to note here is this: though the film does not meet the criteria laid forth at WP:NFF, this particular film is of such a high profile and of such eager anticipation that it will become notable no matter what happens. Either it is made, and becomes notable thusly, or it is derailed in some catastrophic fashion and becomes notable through that route (much as The Man Who Killed Don Quixote did). Powers ^T 16:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect assumption. If the film was cancelled this very minute, it would not be notable enough to warrant its own article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you're basing that on what exactly? That there won't be dozens of news articles about its cancellation, interviews/comments about it from cast & crew, possibly even fan petitions and whatnot? And since its unlikely to be cancelled anyway its not like we're not going to have an article on it sooner or later anyway. You seem determined to delete this article despite it being well written & very well sourced, all based upon a guideline, not a policy, a "generally accepted standard". Do you have any better justification than WP:NFF? because so far thats all you've parroted--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still wouldn't warrant an article any more than, say, some of the failed Superman or Batman films would - see Superman in film or Batman in film for examples. If this film is cancelled prior to production, it wouldn't warrant anything more than a section in Star Trek (film series) or similar. Incidentally, the General notability guideline is also, by definition, "just" a guideline, unlike WP:CRYSTAL which is policy. It is good practice to view WP:GNG and WP:NFF in conjunction with each other, but WP:NFF has been reached by consensus and does have some sound principles. One of which is that you shouldn't assume that just because a proposed film is high-profile it is infallible. This is what you are doing. There's no reason why we shouldn't have followed WP:NFF in this case and incorporated the information elsewhere until the camera starts rolling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal is a policy, and has no application here since the article is not "unverifiable speculation". NFF is a guideline and can therefore be ignored when to follow it blindly would be a detriment to the project, i.e. the deletion of well sourced article. The same exception has been made to films on more than occasion, I see no reason this shouldn't be the same, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Avengers (2012 film) for a couple of examples, and to quote from one of those pages "if a topic has received significant coverage it is notable regardless of the fact that the subject concerns a future event". Your entire basis for deletion has been that it does not meet NFF, and yet you not given any jusification for why that is a bad thing--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well we're clearly not going to agree here on when appropriate to ignore a well-established and well-considered guideline, and I don't feel that deleting this article would be detriment to the project, as the information can easily be housed elsewhere until appropriate to re-create the article. Regarding future events, WP:CRYSTAL specifically directs the reader to WP:NFF for situations regarding future films, so I don't think we should discount it so easily. I think that there is among certain editors an overenthusiasm for prematurely creating articles for films that are not yet notable (and I still feel that this isn't YET), especially genre movies. Yes, common sense should be applied when considering WP:NFF, but also when considering exceptional circumstances in order to discount it. To my mind, there is not such a wealth of information that could not be housed elsewhere for the time being, so we should not be making the exception to WP:NFF in this case. This being said, it is fairly clear what the outcome of this AfD will be, so there's no point in me fighting this further. I would however appeal to editors to ensure that we only allow exceptions to WP:NFF in very rare circumstances, where the amount of information and coverage is so vast that it needs to be split from a parent article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I would like the specific link from where you quote "if a topic has received significant coverage it is notable regardless of the fact that the subject concerns a future event" as I can't find it and would like to consider this in context. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an incorrect assumption. If the film were cancelled today, it could only be for a catastrophic reason that would make the cancellation itself notable. Powers ^T 14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the film were cancelled today, because, say, Paramount went bust, or Abrams got a better offer, or whatever reason, this article would consist of nothing more than we have here, and an explanation saying "production was cancelled on xxth of xxxember due to xxx". This is not enough to warrant a standalone article, and the event itself would not be notable in its own right (unless of course the reason truly was "catastrophic" and resulted in multiple deaths, etc.,) as films get cancelled all the time. The information would then be best included in an article about the franchise/studio/director/whatever. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derailing a film with as high a profile as this one would be a notable event. There would be a lot more to say about it than just "production is cancelled"; I guarantee it. Powers ^T 21:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can say you can "guarantee" something hypothetical would be notable! For a comparison, consider the unproduced Superman Returns sequel. In any case, I'm not suggesting it will be cancelled - far from it - I agree the likelihood is slim, but that doesn't mean that I think that this future event is notable yet - but it will be when it happens. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or userfy - there is a named, officially signed on, director; the same cast from the previous film will be "reprising their respective roles"; actor Zachary Quinto has granted interviews both about his coming out and this film; the script is written; and the locations have been 'scouted'. Even at this time, many millions of dollars have been contracted for, and thus the film is almost surely going forward. As NFF says, no film is 100 % sure until principal photograhy starts, but this is as close as it gets. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of userfying. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:23 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As Christina said to Mommie Dearest, I am not a fan of userfying either, but I am a fan of Utilitarianism, as in, it works. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at it this way. Tomorrow will be December 1. In 14 days will be December 15. That will mean there would be a month until filming begins, the normal area in which a film article is made. In my opinion, this was a little time wasteful. I understand Robsinden's perspective, but come on, it's too close to filming to need deletion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 16:11 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong Keep Given the tremendous success of the first one I would be surprised if they don't capitalize on that. I haven't read closely whether the sequel has been given a go, but I think the article should be kept. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggest you'd familiarise yourself with WP:CRYSTAL - what you have said goes against everything in this policy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Unless something super drastic happens, current consensus seems like this page will be preserved. There seems to be a strong consensus to move the page. However we don't have a new title for it. I think this a proper location to discuss the move of the page. I am in favor of renaming it Star Trek XII. Oldag07 (talk) 01:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what's going to happen once this discussion comes to an end. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 1:46 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another problem when creating articles for films that are only in the pre-production stages. It seems fairly certain that the film will not be called Star Trek II or Star Trek XII. Considering previous "film project" articles, how about Star Trek sequel film project? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 12th installment of the Star Trek series. That, imo, seems like a better title. Star Trek sequel film project sound kinda silly and isn't something people would type in looking for. By using XII, which the series is known for using Roman numerals, fans and people will have a better chance of finding it and won't risk later duplication. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 12:49 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Naming the article Star Trek XII or Star Trek 12 is original research, as few (nothing comes up if you do a google news search) sources are calling it this, instead preferring to go with Star Trek 2 or "Star Trek sequel". As it has been reported that the film will not be called Star Trek 2, without a confirmed name we are faced with a problem. We have to go with something sourced, or something that accurately describes the article. Therefore it should either stay where it is (as per sources) or go with something along the lines of my suggestion of Star Trek sequel film project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, i'll just keep it as Star Trek 2. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:40 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You will, will you? - Shouldn't we see what the outcome of the discussion is? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're accusing me of WP:OWN, i am offended. I meant was after the discussion closes (if it ever does), i would either move it to Star Trek XII (which you vetoed) or keep as is. Didn't you read the numerous times i said this? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 14:08 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read that as if you were saying that you will leave it as it is, as if it is your decision, yet this is a subject that is being debated. Maybe I picked up your meaning incorrectly, and if so I apologise, but there are similar undertones in comments above too - sometimes it's difficult to convey ones meaning properly on these talk pages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been going off for a while with extreme tones and decisions. Well we already know the article is staying as Keep anyway, now the problem is the article's name. If I may, how about renaming the article as "The New Star Trek Film"? --Bumblezellio (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the use of the word "new" is appropriate. "Future" possibly, but I think "sequel" is a good indicator/disambiguator. Maybe Future Star Trek film project, or Future Star Trek sequel. I think I still favour Star Trek sequel film project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Sequel" could be confusing to some people as there're 12 Star Trek Films (Including this film). However, how about "Upcoming Star Trek Film"?--Bumblezellio (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "future" is a better word than "upcoming", but I guess that's personal taste. Future Star Trek film project? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. There are sufficient sources for the concept of Azerbaijani irredentistusm; what the name should be needs further discussion. This will do as a start, & I'm changing the redirect of Greater Azerbaijan to point to this article. I think there's some content in earlier versions of it that could be merged. me DGG ( talk ) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Azerbaijan

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

Per WP:OR, WP:Synthesis, WP:Advertisement. The whole article is based on synthesis self-made materials supported by non-reliable sources. Here I made a short summary of the situation of the references of this article:

Reference No. 1: turksam.org is a non-reliable source to be used in Wikipedia. Besides, Arif Keskin is a wel-known pan-turk activist, and more important than all, he hasn't use the expression Whole azerbaijan (Bütün Azerbaycan In Turkish) in his article.
Ref No. 2: Dead link. Non- verifiable non-reliable source. In addition the author's name (Arif Rehmoğlu) has no result in google scholar search
Ref No. 3: non-reliable non-verifiable partisan source, by the wel-know pan-turk Abulfaz Elchibey, ex-president of republic of Azerbaijan.
Ref No 4: Again non-reliable verifiable source by a newspaper in Baku!
Ref No 5: dead link

As it's obvious, there is no source to support the fringe idea, reported in the article body. Aliwiki (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are many of these. Google the words Azeri, separatism, and Iran, and you'll find plenty of sources. I don't have any strong thoughts on the issue, but consider it noteworthy enough for an article. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 19:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment. But the main problem here is non-reliable references and original research. The google search result can't be a valuable criterion since internet is full of rumors, synthesized and self-made materials, and here we don't have any RS supporting the ideas given, while I gave an opposite example of Turkmenchay Treaty. The article claims according to that treaty the land of Azerbaijan has been divided, while not only there isn't such claim, but there is no similar or even a weak semi-similar note in the text of the treaty about it. --Aliwiki (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to WP:NOT#FANSITE and WP:NOT#NEWS. The article is based on non-academic original thoughts of pan-turk journalists. --Wayiran (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - There is no reliable and/or academic source to back this article (Original Research); apparently based on a Pan-Turkist propaganda originated by Abulfaz Elchibey's speech during Azerbaijan-Armenia war. Similar to other false territorial labeling such as 'south Azerbaijan', 'western Azerbaijan (Armenia)', etc. that are being made and advertised by various Pan-Turkists. Cyrusace (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been already stated that it's a notable article about an irredentist ideology and there are reliable sources which identify this term. My suggestion would be to move the article to Greater Azerbaijan which redirects to Treaty of Turkmenchay and supplement the article with reliable sources such as these: [22]. May I also add that the two accounts who cast their votes before me seem to be meatpuppets as they seem to have a casual editing history with just a few word changes throughout a year. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned twice before, the claim that Azerbaijan has been divided by the treaty of Turkmenchay is absolutely an aobvious false claim and it's in contradiction to WP:weasel words (which is made by the article and redirect page creator, not mean you). It's not even a fringe theory!. About google engine search results, as I noted in my previous comment can't be a criterion for decision here. I give a simple example; Iran Israel war, which has never beed occured yet, gives 136 000 000 results on the web pages [23], and 2 280 000 results on google books [24], and this doesn't mean we can have an article about it and there isn't any article about it on other encyclopedias such as Britannica, Iranica and etc.. The information provided in the article are whether wrong, or original research and according to WP:NPOV we can't state opinions as facts in Wikipedia. Regards, --Aliwiki (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the number of google search results that should make an impression, so to speak, but the content of the results. Like I said, google Greater Azerbaijan and see how many reliable and scholarly sources you get. The link is above.

NOTE: Moreover, to show good faith, please remove your vote since, as mentioned below, you're not really to vote since you're the nominator. It would also make sense if active editors would vote on this deletion nomination, not go-by users who are most likely invited to drop a "delete" line and disappear until the next nomination. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's better that you find some strong or at least weak evidence before accusing me that I've invited others to vote. First, be sure that if I want to invite someone for voting, I am not so stupid to invite a user who is not a frequent editor. Second, I if I had that intention I would have done it in previous nomination (at the time that I was a new and non-expert wikipedian. Third, it's amazing that you and user mursel looked to his contributions and understood that his/her last edit was on may but I wonder how didn't you notice that before may he wasn't also a frequent user. I know better than you that the admin will not count the number of votes to decide to keep/delete the article since WP is not an experiment for democracy, but he will read the reasons and logic every one has provided here. I removed my vote for your convenience. About our AFDR topic, RS is not the only criterion for writing an article. There are many RS for Iran-Israel war example as-well. I gave an example on the article talk page. Let's consider that now president of China, for political reasons, is changing the name of a province near the India's boundry and gives the nam eof India to this province;Next year, a revolution in China will cause this country to be seperated to several indipendant states, including this small republic of India; At this time, can I write an article in the name of whole India starting with Whole India is an irredentist Indian concept that propagates the political union of territories currently inhabited by Hindis or historically controlled by them. Regards, --Aliwiki (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even understanding what exactly what you're trying to say. First off, immediate arrival of two casually editing accounts after your nomination speak for themselves. Even if an account was taking a break and all of a sudden appeared on such a page because he was the nomination in his dream, he would continue frequent editing, if he was a frequent editor in the past, though. Otherwise, the fact that some accounts appear out of nowhere to cast their votes, make reverts, etc then their actions are too obvious to disregard. Secondly, let the admins speak for themselves. A good faith editor nominating an article for deletion would just leave the comment in his reasoning remarks, not cast an additional vote. Don't worry, I've seen these tricks before. Third, to respond to your example. Yes, if the article about Whole India was based on legitimate sources, attesting to the fact that the term exists, that article could be created. Note my comment above though, that I, in fact suggested a a more broadly used term by scholars, the Greater Azerbaijan.Tuscumbia (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not fullfil the required criteria for nomination for deletion. No discussion was held on the given arguments and no good faith was implied in an effort to improve the article. Instead user Aliwiki rushed a 2nd nomination for deletio, this is also against the rules. Another fact is the nominator cannot vote in his own proposed deletion, yet Aliwiki did so anyway. The fact remains that most the issues can be solved. Where does it write that Azerbaijani land was divided? I couldnt find this. Anyway we could rewrite this as Azerbaijani people were divided, as my proposed sentence is supported by academic sources, for example: E. Cornell, Svante (2001). Small nations and great powers: a study of ethnopolitical conflict in the Caucasus. Curzon. p. 37 [25] writes: "However the result of the Treaty of Turkmenchay was a tragedy for the Azerbaijani people. It demarcated a borderline through their territory along the Araxes river, a border that still today divides the Azerbaijani people." This source should be implies in the article, there are numerous other reliable academic sources regarding this topic. Here are more examples of reliable academic sources regarding this subject: [26], [27], [28], etc. The fact is that this article is very close related to Treaty of Turkmenchay (as can also be seen from the mentioned source). Also why do you think Elchibey is an unreliable source? After all it was his idea. Like PhnomPencil said similar sources are also used in similar irredentist articles. I also find it suspicious how user Cyrusace last edit was on 10 October and in that edit he also cast a vote regarding deletion of an Azerbaijani related article. Cyrusace's edit before that was in the month May! [29] So its obvious that his account is used as a meatpuppet. And even user Wayiran has made only little edits and no sufficient contributions to Wikipedia. Mursel (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link of the book, and there is nothing as you have posted in your comment in page 37 and the word Turkmenchay has not been repeated even once in the book. But your sentence exists on Azerbaijan article and I guess you have taken it from there and used Wikipedia as source. The process of name adoption for the former soviet union states dates back to 1920's (Turkmenchay was signed on Feb., 1828). After annextion of South Caucasus to Russian empire, russians refered to the people as Caucasian Tatars or Azerbaijani in order to distinguish them from other Turkic people ref., because historically Russians were used to refer to all Turkic people as Tatars. This is not the only mistake made by Russians and there are several other similar examples. One similar is the Turkestan name:

Annette M. B. Meakin, In Russian Turkestan: a garden of Asia and its people, page 44. Excerpt: On their way southward from Siberia in 1864, the Russians took it, and many writers affirm that, mistaking its name for that of the entire region, they adopted the appellation of "Turkestan" for their new territory. Up to that time, they assure us Khanates of Bokhara, Khiva and Kokand were known by these names alone.

Central Asian review by Central Asian Research Centre (London, England), St. Antony's College (University of Oxford). Soviet Affairs Study Group, Volume 16, page 3. Excerpt: The name Turkestan is of Persian origin and was apparently first used by Persian geographers to describe "the country of the Turks". It was revived by the Russians as a convenient name for the governorate-general created in 1867 and the terms Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and etc. were not used until after 1924.

Come back to the case of Azerbaijan, interestingly the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (Энциклопедический словарь Брокгауза и Ефрона), also note that several scholars have later suggested to change the term in use for some Turko-tatar people for example use Azerbaijani Taras (Iranian by type) see Turko-Tatar article. So as a conclusion, Wikipedia could not be a mirror for presenting historical mistakes. --Wayiran (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Treaty of Turkmenchay. This is an irredentist non-academic fringe concept. In short, this is another case of using Wikipedia for nationalist [WP:SOAP]]ing, by creating articles like this, about mythical nationalist fringe concepts, citing a bunch of blogs, and unreliable non-academic sources, and violating WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Synthesis in the process. Notable Azeri scholar Shireen T. Hunter, of Georgetown University, address this issue in "Iran and Transcuacsia in the Post-Soviet Era", writing in page 106 that "After the Ottoman empire had collapsed, both the Communists and, later, the Azerbaijani nationalists developed the myth of one Azerbaijan divided into a southern and northern part, comparing it to what happened to the two Germanics and to Korea, and using this myth to justify irredentist claims toward Iranian territory." Wikipedia is not WP:NOT#FANSITE to propagate fringe nationalist ideas. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I vote for deletion of this article because it doesn't meet conditions of several policies of Wikipedia, such as WP:NOT, WP:Original research, WP:synthesis, and WP:Fringe. It's clear to me that the author was not even aware of the history of the current Caucasian republic while bringing original opinions to the article. Here I list the opinion of some of famous academic scholars:

Ben Fowkes, Ethnicity and ethnic conflict in the post-communist world (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002) pg 30: In fact, in medieval times the name 'Azarbaijan' was applied not to the area of present independent Azerbaijan but to the lands to the south of Araxes river, now part of Iran. The lands to the north west of the Araxes were known as Albania; the lands to the north east, the heart of present-day post-Soviet Azerbaijan, were known as Sharvan (or Shirwan) and Derbent

(Bert G. Fragner, ‘Soviet Nationalism’: An Ideological Legacy to the Independent Republics of Central Asia ’ in” in Van Schendel, Willem(Editor) . Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. London , GBR: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited, 2001.: In the case of Azerbaijan , there is another irrational assault on sober treatment of history to be witnessed: its denomination. The borders of historical Azerbaijan crossed the Araxcs to the north only in the case of the territory of Nakhichevan . Prior to 1918, even Lenkoran and Astara were perceived as belonging not to Azerbaijan proper but to Talysh, an area closely linked to the Caspian territory of Gilan . Since antiquity, Azerbaijan has been considered as the region centered around Tabriz , Ardabil, Maraghch, Orumiych and Zanjan in today's (and also in historical) Iran . The homonym republic consists of a number of political areas traditionally called Arran . Shirvan, Sheki, Ganjeh and so on. They never belonged to historical Azerbaijan , which dates back to post-Achaemcnid, Alexandrian 'Media Atropatene'. Azerbaijan gained extreme importance under (and after) the Mongol Ilkhanids of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when it was regarded as the heartland of Iran.

Vladimir Minorsky. Caucasica IV. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953), p. 504: The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Alovan-k', or Alvan-k', in Arabic Arran > al-Ran

There is no doubt that the article content is original research and advertisement for pan-nationalists.Reza1615 (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the historical background behind it is flimsy, the idea does exist. Maps published under the auspices of the government of Azerbaijan label areas like Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan" when such a designation has never even existed in the past, let alone the present. The best course might be to discourage the creation of such poorly-sourced articles on Wikipedia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ideology has many supporters not only in Azerbaijan, but in all regions shown in the map, where Azerbaijani people are highly concentrated. It should be noted that, before Azerbaijan gained independence, this idea was also supported by Soviet leadership, especially by Stalin (however he wanted to include Whole Azerbaijan into Soviet Union). --Verman1 (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protrader

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

No Indication of notability, only references are a youtube video and a press release Jac16888 ^Talk 15:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources. Press releases are plentiful however. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 25 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska!

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

There are four articles related to this band, and between the four of them not one single source. Does not appear to be a notable band. Previously nominated four years ago, at which time several supporters came forward to claim they met the notability criteria. (including the nonsensical argument that the presence of the equally obscure Russell Pollard granted notability to this project, his article is hardly evidence of his own notability, let alone this band's.) Oddly, none of them proffered even one source to back that claim, yet the discussion was closed as a keeper. I'd like to think we should have at least one actual reliable source if we are going to have a whole family of articles on this obscure band.

Also nominating the following articles on albums and singles by this band:

Emotions (Alaska! album)
Rescue Through Tomahawk
Kiss You (alaska! single) (former article on a single, currently a redirect to the album's article)

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Maybe you could have searched for sources WP:BEFORE nominating? Coverage includes these: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36].--Michig (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that sure looks like a long list of sources. Let's go through them and see what you've found.

Entries at Allmusic. From [37] "All genres and styles of music are covered here, ranging from the most commercially popular to the most obscure. " So, they intend to cover everything music related. Not evidence of notability.
An album review from Prefix magazine's website. Been looking at their website for a few minutes now and from what I can tell they let all kinds of people write reviews there, not just the actual magazine staff. The one linked here appears to have been written by a guy who reviewed three albums for this website in 2005. Doesn't strike me as evidence of notability to get a review from this website.
An album review on Pitchfork's website. A featured article or a listing on one of their album or song of the year lists might be evidence of notability, but since they review pretty much every single indie rock release a mere review is not really evidence of notability.
And an interview on Spinner. An interview with Pollard based on his participation in the band Everest, not this band, so not sure why it was included here at all but it lends no support whatever to the claim of notability.

I stand by by nomination, this is not evidence of notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is absolute rubbish. Neither Allmusic nor Pitchfork cover every release or even every band, and even if they did that would not discount them as examples of significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The band has also been covered in CMJ New Music Monthly and The Fader (see Google Books) - both print magazines that wouldn't have space to cover every release even in the unlikely event that they wanted to.--Michig (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...and Billboard.--Michig (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and the Dallas Observer.--Michig (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Saint Paul Pioneer Press, Boston Globe, Boston Globe again. Pretty clear notability.--Michig (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Michig's arguments are persuasive. JORGENEV 00:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple pitchfork reviews, allmusic writeups, CMJ, billboard, boston globe and fader coverage. The nominator's comments on the pitchfork & allmusic sources fly in the face of the pages linked in the nominating statement, to the extent that in a functional project s/he would be not be working in this area. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Don't know who Russell Pollard is? HERE'S A READING LIST, a total of 474 hits for his name from the website of Rolling Stone magazine. Alaska! is a Russell Pollard band, ergo it is notable. Carrite (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'OH! That's Robert Pollard, not Russell Pollard. I am a moron. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Regarding the band, the sources listed above establish sufficient coverage such that criterion 1 of WP:BAND is satisfied. The two albums meet WP:NALBUMS as non-trivial coverage exists in multiple independent, reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Michig's sources demonstrate notability, easily. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 09:49, 28 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. Deletion concerns have been addressed. Reliable sources have been found, establishing the subject's notabiliy. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Roecker

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

No evidence of notability has been established since first nomination. Laval (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, specially as during the first nomination in 2008 User:Cirt DID indeed find and offer evidence to establish notability through news coverage, book sources, a couple scholarly book hits, and additional web sources. My guess is this renonimation stems more from the fact that the article was not improved since then. Adressable issues are not a reason to delete, no matter that someone has not yet done it. With respects, and as we DO have sources, if current state is of such a concern, would it not be better to fix the problem rather than bring it to AFD to force it be done by others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't establish notability according to the standards of WP. If they had, after all this time, don't you think someone would bothered to use them? The reason no one hasn't is the fact that they simply do not establish notability for this man, whose article appears more like a promotional PR piece than an encyclopedia article. Please do not forget that despite all the absurd and ridiculous articles on WP (many of which are thankfully disappearing or edited into more serious articles) WP is still an ongoing project to develop a free encyclopedia that is useful and informative. This article adds nothing and whatever scant information is out there about this man is certainly not enough to add in favor of the argument to establish notability for him. In the film and documentary business, even by independent standards, he is still a "no name." He has a long, long way to go before achieving the WP level of "notability." Laval (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sources offered by Cirt that resulted in the last keep do indeed show suitable notability per standards of WP. That no one improved the article, and that the article still needs work, is a more a reason to actually adress improvements proactively, than it is to force cleanup via AFD or demand deletion in its lack. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 25 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As an indpendent film maker his work has been covered in reliable sources. "John Roecker's 'Freaky' Puppet Show" (Washington Post), "Freaky Deaky" (The Advocate), "The Hardest Job in Show Business" (The Advocate), "Manson Claymation Movie" (TMZ). -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... meets WP:CREATIVE. I agree. But we still have the nominator's concern that no one else has fixed up the article to reflect this, and the assumption that because someone else has not done it, that such lack of effort somehow equates to non-notability. Of course, and even if not done within some arbitrary length of time, it is still an addressable issue that does not require deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm working on it now....--Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think he meets GNG and CREATIVE, basic references are in place, and I removed the fancrufty bits. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Meeting the General notability guideline, per: [38], [39]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:58, 26 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Jha (Film Editor)

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

A very strange article,with no references,and a very short new article.It provides insufficient context.That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC) That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 12:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already speedied this one. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 13:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged it - I speedied it... Only one of the name on IMDb, and that one only was assistant director (a non-notable post - there are often quite a few of them on a film) on one film. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 24 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. Nobody objects to the deletion. Sandstein 12:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C:enter:pound, pound, pound

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

There isn't any notability to be found here, this should, in theory, just be redirected to the band Strapping Young Lad, however the name itself needs to go, per this proposal. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to "See colon, enter colon, pound, pound, pound". Technical limitations already prevent the use of "#" in the title, so we may as well spell it all out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm The problem with that is... currently, if someone searches for c:enter:### it will work. Not sure how big a problem that is, and I can understand wanting to rename it. I'm not sure; so this is just a comment. Chzz ► 16:38, 26 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. I'm closing this over-personal disgrace of an AfD as technical non-consensus. If there was ever an argument for not allowing the subject ot contribute or discuss their own article this is the example. I'm blocking her from further editing due to conflict of interest to prevent more of the same DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davina Reichman

AfDs for this article:

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

Overturned speedy deletion. Wearing once an outfit of bubble wrap does not make a person notable. The fashion show has been AfDed as non notable. The dubious notability of the clothing company would not be transferred to its manager. As a side note, the person herself considers the article "non notable"— Racconish^Tk 10:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original article has been incorrectly edited and altered beyond recognition. The facts have been distorted. As a result, this article is no longer correct and now not notable. Do not misquote me, Racconish. Racconish edited Davina Reichman 66 times in 2 days, removing valid sources. The talk page is peppered by rude and insulting comments by ill-mannered editors who should know better than to contravene strict Wikipedia guidelines.

There are now contradictory facts and misleading statements within the Wikipedia article. That is the reason that I requested by email and in writing to the Wikimedia Foundation that the article be deleted, Milowent. You and Racconish have too much time on your hands and your malice is not appreciated.

For instance, kindly note that Luke Staley has never been a founder nor a partner of iClothing. He was an employed as a pattern maker.

Vancouver Sun has since removed the incorrect article about Staley “Have your iPad in hand? Now you need a little black iDress” from their archives. I have email verification from the Senior Editor of the Vancouver Sun, Nicholas A. Palmer, that confirms the following, “The rectification was as I stated: the item has been suppressed in our archive. i.e. it no longer exists.”

Kindly correct this error by removing all reference to Staley in this article.

Racconish tampered with and distorted this article and iClothing on many occasions for no feasible reason into a sheer travesty. Several other editors, including JFHJr, followed suit.

My thanks to Cusop Dingle for a relevant point. Why waste other editors’ time with “frivolous renominations”? It is disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Someone must be paying you to do this, Racconish. There has to be a reason for your irrational bias and bad behaviour. I strongly suspect an ulterior motive and believe it to be COI. The solution would be to bubble wrap your evil digits and mendacious mouth.

Davina.R (talk) 03:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Davina.R Davina.R (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

I realize it must be very unpleasant to see other people discussing your notability (which is one of the reasons why writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged). Please bear in mind the word 'notability' is used here in a very technical way as meaning 'coverage of the person itself by reliable sources'. I don't think I have misquoted you... but now I am confused. Do you still want the article deleted, as you say you asked in writing to the Wikimedia foundation, or do you simply want it modified to meet your expectation? Concerning the Vancouver Sun, I am not sure I understand and follow you. First, if a correction needs to be made, it is generally published. Correcting an information by withdrawing it from an archive would not be a normal procedure. Then, the Vancouver Sun moves all its archives from the free site to a pay site after 30 days. Finally, I did find the article on Proquest, which means it has not been withdrawn. In any case, if some of the scarce generally reliable sources available on the subject would eventually prove unreliable, it would further demonstrate such lack of reliable sources.— Racconish^Tk 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least try to stop lying, Racconish? You found the original article about Luke Staley on the Vancouver Sun site. As you are well aware, Proquest is just a database and is of no consequence. If you take the time and trouble to search for the article currently in Vancouver Sun records, you would find that it is non-existent and does not appear even in the archives, where it would have been retained ad infinitum. Do not pretend that you incapable of comprehension. Fix your error regarding Luke Staley and stop your incessant babbling. Kindly use the bubble wrap around your mouth, as suggested. Davina.R (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

Kindly refrain from such detracting comments. As I said, I found the Vancouver Sun article on Proquest. I actually provided in the article's citation, together with a full quote, the Proquest reference, 2049290071. I found here the Vancouver Sun provides free access to articles only for 30 days. Your statement is slightly self contradictory: if I would have found the article on the web site of the Vancouver Sun, as you say, then it would not have been deleted, as you claim. Not sure what you mean by "just a database [...] of no consequence". — Racconish^Tk 09:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you deleted from the article the references to the Vancouver Sun and Revista Cambio, another fully cited reliable source. What about the latter? Did you also contact them to request deletion from archives? I find it disturbing an editor with such an obvious conflict of interest as yourself deletes references to reliable sources without prior consensus in the middle of an AfD. In any case, (1) the claim on founding iClothing is not supported by any reliable sources at this point and (2) the removal of sources, justified or not, is not an argument for "keep". Is this a further indication you do not wish to see the article kept?— Racconish^Tk 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was too busy being furious at you for lying to notice that source “Vestirse con iPad también se puso de moda”. If it pleases you, put that reference back in. Davina.R (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

Are you aware the Vancouver Sun and Cambio say the same?— Racconish^Tk 20:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - possibly borderline notable, but subject has requested deletion. Certainly should be deleted. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the drama continues, I see! I wondered how the hell this got deleted as a part of the fashion show AfD, so I'm not surprised to see it got restored as an improper deletion. And now Davina herself, apparently nonplussed at the fact that how she wanted the article to read did not work, wants it deleted? Delicious! I can only hope that Davina's "concerned friend" Olivia chimes in. May the drama continue for the full seven days, at which point, we will either have a deletion or no consensus close. The subject is borderline notable at best.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Man, this made me laugh so hard, a bit of wee came out! O_o Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]}

Note, only now did I notice Davina's mention of me in her above statement. Anybody who edits Wikipedia arguably has too much misspent time on their hands, however I have no malice here. In fact I !voted Weak Keep on the first AfD. But I cannot ignore the COI issues with the article, either.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find sufficient evidence of notability to justify this article though I would not normally be bothering to argue "delete". However, if the subject is requesting deletion of the article then I am sure the "borderline notability" test should allow her wishes to be met. This whole matter has wasted a lot of time, including at DRV[40] but that was to do with the manner of speedy deletion rather than the contents of the article. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment- for some reason the afd is not properly linked to the article in question. Can someone fix that? I would, but have no idea how. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Just had to put "?action=purge" in the URL box and reload. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question what has changed in the 7 weeks since the last AFD? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least this: the article on the fashion show has been considered non notable at AFD, many self published sources have been removed and Davina Reichman herself has requested the deletion of the article. We are left with 2 claims to notability, wearing once a bubble wrap outfit and managing iClothing, and a lack specific treatment by reliable sources. — Racconish^Tk 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to justify reopening the discussion so soon. The notability of another subject is only marginal for the notability of this one; notability is determined by whether sources exist, not whether they are in the article; and the subject's own views are irrelevant. The question is, does this person have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Seven weeks ago there was no consensus against that, so again I ask, why would that have changed? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant treatment of the person.— Racconish^Tk 20:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be answering the question, which was "what has changed in the 7 weeks since the last AFD". Are you saying that there were sources 7 weeks ago but there are none now? Or are you just saying that the previous decision was wrong and you would like another bite at the cherry? Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly please focus on the article, not me as an editor.

I stated the reasons of my re-nomination and answered your first question. In any case, as long as there was no consensus the 1st time, it is legitimate to re-list. But in this case, there were also new elements which I have indicated. Also, I did not participate in the 1st discussion.

I think your second question is more relevant here. The scarce sources deal with (a) the bubble wrap outfit, (b) the fashion show, and (c) iClothing. (a) is a non-notable single event. (b) has been deemed here non-notable. Now what about (c)?

I argue that (1) should iClothing be notable, its notability would not be inherited by Davina Reichman, i.e. the notability of the company would not imply the notability of the person, in the absence of significant coverage of the person herself; and (2) iClothing's small coverage in the press was only in the wake of the launch of the Ipad (again, single event). There has not been anything since, and there is no more reason, at this point, to have an article on iClothing than on all the small companies having created an accessory for the Ipad.— Racconish^Tk 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am focussing on the reason for bringing forward a second AFD within a short period of the first when, as I pointed out, rather little of relevance seems to have changed. Per WP:NOTAGAIN, "Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"... especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination".— Racconish^Tk 22:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind expanding a bit on the significant coverage? — Racconish^Tk 22:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are, for example, a number of articles in reliable newspapers about this person, as no doubt you found WP:BEFORE launching the discussion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The various sources have been discussed on the talk page of the article. Only those currently in the article have been considered reliable and they don't significantly cover the person. Which one(s) do you consider significant? — Racconish^Tk 22:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the only sources you know of are those in the article, then I suggest you have not been looking hard enough. If you think that means that there cannot possibly be any sources in the entire world other than those you already know about, then there is clearly no point in continuing the discussion. You think there is not signficant coverage, I do. There doesn't seem much more to say -- let's let someone else comment. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like lots of sources. Granted notability of a topic is determined by sources being available, and not by sources being present in an article about that topic, but it's not a reason to simply assert their existence.— Racconish^Tk 22:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. While Cusop correctly points out that we're not limited to what's currently in the article, the talk page provides a thorough discussion of why several previously offered sources failed on WP:RS or substantial coverage. If there's something else out there, show it to us. And need not refer to WP:NOTAGAIN because 1) there was no consensus to keep – the AfD resulted in no consensus; and 2) the biggest open question from the last AfD was whether this subject WP:INHERITs any notability from her fashion show or her clothing line. In this case, I don't think the collective reliable coverage of Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show and iClothing supports notability for their founder, even if it could be WP:INHERITed, since neither the event nor the clothing is notable per WP:GNG. It's perfectly alright for a BLP to contain non-notable content about otherwise notable people. But if the article contains only non-notable information, no matter how well it's cited, the subject still fails WP:BASIC requirements. JFHJr (㊟) 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: - I'd like to vote Delete, but having been the admin that had his "out of process" speedy deletion overturned by DR, I'm probably obliged to have my vote discounted. I did however seek a second opinion on the admin's IRC channel and User:Worm That Turned concurred with my grounds for deletion. Essentially, the continued existence of the talk pages associated with this article is obviously causing undue distress to Davina, and trying to delete the article quietly was an attempt on my part to reduce the self-perpetuating Google papertrail. We're trying to be an encyclopaedia, not a gossip rag and if Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show and iClothing both fail the notability guidelines, then what's left that can be said to deem Davina notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. It simply doesn't improve Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. -- Netsnipe ► 03:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think what I actually said was that it was wholly out of process and shouldn't have been deleted like that, but it was the right outcome based on what I'd read and so I wasn't going to complain. As Netsnipe points out, this page has backfired horribly for Davina, it's not the first time this has happened, and it's something we should be trying to avoid on Wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I won't speculate at motivations of nominator and JFHJr, but their behaviour, after the first deletion nomination failed, has been to attempt to delete the content of the article one section and reference at a time, until now, when they apparently think they've got enough to take another bite at the apple. I especially liked their going to WP:RSN where one of them asked - hey, is Tangent magazine notable? The other then answered - no, it isn't. They then declared the discussion closed, and deleted the source from the article. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_108#Tangent_Magazine. If this is how they cut down the rest of the article to the state it is now, then Ms. Reichman's frustration is clearly understandable. --GRuban (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not noticing you had reopened the discussion at WP:RSN 4 days after I had marked it as closed. Too bad you did not express your point of view at the talk page of the article. Though I originally added myself Tangent as a source to the article, I still consider it unreliable, after more careful examination and the discussion at RSN. — Racconish^Tk 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith removal of content that violates or falls short of BLP policies and guidelines, including WP:RS, and discussed at the article talk page, is no reason raise a specter of bias or improper motive. JFHJr (㊟) 07:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my keep opinion. I still think she's notable, and we could have rewritten the article to satisfy (more or less) everyone, but she doesn't want the hassle. Given that, I can't argue to torture her further while we debate. --GRuban (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There lacks significant coverage about her to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. I did find this local coverage. Taken with the other mentions of her, it is still falls short. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some concern was expressed at the Afd of Being Born Again Couture Fashion show on this source written by an intern, announcing the launch of a label which is not confirmed ex post by reliable sources.— Racconish^Tk 17:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being written by an intern shouldn't be a huge problem as I would still expect editorial oversight on the intern's work. However, it is still coverage in local press, and I'm not putting a lot of weight to that article towards establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage? 5 countries! Colombia [41]; United States Wall Street Journal, no less) [42]; United Kingdom [43]; Vancouver Sun (as above); and of course lots in Australia. --GRuban (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article you found from El Tiempo seems to be the same as the one I had found from Cambio. In as far as presenting DR as manager of iClothing, it confirms the Vancouver Sun and contradicts the WSJ blog and the Drum, who present her as iClothing's designer.— Racconish^Tk 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be a reasonable amount of notability for a modern artist/designer and fashion show producer. I agree with most of what GRuban has said above. Article has perhaps a bit severely, been pretty much pulled to pieces by User:Racconish who has a stated conflict of interest in the fashion topic field with his real life association to Charvet Place Vendôme, but no evidence has been produced to suggest there is some connection between that COI and his editing of this BLP. Youreallycan (talk) previously Off2riorob - 21:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – notability is dubious. Despite long running attempts to reduce bias, control COI, etc, sources remain thin, article lacks any biographical background of interest (childhood/education/career/etc) and has a few scrappy lines on events/businesses giving it a more resumé like appearance than a BLP. Those events/business wiki pages were also deleted, preventing merge, so it's questionable whether they carry any reasonable weight here, combined. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dare say that's because of the efforts of our two nominators (this one and the past nom) deleting everything that isn't nailed down, specifically to get that reaction. Here's what the article could and should look like: http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Davina_Reichman: Thoroughly cited and if not ample, at least sufficient on education and career. --GRuban (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For some editors, it is simply a game they play because they have too much spare time on their hands. The prize of becoming an admin or a steward in the Wikimedia Foundation is just a massive ego trip. You do not have to be a detective to deduce that Racconish has a hidden agenda and COI. He has vandalised and ripped the article to shreds. I strongly suspect that Racconish actually an alias for Stephanie, the plump and lazy girl who was employed by me. She was fired, as she did no actual work and sat editing Wikipedia the whole day.

On Racconish’s talkpage, JFHJr says “The image crop you did for iClothing evoked a most chortleworthy comment from Davina herself.” and gave her a beer. The photo is a trademarked image posed by 2 professional models wearing the iDress & iTee. Racconish labelled them incorrectly and then decapitated them. It is this vindictive behaviour which disgusts the other editors.

I am taken aback at the Wikipedia process of re-nominating a deleted article, allowing editors to chime in with their malicious remarks “Delicious!”, quoting Milowent.

Racconish and JFHJr tag team their revolting repertoire while Milowment buts in. They behave like little giggling schoolgirls and deserve each other. I have nothing to hide and am not a coward, that is why I use my own name JFHJr instead of hiding behind a pseudonym. Stop your rude remarks Ma®©usBritish and do not call me "creepy" – I looked at your profile photo and retched a total of 20 times^{[example needed]} - it is you who are “creepy”, nauseating and unattractive.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Racconish persists in editing the article about me. The latest edit was on 25 November 2011‎ and cited “which manufactures[citation needed]“. Does iClothing magically acquire the clothing out of thin air? iClothing is “heralded as the world’s first iPad compatible clothes” by the Sydney Morning Herald [Lunn, Jacqueline, "Style: Talking Shop", Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Style section, pg 2, 2 June 2010]. iClothing featured in Gizmodo ["Give yourself rock hard abs of iPad with iClothing", Gizmodo, 24 May 2010] and CNN ["Introducing iPad-ready clothes for people with a 'digital lifestyle'", CNN, 24 May 2010] but Racconish failed to mention that in her efforts to destroy all legitimisation.

Racconish discredits Fashion.maga-zine, (in which I had the privilege of appearing twice), citing that Lawson writes for another publication which is insignificant and hence Fashion.maga-zine is non-noteworthy. How silly.

Racconish is an untruthful person with poor social skills and may not have any effective strategies in her repertoire other than bullying, to meet her needs. JFHJr follows slavishly. There is an imbalance of power that makes this ill treatment possible, whilst this repeated oppression is used to intimidate and dominate. Bullies get their satisfaction by invoking fear into a more vulnerable person and this is acutely disturbing to the victim.

Everyone should be treated with respect and fairness in a safe, harassment-free environment where bullying is discouraged, addressed and dealt with quietly and effectively within Wikipedia.

I agree with what GRuban, Netsnipe and Youreallycan previously Off2riorob said, however I do not want nor need this vandalising and atrocious behaviour from Racconish and her cronies.

There is no way to please a bully and I refuse to be a victim. The article has been edited and distorted, removing legitimate sources. Many of the facts are now incorrect. That is the reason I want this article to be deleted.

Davina.R (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Davina.R[reply]

I beg to differ: (a) The fact iClothing sells clothing does not imply it manufactures them, particularly if it "acquires" them. A reference is therefore needed for "manufactures". (b) This image's license authorizes anyone to modify it. As explained here, cropping it allowed to "avoid issues on identity of wearer" and focus on the clothing. I felt uncomfortable at raising a protest on Davina. R personal attacks at a time when I thought she should be allowed to express herself on the deletion of her biography, but some moderation would be welcome. Back to our discussion, I see the "keep" arguments hereabove derivating from an alleged notability of a company, iClothing, not a person, Davina Reichman.— Racconish^Tk 11:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC) My point on Lena Lawson was not that she writes somewhere else but that she is not independent from the subject, having worked as a "manager of modeling promotions for a well known Australian brand". Fashion maga-zine self description as doing "content-management" and "online marketing" seems to me to fall short of what is expected of a reliable source. Removing such sources is a recommended practice per WP:GRAPEVINE.— Racconish^Tk 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a different and more reasonable argument; however, I think there is a bit more to Reichman than just the company - the fashion show, and, yes, the bubble wrap bit. Each, though not sufficient in themselves, are a fine supporting item in the larger biography article. Neither would fit in an article on the iClothing company. Note that 2 (and a half) of the "delete" commenters in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Being_Born_Again_Couture_Fashion_Show_(2nd_nomination) are asking that be redirected here. The "half" bit is because the third is User:JFHJr who is now here asking that this be deleted as well, per the classic "death of a thousand cuts" method. --GRuban (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, the Wikifashion article is definitely not what the article here should look like. Several cites used in fact do not refer to the facts they are supposed to underpin, and it's replete with other severe problems from COI and OR to lots of SPS (including Black Tie Magazine where Davina is an editor). Have you tried to check out any of the claims on that page? The WP:LOTSOFSOURCES doesn't hold true. Have you checked out the article history? Davina is the one who wrote it! Under at least two names! Just like here, that article was written by the subject to promote herself, except here we have WP:BLP, WP:PROUD, and WP:NOTYOU. Again, plenty of non-notable information can come into an article about an otherwise notable person (education, childhood, etc), simply because someone somewhere published it, but restricting ourselves to reliable sources is not an option, and an article with WP:LOTSOFSOURCES but without substantial coverage by many such sources doesn't pass WP:GNG. Her ventures in non-notability cannot help her inherit it. JFHJr (㊟) 17:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Business must be good, if the "real" and super-notable Davina R. has so much free time on her hands to comment here daily! I mean, yeah.. I have 30 pairs of iPants on order for each of my friends for Xmas! Not. Petty girl. "There is no way to please a bully..." – sure there is, we just need to bow down to your demands to recreate the commercialised version of this "biography" and let Dom administer it. Maybe throw in a few affiliate links while you're at it so you can, not only insult the integrity of Wikipedians with your COI-based slurs, but gain a few bucks too. Needless to say, your rant above is so childish, it's no wonder you have trouble pursuing a more notable career. As for retching 20 times – what causes that? Bulimia? Tip: Hyperbole is only worth using when it makes sense. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too much of a drama factory to be deleted. It has also been vandalised and messed with too much, AFD should only be used when the article is in the best state possible. Allow editors to fix it up then nominate again in the future if need be.--Otterathome (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the best state possible, with improper sources and unsourced claims gone (WP:BLP), not that it's at all relevant for AfD. At AfD, you're supposed to discuss whether and how the subject passes WP:BASIC requirements, and you're not constrained to the current content of the article. So what guidelines and particular sources do you base your keep vote on? I can't find any. JFHJr (㊟) 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some reliable sources had been found (Vancouver Sun, Cambio, The Australian) and were removed by an editor close to Davina Reichman and later by Davina Reichman herself. When the Australian writes the Born Again show is not the sole creation of Davina Reichman and co-credits Emily Fitzgerald, a suspicion of nepotism is thrown in. When the Vancouver Sun and Cambio mention the real designer od iClothing, Luke Staley, the references are deleted. BTW, the article in Wikifashion does not name any of these 2. How comes? If reliable sources justify an article on Davina Reichman, then why not her associates? If they are deemed good for her, I guess they are good for them too.— Racconish^Tk 20:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like other stuff exists. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the exact opposite.— Racconish^Tk 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otter's !vote is not serious and should be discounted. He got quite upset about 2 years ago when a series of his deletion nominations failed at AFD, and thus now takes quirky positions from time to time that everything flimsy must now be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the arguments for or against deletion, not on the editor. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSFUNNY.— Racconish^Tk 13:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my comment was about the argument for keeping, in that it is spurious.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please would everyone remember what this page is for -- it is a discussion on whether or not to keep the article Davina Reichman. It is not the place to discuss the person or her businesses; it is not the place to discuss other articles; it is not the place to accuse other editors of misconduct; it is not the place to pursue personal vendettas arising on- or off-wiki. It would be a good idea if much of the verbiage were redacted or deleted by the authors. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to (partially) disagree: It is the place to discuss Davina Reichman. And iClothing for inherited notability . And possibly also iPad accessories.— Racconish^Tk 21:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These do not seem relevant to the question under discussion, and the only purpose of this page, namely, should this article be kept or deleted. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question It has been suggested that this article be deleted because the subject does not want it to be kept. Is there a policy or consensus decision somewhere that this is a valid reason for deletion? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPDEL refers to deletion requested by the subject. — Racconish^Tk 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page does not state that requests by the subject are a valid reason for deletion. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DPR: "Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy." Same shorter at WP:DELAFD.— Racconish^Tk 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:BLPDEL wasn't relevant after all. These are guidelines on how to close after the discussion: they are not policies stating that the subject's views are valid reasons for deletion. The guidelines state that the subject's views may be taken into account after the discussion if there is no consensus to keep. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing but trying to help answer the question you asked.— Racconish^Tk 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the executive summary of this answer would be "no". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelming exceptions might not be appropriate in such situations.— Racconish^Tk 07:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Off2RioRob. Seems to meet GNG; the rest means it needs fixing through normal editing, not deletion. Chzz ► 10:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are now misleading, contradictory statements of facts within the Wikipedia article. Many of the reliable sources eg fashion.maga-zine.com and Wall Street Journal have been removed. OliviaBlond (talk) 10:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)OliviaBlond — OliviaBlond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

OMG, Olivia has appeared! Despite her status as "Davina's concerned friend. My bête noire is when people dispute and disrupt notable articles," she has also argued for deletion! Olivia is a sock or sock-friend of Davina. When someone is very marginal and requests deletion of their own article which they have monkeyed with, I thought we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage was found in reliable sources last time around. The last AFD was last month. Then someone improperly tried to do a speedy delete this month, which was quickly overturned. If you are going to repeat the same AFD a month after the first, which honestly should not even be allowed, then please contact those who participated last time. Can someone make a bot for that? Dream Focus 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No, there was no consensus as to significant coverage in reliable sources about Davina Reichman. If you were correct, there would have been a consensus to keep. And if you had a look at the article's talk page, you'd see several sources that were named last time don't truly pass muster as reliable. So can you point to significant reliable coverage from multiple sources this time? You seem to be arguing WP:NOTAGAIN. JFHJr (㊟) 18:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You insisted the sources were not valid during that AFD, arguing with others who felt otherwise. You did not convince many of us. Nothing has changed. Repeating your claims on the talk page that you made in the first AFD, doesn't suddenly change everyone's opinions about them. There was no reason to just repeat this discussion again because some didn't get the results they wanted the first time around. Dream Focus 22:03, 30 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 as a hoax. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashcroft 890

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

No indication of notability, no references, fails WP:GNG. Google search displays only three results. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 07:55, 24 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 Requires Centralised discussion for where to merge/delete material. Firstly, can some kind soul with time on their hands remove the tags from these article, then can someone open a discussion somewhere reasonably central to catagarise the articles into those which are sourced, those which are libale to merge/smerge and the targets and those that need to be burned with first. Any copyvios should be csd tagged as such with a link/explanation of the vio. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all remaining AFD tags from the listed articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 07:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlands

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

Large series of uncited works in inappropriate tone of such suspected little notability that they are unciteable to an appropriate standard Fifelfoo (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from talk pages suggests mass copyvios too. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest people investigate the people involved with the Made for TV movie and their other works for notability/AFD too. After 2 degrees of Deathlands, I began to experience fatigue, and felt that the non-notable elements were too far removed from the "Deathlands" fancruft notability problem to include in this AFD. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that these be salted. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons: uncitable fancruft, years without citations, inappropriate tone, lack of notability:

Category cruft

Novels

Related series Outlanders

Authors without notability

In universe cruft

Made for TV Movie and Actors portraying in universe cruft w/o notability

Images lacking a copyright purpose

All images of novel covers &tc following the above, as no copyright exemption purpose would exist

Associated redirects &tc.

I am happy to remove from the deletion list items that can be demonstrated by citation of reliable secondary sources to meet the notability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as proposer. We are not the marketing arm of Harlequin. This AFD has indicated that there are some serious problems in genre novels, in this cast post-apoc, that ought to come before AFD. I was only pursuing the issue that a history book of little consequence had an article when it shouldn't, when I came across this mess. My normal areas of editing are source reviewing and social science / history. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete book articles that meet nom's stated criteria - much of it blatant publicity with no attempt at citing anything (WP:ADV), but we need to check each item on its own merits. Actually it might even be notable for being awful, the longest series of the most cliché-ridden guff ever attempted, perhaps. It'll have quite a few long series of utter fluff to contend with, mind you. But I hardly think that was the author's intent in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~:: and that goes for all the related articles listed above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

On reading the discussion below, I agree that the proposal is too sweeping. We need to be sure (as if each item was up for AfD separately) that deletion is the right choice for each article. I suspect that it applies well to the books, doubt if true for the other items where separate AfDs would be preferable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup There's undoubtedly a mess here, but the encyclopedic way to fix it is almost certainly not through deleting everything at once. This is one of those times where a collaborative, editing-based approach would probably result in a much smaller set of encyclopedic articles. The large number of nominations here makes it impossible to sensibly clean things up within the week. Jclemens (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reliable sources—currently there are none in the mess above. None. Robert A. Collins, Robert Latham 1990 Science fiction & fantasy book review annual names it in a one sentence criticism of a sub-genre. There seem to be no reliable online reviews, appreciations or receptions of the work. The books fail Wikipedia:Notability (books) and the "fandom" is not the subject of any reporting. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first name I clicked on in the list is the film editor and director Joshua Butler. I found reviews of one of his projects in various reliable sources, check the article. He might be notable or not, but it definitely deserves a stand alone discussion, you can't mix various vaguely related pages in one big nomination. Btw, could you specify the copyright concerns, please? From where is the information copied? I can't find any direct links in the {{Plot2}} template placed on talk pages. It looks that someone else made clean up a long time ago, and since that time the articles have taken various shapes. Again, this is difficult to consider generally. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all now and relist seperately only those that diligent WP:BEFORE shows lack notability. I see that this mass nomination of 52 article seeks to delete and salt all 52 related articles even when some of those listed do indeed have independent notability suitable for inclusion. And the Find sources offered above requires expansion so that each seperate topic listed might itself be evaluated onits own merits, rather than set up an AFD were we toss and salt all if one proves non-notable. That's not how we determine notability, and we do not overburden the good fiath efforts of editors by demanding they prove notability for all or loose all. We instead evalauate each topic on its own merits, seperately. Just as User:Vejvančický notes, there ARE notable topics within this list of 52. An AFD is not to be a delete all or delete none discussion. I acknowledge the nominator stating above that he's willing to remove from consideration those that are individually established as notable... but the deed of mass nomination is done., and the determination of individual notability for the 52 individual topics is now up tp other editors and not the nominator. The evaluation of discussion on any individual notability for the individual topics listed is better left to individual discussions, else a closer might visit here and read something like Keep A, B, D, F, G, K.,M and Delete C, E, H, I, J, L, N, O, P... etc. Again and with respects, this situation is a result of a mass nomination and the then-expected evaluation of 52 differently searchable topics at the same time... some books, some fictional elements, some BLPs, some films.... all of which use slightly different criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
1. By way of example, one of the dozens of topics listed above is the film Deathlands: Homeward Bound. Even the most minimal of WP:BEFORE shows that even this one film has numerous of sources available showing its notability,[44][45] and it was not the least bit difficult to find that it has received comentary and review by sources considered appropriate for its genre. I was able to take the unsourced article that was nominated[46] and begin cleaning it up and sourcing it to make it more suitable per MOS,[47]... an addresable issue. We do not delete notable topics that require only a little diligence and attention... and an article lacking sources is a reason to add them, and not to call for deletion of dozens at one time simply because it had not yet been done by someone else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. And yet another example of (sorry, but seems true) lack of due diligence in the nominator's wish to remove ALL Deathlands-related topics from Wikipedia, I just looked at actor Vincent Spano. The article shows his prolific career having significant roles in multiple of multiples notable productions, meets WP:ENT with a bullet, and coverage since 1979 in over one thousand G-News results, dozens upon dozens being more-the-trivial, exceeds the instructions offered at WP:GNG. A mass nomination, based upon easily addressable issues, is not in the best interest of the project. Is it that a point was to be made that these articles needed work? No need to nominate all just to make that point. We improve notable topics over time and through regular editing, and THAT is the solution that does not require a mass nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. And yet one more example is Jenya Lano, an actress whose career easily meets WP:ENT and whose works are verifiable through numerous book and news sources We fix such improvable articles. We do not delete them because ONE of an actor's many projects happened to be a Deathlands one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All These should be brought up one at a time and properly discussed. Just as we are not a branch of Harliquin marketing, we are not a branch of anti-Harliquin marketing. Fifty-two in a bunch and salt each? I really have to wonder if AGF is appropriate here. htom (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss them in smaller batches. Nominating 52 in one go makes it impossible for editors to sort the cruft from useful articles. --Xijky (talk) 10:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no opinion on the notability of the books, but I addressed the copyright problems referenced at the talk pages. These were a standard issue of somebody copying summaries of the books from previously published sources. I believe they have all been addressed but if they have not been they can generally be excised without requiring removal of the article, unless there is no text remaining. I would tend to agree, for what it's worth, that the use of images in the primary article does not conform to WP:NFC. The covers are not being used as the "fair use rationale" asserts, but as with File:Cannibal Moon Deathlands Book Cover.jpg to illustrate the character depicted on the cover. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Legitimate and popular franchise with valid reasons for articles. -- Evans1982 (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few of the listed articles are quite possibly non-notable. The majority, however, can be fairly easily referenced and packaging this many articles together in a single nomination is not useful toward actually separating the bad ones from the rest. Silver seren^C 04:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A mass nom should be always avoided, and here some noms like Vincent Spano are exceptionally and "spectacularly" bad... I suggest to read and apply Wp:BEFORE next time.--Cavarrone (talk) 09:58, 28 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.

(and associated pages)

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Shenzhen anti-police riot

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

This is a news story. It belongs to Wikinews. If it deserves a standalone article here to pass general notability guidelines, then it must display some sort of long-term significance. This event was a one-off thing. It does not have long term significance. The dust has settled on this event three years after it happened and we can say that confidently now. Colipon+(Talk) 01:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 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, ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is passing WP:GNG per just the current references in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many people have to be involved in a riot to make it notable? I read other Chinese riot articles which usually involve something far more substantial than this. [48] says "By 5pm, more than 400 people had gathered at the police detachment with more than 2,000 others watching nearby." It also says its in a city of "more than 8 million people". So that doesn't seem like a lot. It didn't last long, and not a lot happened. Dream Focus 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article references long-term consequences, a hallmark of history rather than merely news. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 29 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 Wiktionary. Moved to fire in anger. m.o.p 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fire in anger

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

It's simply a phrase definition. I'm also dubious about its classification as military terminology. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- saberwyn 10:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- saberwyn 10:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It belongs more to Wikictionary than here. McMarcoP (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move content to Wiktionary and redirect. However do not delete, as there are multiple articles linked to this title and having a valid target for this information is beneficial and for those who aren't military experts. France3470 (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article, recreate as desired as wiktionary entry.GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move content and redirect as per France3470. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bare dictionary definition. NB: Maintaining the namespace to preserve links and provide readers with a definition is ALSO counter to policy. In addition to not being a dictionary, Wikipedia does not provide in-article links to a dictionary. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Soft redirect and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Pointers to Wiktionary: "A template can be used to point to a Wiktionary entry from a Wikipedia article which has encyclopedic content". Although apparently not the standard approach, such a pointer would be a net benefit in this case because it is a term being used as a bit of military jargon in multiple articles without being explained. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Other projects also suggests that "Articles that can never be anything other than a dictionary article ("dicdef") should preferably be merged and redirected (within Wikipedia)" but if there is no likely target (as is the case here), they can be made into a "a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry using the template {{wi}}". Doesn't seem to contradict policy to me. France3470 (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a Wikipedia article, but please recreate as a Wiktionary entry. I just read this expression in a book a few minutes ago and had no clue of its meaning (English being my 3rd language, and not knowing that much of military terminology in any language anyway). My paper dictionary doesn't know about it. For once, Wiktionary wasn't helpful either. Googling resulted in tons of links where this is used and no definition in the first few pages... Quite frustrating! Fortunately, I found a Wikipedia page pointing to this one so now I know what it means. As I just had this experience, I felt it was my duty to share it in this deletion proposal discussion. Based on what I know of the Wikipedia rules, I do fully agree with the 'delete' proposal. It would however be really really nice to have an entry created in the Wiktionary for this. Thanks! 195.218.4.157 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Soft-redirect is an appropriate way to link between Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Since some users report that having a dictionary definition helps them understand some encyclopedia entries, soft-redirect to Wiktionary would seem to be a good solution in this case. Cnilep (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move content and redirect as per France3470. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.54.159 (talk) 05:24, 30 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. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Mexican drug gang attack twitter hoax

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

The article is a violation of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOT#NEWS. $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 05:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major event with international coverage and lasting consequences, notable for the damage caused (26 car accidents have been attributed to the panic) and extraordinary nature of the charges (30 years for making a tweet), protests against the charges and the resulting changes in the laws.
- "Twitteros presos en Veracruz por 'terrorismo'". El Economista, 30 August 2011.
- Rodrigo Soberanes. "Auto de formal prisión por terrorismo a 2 usuarios de Twitter en Veracruz". CNN en Español, 31 August 2011.
- Daniel Hernandez. "Terrorism charges for 2 in Mexico who spread attack rumor on Twitter, Facebook". Los Angeles Times, 1 September 2011.
- "Mexicans Face Terror Charges for Internet Postings". Fox News, 1 September 2011.
- "'Twitter terrorists' face 30 years after being charged in Mexico". The Guardian, 4 September 2011.
- Mark Stevenson. "2 Mexicans deny terrorism, face 30 years for tweet". Houston Chronicle, 4 September 2011.
- Dean Wilson. "Two Mexicans face up to 30 years in prison for 'terrorist' tweets". The Inquirer, 5 September 2011.
- Dan Walker Smith. "Mexico’s ‘Twitter Terrorists’ Face 30 Years’ Jail Pair On Trial for Inciting Mass Panic". AdWeek, 5 September 2011.
- "Twitter Terrorists' Face 30 Years After Being Accused of Spreading False Reports". Fox News, 6 September 2011.
- James Bosworth. "Activists rush to defend Mexico's Twitter 'terrorists'". Christian Science Monitor, 6 September 2011.
- "Mexico 'Twitter terrorism' breaches civil rights: lawyer". MSNBC, 6 September 2011.
- Julian Miglierini. "Mexico 'Twitter terrorism' charges cause uproar". BBC, 6 September 2011.
- Leslie Horn. "Twitter Users in Mexico Accused of Terrorism for Spreading Rumors of Attack". PC Magazine, 7 September 2011
- Catherine E. Shoichet. "Mexico's Twitter 'terrorism' case sparks controversy". CNN, 7 September 2011.
- "Twitter Terrorism in Mexico". 'Al Jazeera, 7 September 2011.
- Dan Goodin. "Twitter users charged with terrorism for false tweets". The Register, 7 September 2011.
- Ian Gordon. "Mexican "Twitter Terrorists" Could Face 30 Years in Prison". Mother Jones, 9 September 2011.
- Daniel Hernandez. "Veracruz proposes lesser charges for Twitter terrorism suspects". Los Angeles Times, 13 September 2011.
- Julio Argumedo and Rodrigo Soberanes. "New law could lessen sentence in Mexico Twitter 'terrorism' case". CNN, 20 September 2011.
- "Twitter 'terror' charges dropped in eastern Mexico". CNN, 21 September 2011.
- Tracy Wilkinson. "'Twitter terrorists' freed in Mexico, charges dropped". Los Angeles Times, 21 September 2011.
- Patrick Rucker. "Mexico "Twitter terrorists" freed: attorney". Yahoo! News, 21 September 2011.
- "'Twitter-террористов' из Мексики выпустили на свободу". Lenta.Ru, 22 September 2011.
- "MEXICO: GEEN AANKLACHT WEGENS BERICHTEN OP SOCIALE NETWERKEN". Amnesty International, 25 October 2011.
- "Cómo volverte estrella de la política en Twitter (con un solo tuit)". ADBPolitico, 14 November 2011.

JORGENEV 13:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly passing WP:GNG, per the extensive list of reliable sources posted by User:Jorgenev above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage continued for months after it happened. SL93 (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable event. First time something like that has ever happened. People abandoning their cars in the middle of the road to rush to the school, everyone in the city hysterical, all because two people on twitter. Dream Focus 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No more or less notable than the Jesus with erection article. Sufficient third party coverage exists for both, and I have !voted accordingly. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lots of secondary source coverage from multiple reliable sources. — Cirt (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of All My Children characters. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Montgomery

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

This fictional character does not meet WP:GNG. His storylines are not significant, his relationships with others are not significant, and even he himself is not significant to the show All My Children. List of All My Children characters mentions only his biological and/or legal relations to other people, such as Bianca Montgomery; there has not been one significant storyline in that entry. I don't think any articles of other characters mention him either at all or very much. Lily Montgomery used to mention him, but it is now gone per AfD. No news publications have mentioned this character at all; even soap opera periodicals have not covered this character at all. When someone like DGG claims significance of this character, I want examples and periodical sources, reliable or not, inserted in this discussion before article improvements have been made. —George Ho (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of All My Children characters. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, with the stipulation that at least one full paragraph of content be preserved. The problem I have with merging for fiction characters is the tendency of the people who think the content altogether inappropriate at Wikipedia to reduce a merge to a sentence, remove a sentence to a list of names, and then to argue that if it;s just a list of names there's no real content. (Yes, though I do not consider articles on minor characters like this appropriate, I do consider information on them appropriate in some fashion--in my case, not because I'm a fan of such series:n point of fact, I almost never watch them, cannot recall ever having watched this one, know about it only what I read in Wikipedia--and everything I've read has convinced me further that I I was right in never bothering with them. Rather, it's because I'm not, and therefore need to know something of the subject if I see an allusion to them in something I am reading. I find in reading the Wikipedia articles, that the best way of understanding them is not just the episode by episode summary, but the discussion of the events around each particular character. It's in a sense duplicative, but really, it's just reorganizing the material in an alternate fashion. The decision at Lily Montgomery was unfortunate. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 25 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Assassin

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

Non-notable book, does not meet any criteria at WP:BOOK Buggie111 (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, non-notable, and not a well written article.--Axel™ (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gbooks shows zero reviews. Puny, mostly primary or sales sites from a general search. The author did get a cute little piece in a Brisbane paper, but I think it actually provides the most damning evidence: "Now 17, Sean worked part-time at a local supermarket to raise $4000 to have Teen Assassin edited and self-published earlier this year after several unsuccessful approaches to publishers. The original print run sold out, and Sean last week printed another 100 copies of the action-thriller..." Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the book may become notable in the future. But for now, it fails Wikipedia:Notability_(books) and the article doesn't even have a single reference. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 05:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced article, non notable, the book is self-published and there are no reviews except for the quoted passage from the Brisbane Courier Mail. Might become notable in future, but at the moment it definitely fails WP:N. McMarcoP (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:26, 25 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 merge to No_Ordinary_Family#Main_cast . Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daphne Nicole Powell

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

This article is about almost an walled garden article under WP:Orphan and lacks notability under WP:Notability as the article is a) about a character in a TV series that was cancelled after only a single season and thus b) has no chance of being expanded in any meaningful way. Sephiroth9611 (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it kept without any sources. ●Mehran ^Debate● 05:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per Vejvančický. Redundant to the existing capsule summary in the main series article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect per Vejvančický – the article is completely unsourced, is the topic of something not very notable, and is written pretty poorly. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 05:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to No_Ordinary_Family#Main_cast [49] [50]. Searching for "Kay Panabaker" "Daphne Powell" gives a lot of hits (including interviews etc.), but redirecting is in my opinion the best option. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to a redirect in principle; I just think that if it's done here, then why not for any of the other main characters? I would say a basic search is just as effective in locating info as putting a redirect here. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress, incomplete and under construction. You can redirect the names or create articles for the other characters, it's up to you and the sources available. As for this particular case, I think redirect is a better solution than deletion. There are many more or less effective ways how to locate info, this is just one of them. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 17:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Vejvančický, and WP:ATD. There's no policy-based reason for deletion when a merger is entirely reasonable and achievable through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to Redirect, but disagree with merge option, as to the extent that this article differs from the existing capsule, it is simply cruftier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:57, 25 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. Very simple reason: not yet notable, as even the supporters of the article recognize . It would have been wiser to delay making the article until it does become notable, as several good editors have already advised below. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circball

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

Non-notable, "new" sport, with no coverage found at reliable, independent sources. Contested PROD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Circball (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web search finds primary, sales, and social media hits. Could not find anything better than this link from the WP entry itself. If better coverage can be found, happy to have another look. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See additional links to GMA Network's wider coverage of Circball games. Also uploaded Letter of Intent from UNTV-which is in current negotiations to feature Circball in their Sports TV magazine program called Sports37. Additional feature of Circball by a Children TV, none of which were self-published, are now available. Also, a recent USPTO's patent grant indicates that this "new" sports invention deserved patent protection due to its uniqueness and novelty, a feature of notability. --Circball (talk) 07:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the additions to the article, but I find them unconvincing. "On April 2011, the first Circball competition was held...with ten teams" suggests a nascent activity that might garner notability in the future, but has not yet done so. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have speedied this as nn if it wasn't listed here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search produces www.circball.com, facebook, Twitter, blogspot, Yahoo Groups, etc etc, but I have been able to find little evidence of coverage in reliable independent sources. Oh yes, and a Wikipedia article created by a single purpose account whose user name matches the subject of the article. In fact what I have found is exactly the kind of thing that I would expect to find if this were a fairly new and unestablished sport with a group of enthusiasts determined to publicise it on every web site they can edit themselves. That is absolutely fine, except that it's not what Wikipedia is for. Best of luck with getting publicity for the game, and if and when you have succeeded in making it prominent then please come back to write about it on Wikipedia, but it's not ready for that yet. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The username match with the subject article was a minor mistake due to the editor being new in WP. That issue was already corrected. As to the publicity charge of the article, please see further response below.Circball (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :p duh. –η-θ 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason?

~~Keep or Merge or Redirect~~ Comment. The purpose of the Circball article was not to garner notability nor publicity in WP. The purpose was to contribute public knowledge and information of which the entire community of WP might benefit from its value. The sport of Circball has already been publicized on other venues/sites outside of WP. These publicities have received considerable benefit to Circball more than it would have in WP. Therefore, the charge of publicity in WP may be beyond the scope of this discussion.
However, as a reminder, this article was nominated for deletion for "non-notable" not for promotional issues. Let's focus on the main issue. Your WP guidelines of Notability states that, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." only that it must be "worth of notice" That's what happened to Circball. Circball, not being famous yet or popular yet, was however significantly noticed by several independent media companies in the Philippines (for its news value and value to children and sports, see additional updated links in the article), and is therefore crucial enough to be included in these vast array of knowledge of WP. In short, Circball is encyclopedic because it passed the minimum requirements of notability--that is it was noticed by reliable third-party sources period. Notability should be regardless of whether it is personally like or not like by individual users/enthusiasts/editors, etc. Could there be popularity contest of articles in WP in determining notability? I hope not.
Also, perhaps the sources/reference given may be difficult to understand due to it being in a different language other than English. You think? I would therefore invite editors who speak the language of the Philippines to make a comment here after reviewing and reading these foreign-language sources/reference. When listened to in detail and in its entirety, these sources made a "significant coverage" of Circball:

"24 Horas" news coverage of Circball
"News To Go" by GMANews TV
"Tropang Potchi" - a children TV show features Circball
Letter of Intent (2 pages) from UNTV's Sports37
Major News Coverage of Circball at GMANews "Saksi"
Abante-Tonite. Newspaper article talking about current innovations in Philippine sports that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.

Inability to understand the language in these independent sources especially the Philippine news coverage references is not reason enough to conclude non-notability. Anyone needing translation of these sources into English can be accommodated. Editing of this article is still on going to conform to WP guidelines, let us know if there are suggestions or feedback. But mere deletion of this article due to purported publicity stunt when it's not would be a setback to WP. Thank you. Circball (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: Circball (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete - An encyclopedia is not intended to cover things made up that sound cool. This is advertising for a non-notable "sport", nothing more. Tarc (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This "made up" thing that sounds cool has been featured from a "reliable source." See the patent that was granted by the United States Patent Office, which seems reliable according to the WP's Made Up rule. USPTO Patent #7,766,771 issued 08/03/2010. Again, advertising is not the main issue in this discussion but it's Notability. Several sources have been provided above that made significant coverage of the topic and falls within the notability guidelines of WP. Please check out these sources first then make a judgment. If you can't understand the source because it's not in English, let us know. Thanks.Circball (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GMAnews is a possible qualifier for the reliable sourcing threshold, but the others are just youtube links and facebook fan pages, thus they do not qualify. As for patent filing anyone can file for a patent, that is irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In this case GMAnews IS a reliable source. GMA has made their news reporting available online via their own website and via a popular video website called Youtube. Just because a video is linked to Youtube must not be easily discounted. In your WP's reliable sourcing, it states "Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. [ie, GMANews] Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist [It does in Youtube]. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." (emphasis added are mine) In this case, GMA indeed archived their videos in Youtube as well as in their own website. So just because a reliable video archive is sourced through a Youtube link doesn't necessarily mean it's not reliable. Here's a link to GMA News and Public Affairs Youtube channel. A search for "Circball" will show the archive. This particular video is not accessible from their own website. However, it's available through their official Youtube channel. The facebook links are only to show who "Tropang Potchi" is. It's a Children Show run by GMA Network which GMANews is a part of. Circball (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not paying attention. The Wikipedia guidelines call for notability to be satisfied by coverage in multiple sources. Even if GMA is accepted, that is only one; you can't add youtube links to that total, even if they are "official youtube channels". So, so far, you may have one source. "One" ain't "multiple". Tarc (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. One ain't multiple. But one ain't non-notable either. More is better. But one is enough, in this case. Multiple is not required because this discussion is not about Neutrality--per your Rule it says "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Neutral POV is not the subject of this discussions, it's non-notability. In either case, the Letter of Intent from UNTV's Sports37 (see link #4 above) can also be counted as another source, if more is insisted. And if that's the case then, this article should be allowed. Circball (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The generally accepted norm for the WP:GNG threshold is "multiple". You may word-parse the page there to your heart's content, but the chances of ever getting an article to stand that relies on a single source is slim to none. As for the "letter of intent", it amounts to an advertisement for what a cable channel is going to broadcast. Not sufficient. Tarc (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again I'm just going by what I understood under your WP:GNG rule. Notability only requires five things:

"Significant coverage"
"Reliable"
"Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. True. but not required in this case.
"Independent of the subject"
"Presumed" (Presumption)

Again "Multiple" is not required in this particular case because this discussion is not about Content. This article fulfills the minimum requirements above for notability... again.. the word is notability, not content. Once the article is allowed, then any editor can tag other issues if they so choose. But for this discussion purposes and for this issue only, we are focused on notability only and nothing else because that's what this article was tagged for (please review above header notations).Circball (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to be crystal-clear, then; if all you can come up with is a single reliable source, then this AfD will result in deletion. Tarc (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quote the guidelines: "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article." WP:GNG So there hope. On the other hand, Letter of Intent, Page 2 requests Circball to be a feature in its Sports programming. (UNTV is then another independent source in addition to GMANews). UNTV, independent of GMA, noted Circball as a sport which resulted in this request. There are several sources and deletion is the last resort, per WP guidelines. So to the contrary, this article will NOT contain just a single reliable source. Circball (talk) 07:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one thing we have to consider is that, because it's a Filipino game, our ability to gather reliable sources from the region is already going to be extremely stunted. The GMA television coverage does imply that there is probably coverage in Filipino news sources out there. Silverseren^C 20:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, indeed. There are other coverages out there in the Philippines. One of them was a coverage of Circball by a children show called Tropang Potchi owned by GMA and Q-TV. An email request was sent to GMA Network Inc to release archival videos of the Circball coverage of Tropang Potchi as it is not currenly available online. (Will update this page when its available). For now, however a Youtube behind-the-scenes video shots are available Here and Here. In addition, coverage of Circball through other various News programs for wider reporting is available for viewing (See item #1 & item #2 of the source list above). Also to clarify, although the original inventor of Circball is of Philippine descent, Circball is not just strictly a "Filipino game". Circball, to date however, has been widely accepted in that country as shown by these news coverages due to wide acceptance of the sport of basketball by Filipinos than in any other country. GalingPinas (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "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..."WP:GNG. Let's discuss in detail these sources and how they meet these 5 criterias for notability purposes.

Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":

1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.

2. "Reliable" - Saksi new coverage is reliable because it came from a major new media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, GMA.

3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.

4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.

5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":

1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.

2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, Q-TV and GMA.

3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.

4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.

5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:

1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.

2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, UNTV.

3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.

4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.

5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.

These sources and others establish the notability of Circball per WP:GNG and must be included in WP either as a standalone article or merge with similar articles that discusses basketball related topics, in particular, variations of basketball.GalingPinas (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the classic definition of "trying to hard" (a shame we can't link to ED), or the more prosaic "squeezing blood from a stone". We have one news outlet, one children's show from the same source as the news outlet, and a web show. This is just painfully obvious drumming up of negligible news sources for a made-up-in-my-back-yard game. This isn't a sport, I'd be hard-pressed to call it a game, it is like a new and fun thing to do at your local rec league or YMCA. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a sport"? You ought to read WP's definition of Sport then. From the tone of your response, you may or may not like this "made-up-in-my-back-yard game" (which btw was GRANTED a utility patent by the USPTO due to its new, useful, and non-obvious process). You probably haven't played the game yourself, either. That's why the ad-hominems tone of your responses. But that's not the issue here. Whether this is a sport or not, the issue here is about notability. The analysis above confirms notability of this article per WP rules. I would rather see an educated response to the analysis above rather than see responses that are beyond the scope of these discussions.GalingPinas (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another new independent source. The show "Tropang Potchi" that featured Circball was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. According to the newspaper article, the Tropang Potchi show highlighted some current innovations in Philippine sports that include in-line hockey, flag football and circball. This indicates that even though there is coverage of Circball from the same news outlet (GMA), it was nonetheless confirmed by an independent third-party source, Abante. GalingPinas (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Trivial mention. The relevant passage from this TV listings digest (in translation):

Unique experience in sports ipapakilala the Tropang Potchi now 9:15 AM on GMA 7. Along with host Julian Throne and her new friend, JM Reyes, the program airs on innovations in hockey games, football and basketball. Enjoy children and adults the story about in-line hockey, flag football and circball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbes Goodyear (talk • contribs) 12:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Google's generic translation is so unreliable, here's a better translation:

Different experiences in sports will be introduced by "Tropang Potch" today [September 10, 2011] 9:15AM on GMA 7. Together with host Julian Trono and his new friend JM Reyes, the program will show innovations in the sports of hockey, football and basketball. Young and old alike will enjoy the story about in-line hockey, flag football and circball. (emphasis on date, added)

Now, before discounting this as trivia, this independent newsline only confirms "Tropang Potchi"'s feature of Circball, in absence of a direct link to the children show on GMA website. We're not saying it's a substantial coverage of Circball. However, being "noted" is the point of these discussions, thus the inclusion of this source. Remember "these notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article" WP:Notability. Here's why this source was included in this discussion: "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. [Example, Tropang Pochi's coverage of Circball]. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." It is therefore proposed that this article about Circball be KEPT instead of deleted, despite the supposed votes of Deletes by users above, some of which lack adequate and reasonable arguments for proposed deletion -- merely they're statements without valid support. If the article can't be kept, please re-direct to a more appropriate article such as Variations of basketball, etc. GalingPinas (talk) 17:36, 30 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. unsourced promotional content isn't appropriate for a merge and since the consensus is clearly that this isn't for mainspace... Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antec Kuhler H20 620

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

Contested PROD. Specific models of CPU coolers are generally not notable, only generating standard user reviews from computer sites. Moreover, this is nearly blatant advertisement (i.e. The Kuhler H20 620 is one of the Antec's budget water cooling solutions that should be enticing for those building budget gaming rigs.). If anything else, this needs to be completely rewritten, if notable, to be encyclopedic and neutral in tone. –MuZemike 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a consumer buyers guide and WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.As suggested,I have removed the sentences which looked like spam,removed specifications.I think the article is ready to be kept. That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 11:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate removal of the sales talk, although if the article survives, I would prefer that the specs be restored. The underlying problem remains, however, that this product, as an individual product, is not of encyclopedic interest. Fails WP:GNG. Other than someone shopping for one right now, what is of interest to a WP reader that is not already covered in Computer cooling or CPU cooling? If the "Antec Kuhler H20 620" article did not already exist and had been replaced yesterday the "Antec Kuhler H20 621", I cannot imagine that anyone would even suggest adding an article for the old model. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought it was a joke at first, but apparently there is such a thing. Article still is not encyclopedic. At best merge into Antec article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Antec article. Individual accessory fails WP:GNG. --Kvng (talk) 18:01, 27 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. Consensus is that cleanup, not deletion, is required here. (Non-admin closure) Till I Go Home (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ARCA drivers

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

Declined PROD a short time ago. This is an out-of-date list, that duplicates Category:ARCA drivers. Making it into List of current ARCA Racing Series drivers would resolve that, but a large number of drivers in the series are of insufficent notability, making it either a permamently-incomplete list or a sea of redlinks (which it, in fact, currently is anyway). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A useful list list to navigate articles and promote the creation of new articles, vis-a-vis the red links in it. See also WP:NOTDUP, in which it's stated that arguments as lists being duplicative of categories is an invalid rationale for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is to be kept, it needs to be completely rescoped and updated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Far more useful than a catalog, since it can list drivers who don't have articles yet. Remember, deletion is a last resort, for articles that can't be improved by normal editing methods. If you think something should be added, then add it. No valid reason given to delete this. Dream Focus 19:29, 28 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. This is an unsourced BLP and the arguments to keep per assertion and me too carry no weight against policy grounded delete arguments citing policy and precedent Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Baron (baseball)

AfDs for this article:

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

First AfD was kept because it was determined that minor league championships made him notable. In light of the stream of successful AfD's on individuals whose only claim to fame was managing a minor league team to a championship, let's revisit this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Askadaleia (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't really a substantial vote. Can you elaborate? I'm looking at the 1st AFD, and all the keep votes seem to be going against the grain on the consensus we've had on most AFDs lately where minor league manager championships isn't really enough to pass WP:GNG. I'm going to pass on voting for this one right now, but empty votes or !votes like the one above should be avoided. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of substantial coverage from WP:RS sources is offered, and none can be found. The thing that seemed to impress yes voters in the 1st AfD was that he managed the Jacksonville Jax to a championship. World Series? No. AAA minor league? No. AA? No. A? No. B? No. The championship under discussion was the the Gulf Coast, C level rookie league. Fails WP:BASE/N, fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – WP:ANYBIO. The accomplishments he made during his life are notable. --Bryce Wilson | talk 06:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What accomplishments? (1) "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He hasn't. (2) "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Lack of reliable sources suggest he did not make a "widely recognized contribution". – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 20 seasons (!) in the minors, 2,080 games, 2, 319 hits.. thats a fairly successful professional career.. in addition to his managerial stint mentioned above. Spanneraol (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no coverage suggesting that's notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator... only has one source (a statistical database). Sure he won a championship and played 20 minor league seasons, but doesn't quite hit the floor if you ask me. Go Phightins! (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SpannerAol. Alex (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Spanneraol. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 29 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 consensus below is that this is neither an article nor a useful way to organize our coverage of these topics. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index of knowledge articles

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

Delete for a lot of reasons, none of which in themselves are valid AfD arguments but collectively add up to a good reason for deletion. It attracts a low number of views so therefore it won't be missed, it is embarrassingly incomplete after two years of existence, it is currently a bit of a mish-mash of articles, and the subject is adequately covered by the category and the Outline of knowledge. Get rid of it to make an incremental improvement to WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks pointless.--Axel™ (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Worthless, and redundant to the much better Outline of knowledge which indexes and classifies usefully. Mind you, there's a website called "Wikipedia" which performs many knowledge indexing and classifying functions....... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list with a vague inclusion criterion. JIP | Talk 07:41, 24 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) 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McAllister Olivarius

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

Contested PROD : Non-Notable London Law firm, fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP Mt king ^(edits) 01:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web searches find primary and directory listings, plus a few hits about the principals. Seems to be just a few years old, so could become notable in future, but fails WP:GNG at the moment. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds a little too much like advertisement, and there are no relevant sources. Undoubtedly the firm exists, but this does not make it automatically notable. If (or rather, seeing their links, when) they are involved in some very high-level trial, then they will probably become notable enough to grant a WP entry. McMarcoP (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My searches found no significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the creator of the entry, I strongly feel that it should stay. The firm is new but, as its website and some secondary material indicate, it is on the rise. It already sponsors two highly regarded charities and is one of the few American firms of note operating out of London. CellarMist (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Pukkativa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Both managing partners of this firm meet the notability criteria. It also sponsors and funds a number of well-respected and well-known charitable projects. Its presence in London is at least as prominent as that of some of the other firms that meet the notability criteria. I would keep it. -- Pukkativa (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that you yourself created the WP entries for both partners within the past few months and just dePROD'd one of them, and that both you and the other "keep" voter have made few WP contributions outside of articles relating to this partnership. I would further note that WP is not meant for promotional purposes, whether commercial, charitable, or otherwise. As to the supposed notability of the partners or their charities, it does not apply to this discussion, as notability is not inherited. And unsupported statements about the subject's prominence from editors having more than a whiff of WP:COI about them are unlikely to carry much weight. If you can, please provide what this article so dearly lacks--evidence of substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your comments. As a newcomer, it is useful for me to be corrected on the standards. On reflection, I have to agree with you about notability not being inherited. Fact is: this firm has very little external coverage to date and probably does not currently meet notability criteria, though, in all likelihood, it will soon. As for your other comments about my lack of experience, yes: I am new and have not edited much, but joined only because I felt that the coverage of the UK legal field (my field of interest) is sparse at best. I will be sure to edit more and varied pieces in order to diffuse any whiff of personal interest in this particular firm. -- Pukkativa (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They may be notable, but the article does not show it. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Development Anthropology

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

Minimal-content page apparently created by this organization for the purpose of self-promotion. No evidence of notability; Google search on the name finds almost nothing. Orlady (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 06:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 25 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 02:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of dental organizations

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

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and WP:LINKFARM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. JIP | Talk 07:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea of NOTDIR is that we don't act as a yellow pages, providing telephone numbers, prices and commercial how-to info of that sort. This is just a list of professional dental bodies such as the British Dental Association and so performs the normal list function of enabling navigation and browsing in the manner of a contents page or index which are normal features of an encyclopedia. Warden (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very narrow interpretation of NOTDIR. The spirit of NOTDIR is to avoid these kind of lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Lists of organizations which indicates that we have hundreds of lists of organisations. The relevant section of WP:NOTDIR is "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings.". This case is nothing like these examples. If you think the policy applies then please cite the exact text which seems relevant. Warden (talk) 08:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is the nullified WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Like I have already stated, it goes against the spirit of the policy rather than a particular policy point. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not nullified - please read it. If one can point to hundreds of similar articles, and we can, then this is a valid logical argument. The idea that we should delete this list but not List of medical organisations, say, is logically absurd. Warden (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the vast majority of these have no wiki article, only direct external links (if anything), which makes it a clear case of WP:NOTDIR (per WP:NOT#LINK and WP:ELNO.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The links in this article next to its entries consists of many primary sources, which serves to verify information in the list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which goes against WP:LINKFARM policy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article doesn't qualify for deletion under any of the eight points of WP:NOTDIR, and the nominator doesn't delineate which part of WP:NOTDIR is being referred to. Rather, this is a discriminate, focused list that is useful to learn about global dental organizations, and a useful addition to Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have already stated, it goes against the spirit of the policy esp WP:LINKFARM. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because you say something doesn't make it true. The example given is for fansites, it not meant to keep encyclopedic list of educational content like this one from existing. Dream Focus 19:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit of WP:NOTDIR is that we should not include directory information such as addresses and telephone numbers, not that we shouldn't have lists. If your main objection is that this is a link farm then just get rid of the objectionable links by editing, but, anyway, only a minority of the entries have external links. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dental organizations are quite notable, and it thus encyclopedic to know the names of all of them by country. Dream Focus 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per basic common sense, which should be applied before looking for some tangentially-related policies or guidelines and invoking them on the basis of their titles rather than what they actually say and mean. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the standard for inclusion on a list is to be important enough that notability could be shown by a Wikipedia article, since these are all national organizations, at the highest level for their country in the particular branch of their profession, an article could indeed be written for all of them. Phil is right that this is common sense, and the way in which it is common sense fall perfectly well into the Wikipedia guidelines. NOTDIR is only relevant when the items would not be notable. Tbhidsis the start, from which articles can grow. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. causa sui (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich guitar

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

Only source is IMDB. Could find nothing non-trivial, just name-drops of Lou Reed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, adequately referenced, article could do with improvement, but no reason to delete. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's also called "ostrich tuning" which yields more sources. I remember learning about this tuning in a guitar magazine, and it's notable not just for the times it's been used but because it yields very different results from any other tuning. PhnomPencil (talk) 17:53, 24 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 Wrong venue, moving to RFD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Cyprus (Greek Cyprus)

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

The redirect goes to Cyprus. Term should be on a separated article to extend the Turkish and Turkish cypriot point of view on the terms `South Cyprus` and `Greek Cyprus` as official policy of the self-declared `North Cyprus` and the Turkish Republic. Secondly as a minor significance geographical term. The actual redirect can not be an encyclopedic information and can not be reliable. After the creation of the article, the term could be also add at Cyprus (disambiguation) Vagrand (talk) 01:23, 24 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.