Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 11

< 10 October	12 October >

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 no consensus. v/r - T P 02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007 European Karate Championships

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. world championships are notable but this one is regional and gets only 1 gnews hit [1]. LibStar (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone can explain the nomination to me. WP:SPORTSEVENT tells us what is "inherently notable", it does not suggest articles on other sports events are not notable. Where does the relevance of "world championships" come in? Is this just the nominator's view? All the examples of inherently notable events in SPORTSEVENT are regional. If the article is not notable on its own it should be merged with European Karate Championships and not deleted. However such a merge would make the target article very lop-sided. Thincat (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources to support notability of this event. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:NSPORT the usual criteria for notability for athletes is participation at the highest level and most specify Olympics or world championships. That's why the focus is so often on "world championships." Logically, if you can't become notable by winning a particular event, it's hard to claim that event is notable. Papaursa (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is far from a logical consequence. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources presented. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero independent sources to establish lasting notability. Run-of-the-mill sporting event.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are talking about a continental championship of a very prominent martial arts discipline. Please re-consider what you are about to do if you are tended to delete it. If you are still determined to do so, also nominate EUBC European Amateur Boxing Championships, why not? It is no longer a direct qualification phase for the Olympics, so it might not be notable, too? Umi1903 (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search reveals independent sources. Enough to establish notability. --Ryan.germany (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please specify actual sources, most of these seem primary sources from karate websites, not third party like newspapers or trusted news websites. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to WP:SPORTSEVENT, the event is not inherently notable. It then falls to the WP:GNG to establish notability, requiring reliable third-party sources. I can find none of these, and none have been provided, suggesting a lack of notability. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did a more general search for "European Karate Championships" and came across many passing mentions. I'm going to say the event itself should make it, but Merge and redirect 2007 into a larger timespan - perhaps a decade? The Steve 06:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge I agree. Merge with 2006, 2008, and 2009 European Karate Championships. Pages that summarize 5-10 years worth of results history seem optimal. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. No WP:RS are presented, only what appears to be the official results. If some coverage can be found Merge and redirect Stuartyeates (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 02:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Family Gerende

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

I could not find any reliable source providing significant coverage of the subject. Delete per WP:GNG. Author contested WP:PROD. Odie5533 (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Everything is fine with the article (infobox, categories, external links, etcs) except the summary section which needs to be improved/expanded. It is an "obscure" game, spiritual ancestor to We Ski. There are only 3 skiing video games for the Super NES/Super Famicom console. No reason to delete the article. --Hydao (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete the article is that it fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. The problem is that the game hasn't receiving any coverage like game reviews, or news, or even historical analysis. I couldn't find anything about the game. If you were able to find such sources, please list them here. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gaia_Saver

I don't feel like having the same kind of discussion again. Thanks. --Hydao (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Here is some "reliable info": http://www.nintendo.co.jp/nom/9810/p06/page06.html (Nintendo's official website) --Hydao (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to force the discussion again, but I didn't get to participate in the last one. This one seems different too since the other AfD is about a theoretically more notable game due to the crossover characters (did I really just say that?). I also don't buy the whole "someone must have written about it" argument. I've spent hours looking through old video game mags to find references for some games (though not this one), and some games are just simply not notable. Also, the article you link to provides trivial coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable, that's why I wasted some time in creating the article. I'm just here to contribute and try to improve shitty articles. Anyway, the Nintendo's link is a reliable source, right? --Hydao (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do thank you for the investment, but in this particular case the article does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. To avoid this in the future, just stop by WT:VG and ask there if the article you are thinking about creating is notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende/ (article wrote by Kevin Gifford) ... More info: http://magweasel.com/about-me/ --Hydao (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source is self-published and can not be used to establish notability. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was just sharing the link wrote by a competent guy, it was not for the notability thing. Anyway, I have nothing more to say. The Nintendo's link is in there.

Thanks for the advice, I'll do it next time. About Super Family Gerende, it needs to be improved, not deleted. --Hydao (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with We Ski. I agree that the subject may be notable on its own but the existing references do not appear to verify it in an independent manner. If there's independent verification of it influencing less obscure games such as We Ski (kind of like the relationship between Pilotwings and Wii Sports Resort, perhaps) then this material could fit in well at the more solidly-supported page. §everal⇒|Times 15:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging doesn't make much sense, I think. I added 3 more external links to the article. "Unfortunately" there are only Japanese sites. --Hydao (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging, because that assumes we have any verifiable information in reliable sources. I see none. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm curious to know what you would consider a reliable source about this topic. (Oops, I should also mention the line from WP:RS about blogs: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." What policy states that this material cannot be used to establish notability? §everal⇒|Times 19:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider any source which can be proven to be reliable, a reliable source. If you have questions about the reliability of a specific source, feel free to ask at WP:RS/N. I do not maintain my own separate set of criteria for reliable sources and I am open to special cases. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

... So that means... http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende/ ... http://magweasel.com/about-me/ ... is pretty reliable. Sorry, Odie5533, but now I totally disagree with you. Plus, the game is mentioned on Nintendo's official website. Definitely KEEP the article. As I said before only the Summary needs to be expanded a little bit...--Hydao (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ !vote changed to keep, see below. The issues for this article should be (1) removing the citations to blogs, (2) removing the material sourced from blogs, and (3) identifying an appropriate merge target for an article that would have content "prominence" in the proper context, but whose sources for notability are currently inaccessible in English. User:Several_Times is on point, and while there might be other targets than We Ski, it is a good choice. So this !vote is made while allowing that at some future time, an editor with access to Japanese sources might want to add this article to the Japanese Wikipedia and then bring the article here. Unscintillating (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can always create the Japanese wikipedia article, I'm 100% sure they will not want to delete the article in there. Seriously, why giving so much trouble? I'm not using this as an excuse/argument but there are hundreads of shitty vg-articles created throughout these years by lame editors (yes, literally lame) and no one gives a flying sh*t about them: poorly written articles, no box art image, no screenshot, texts 99% copied from other sites, categories all messed up, just sh*t. then there are those editors (me) who bothers uploading an image, screenshot(s), correcting the lame mistakes and etcs, and then comes a random so-called administrator (no offense of course) who feels like deleting or messing with other peoples work. sorry but I can't accept this. there are hundreads (not to say thousands) of Japan-exclusive video games who have an english wikipedia article, and no, they don't have "reliable" sources, because ermm, they are Japan-exlusive... but the articles still exist. Super Family Gerende shouldn't be deleted or merged, but IMPROVED. there are only 2 or 3 skiing video games for the Super Famicom console, people must know that this game exist, that's all. the reference on the Nintendo website is not enough? seriously... I have many Super Famicom magazines but unfortunately they were bought between 1993 and 1995... and this game was made in 1996... Also, I worked for the Famitsū DS+Wii magazine a year ago, so... should I ask a friend of mine to send the old Japanese magazine(s) who actually talked about this game? so I can scan them, and send to Mr.Administrator? too much trouble, dude... --Hydao (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote to Keep, because I have been persuaded that this topic fits better in the encyclopedia as a stub along with the images that have been uploaded. I also think there is solid Wikipedia support for the idea that all commercial video games need stand-alone entries. To those on both sides of this issue, IMO the closing statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaia Saver is worth rereading. I stand by my points (1) and (2) above for this article, but AfD is not clean-up. Unscintillating (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you presented falls under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacking in reliable, third party sources, minimal content of substance to begin with. I'd only support a merge if we actually had a source calling it a spiritual sequel of sorts. Right now, to me, it just looks like two separate skiing games made decades apart by the same company. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need a source, before We Ski, Namco only produced ONE (or maybe two) home console skiing game which is Super Family Gerende. The Nintendo's link is a reliable source. Why am I discussing with people who know nothing(?!?) about video games? --Hydao (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith, and address ideas, not editors. Beyond that, what did I say that suggests I know nothing of video games? All I said is that they released two skiing games decades apart (Nothing in your responses suggests this is false.) and that the article lacks third party sources. Nintendo's link, while reliable, doesn't count as third party. It was made for their system. Even if it did count, an article usually needs more than just one to establish notability... Sergecross73 msg me 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I'm sorry, eventhough I was not thinking about you/your opinion when I wrote that. Well, as I said before, it is a Japan-exclusive "retrogame", so it is hard or impossible to find/have third party sources online. As you can see, the article has already more than one "source". Some editors says that GameFAQs or MobyGames aren't reliable because they are user-generated. So how about wikipedia? Wikipedia is user-generated as well. In many cases they are much more reliable than Wikipedia. To tell you the truth, I'm kinda tired or sick of correcting this and that on Wikipedia. So... this thing of notability or reliability... hmm...--Hydao (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Gamefaqs, Mobygame, and Wikipedia are all not reliable sources. You can't use wikipedia pages as a source either. None of that is a valid reason to keep the article though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this article "notable"? Hong Kong 97 (video game) ... I see thousands of Wikipedia pages with no citations, sources or external links. For me it's fine having an article about that game, because it's informative. But the truth is... it was not published by a big company, there are no citations but it still exist. Wanna delete it too? I'm getting tired of this. --Hydao (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another invalid reason to keep this article. Other bad article's existence doesn't mean this one should be kept, it means it's possible that one could/should be deleted as well. If you want to save these articles you keep creating, I'd suggest (in good faith) that you do some research on wikipedia policies, notability, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's bad only for you. I didn't create Hong Kong 97 (video game), it exists since 2006. Yes, wikipedia policies are "ambiguous" (I could use a better adjective but I don't remember now), and unfortunately this thing is full of weirdos and incompetent editors, many of these no-lifers have OCD, this and that syndrome (hey, I'm not talking about you, I didn't know about your username until an hour ago). I should stop contributing. :'( It's sad but I think I have no choice. Right now, I just wish I had the amount of patience required to put my brains to a good use, and develop a conspicuously elaborated virus able to bring down all wikipedia servers for good, forcing them to close down the website terminally. That way, you'd all stop wasting precious friendship time with futile comments and sayings. Seriously people, NATURE is out there. Just BREATHE.--Hydao (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of that is appropriate for this discussion. Please stay on topic. Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to do what you said above over one article such as this, then I recommend that you reevaluate your lifestyle, as it may be somewhat out of whack. –MuZemike 09:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article for this very uncommon Japanese video game looks promising. All it needs is some research material from magazine and newspaper and it has the potential to be a complete article. I believe that ALL video games are notable no matter which country or countries it was released or not released for. The problem is that English Wikipedia focuses too much on North American/European video games and doesn't focus enough on Japan-exclusive video games. We need more information about Japan-exclusive video games on Wikipedia and this looks like a good start to me. GVnayR (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All it needs is some research material All every non-notable subject needs is some research material. Your reason for keeping could be applied to any article in existence. Please read WP:N. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that WP:N only requires that the sources to establish notability be "likely" to exist, and that reliable sources are likely to exist in Japanese? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about how best to answer your questions, so here goes: I do not think WP:N only requires sources be likely to exist, and I do not believe that sources for this game are likely to exist in Japanese. Some video games receive little or no press upon release. Even if we were to lower the bar to require only that sources be likely to exist, we do not have any evidence supporting the claim that sources for this game are likely to exist. Hypothetically, if there was a video game for which we could not find any reliable source but we did find that GameSpot or a similar reliable database had multiple listings for offline sources for the game, then, depending on the sources listed, I would consider keeping the article based on the fact that sources are likely to exist. I think this case perhaps goes against WP:N, but it would at least have a case. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do review WP:N#Notability requires verifiable evidence, also known by the shortcut WP:NRVE. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that previously and again now. It doesn't really have any application to the discussion we've had thus far. I am not sure why you linked me to them. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that you would agree that WP:N only requires, based on evidence, that sources be "likely". Unscintillating (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are stretching it a bit far to change "verifiable, objective evidence" into the less rigorous "likely". --Odie5533 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:NRVE: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Salvidrim (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of that line is that it is meant to apply when an editor is considering nominating an article for deletion. I come to this conclusion because the line directly preceding the one you quote states, "merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive", and because the weak term "inappropriate" is used. An example of where it would be inappropriate would be an article with no sources that is about a clearly notable topic. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)See WP:N/N#Alaska Veterans Memorial for an article and discussion where it was agreed that the sources were "likely" and that this was sufficient to remove a notability template. This was not an AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see relevant discussion at WT:N#Interpretation_of_Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge into We Ski If a RS can be found proving this is indeed the "spiritual predecessor" of We Ski. As of right now, no notability is assessed in the article. The sources are GameFaqs (user-submitted content), Nintendo.co.jp (which proves existence but not notability), and a fact-source at SNES Music which does not even discuss the game. The question is not whether the game is notable, but whether the article assess notability, and it doesn't. Salvidrim (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC) I revised my vote, see lower.[reply]

This small article: http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende/ ... was written by a guy who actually worked for GamePro and etcs, so he's an expert. http://magweasel.com/about-me/ ... Also, how can I prove about the "spiritual predecessor"? It's logic. Before We Ski, Namco only released ONE home console 2D skiing video game. The game is the spiritual 2D ancestor to Namco’s We Ski, I repeat 2D. There are other 3 or 4 skiing video games made by Namco... Alpine Racer, but they are all 3D, not 2D--Hydao (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, slap me silly, I had somehow completely missed the "External Links" section. Salvidrim (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Revised vote: the "external links" contain at least two third-party sources assessing sufficient notability IMO, however they need to be used to expand the article. At the present time, most of it appears to be an almost word-for-word rendition of the Magweasel.com article, which is not ideal. Needs work, but not deletion. Salvidrim (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide me the links to the specific two sources you are claiming support notability? Thanks. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://magweasel.com/2009/08/30/super-family-gelaende (as per "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."), and http://www.super-famicom.jp/data/su/su_0147.html (although my japanese is far from perfect). http://popgun.joyfulroad.moo.jp/?eid=480904 , although a good review of the game, is a blog, thus might not be "reliable" enough. I say this as my opinion, not as "fact" (implying you're wrong), so, Odie, please don't try to argument and explain how and why I might be wrong (at least not here. If you have constructive comments about Wikipedia's guidelines in general I'd be happy to listen to the feedback on my talk!) Salvidrim (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a SNES game, something from "superfamicom.jp" would not be a third party source. Sergecross73 msg me 03:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: I have opinions as well, but I leave them at the door in order to form consensus based on reasoned discussion. I should hope that others would do the same. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it was about undisputable facts, there would be no need for discussion. The very fact there are disagreements are because of different opinions. :) Salvidrim (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians, I was searching for my old Super Famicom and Famitsu magazines... published between 1993 and 1995/96, yeah and even old gaming magazines from Hong Kong... sadly I didn't found stuff about this specific game as expected, but there are stuff about dozens or hundreads of other so-called "obscure retro games"... can I use them in the future as a "third party source"? and how? I recorded this random video for my youtube friends: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_sXXwlUvDQ ... maybe I'll do more in the future and with better image quality...... In those magazines there are reviews, overviews, cheats, images, posters, flyers... you know... --Hydao (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to ask such questions. Please, keep on topic about this particular article. Sergecross73 msg me 04:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Smelcer

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

Orphan article that fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Prior versions of this page (see article history) made claim to an extraordinary list of awards and accomplishments, and association with famous celebrities, but they were dependent on primary sources -- John Smelcer's own web site, and lacked third party support. After removing the weakly sourced or unsourced material, the bulk of the remaining article focused on controversies surrounding John Smelcer, which were not particularity infamous in the grand scheme of things, and did not have a wide range of independent sources to allow a balanced view. The result has been a significant amount of debate at BLP noticeboard and Talk:John Smelcer, far out of proportion with the notability of the controversies. John Smelcer himself has also requested deleting the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the subjects request - remove the criticism and what have you got left.. undue critical weight in a low notability persons biography. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non-notable, second Off2riorob's comments.Jarhed (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Honestly, I never like deleting articles when the subjects request deletions. However, it's not clear to me Smelcer is notable, so I'll go with the flow.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. I'm also in the side if a person with a weak claim of notability requests the deletion of their article, it should be deleted. Secret ^account 01:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject request for article deletion withstanding, the only notable aspect of this bio is the controversy surrounding his employment. I feel this falls under WP:BLP1E and WP:NPF, and as such the article should be deleted. Ampersandestet (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. He's not a low notability person, he's the author of 40 books, articles in 400 magazines and journals, winner of a prize for the Best First Novel in America, as well as four others for poetry. His books get reviewed by one Nobel laureate, and he collaborates with another, among other famous authors. And all of this has nothing to do with any teaching controversy, they're just his own credits.[2] --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO it says "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." The criteria are "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The Best First Novel is not an Edgar Best First Novel, it's the "James Jones Prize" Best First Novel, which isn't terribly notable (which is why James Jones Prize is a redlink). If you tried to write an article about it, you'd find five news articles, total, that even mention the name, from 1927 to present. No hits at Google books or scholar. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because that's just the short name. The full name is the James Jones Literary Society First Novel Fellowship. Here it is, all over Google Books.[3] and News [4] --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid any notability argument that requires a link to a self-published website.Jarhed (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the award list on the society page. [5]. --GRuban (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of all 18 years worth of James Jones Literary Society Fellowship winners: 2010 Gina Ventre, 2009 Tena Russ, 2008 Margarite Landry, 2007 Robin Oliveira, 2006 Herta Feely, 2005 Anne Campisi, 2004 John Smelcer, 2003 Laine Cunningham, 2002 Linda Busby Parker, 2001 Ray Cristina, 2000 Steven Phillip Policoff, 1999 Louise Wareham, 1998 Judith Barnes, 1997 Leslie Schwartz, 1996 Greg Hrbek, 1995 Rick Bass and Tanuja Desai Hidier, 1994 Mary Kay Zuravleff, 1993 Nancy Flynn. What does this tell us? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That we've got more articles to write. :-) Seriously. This is an "we don't have all the articles in the world yet" argument. We're not done. Here's Greg Hrbek's book reviewed by the New York Times.[6]. Here are two reviews of Robin Oliveira's book, New York Public Library and Seattle Times. [7] [8] I think we can get good articles on most of them. --GRuban (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty slim pickings for book reviews you've got there. One paragraph in the NYT looks like the high water mark. You're basically telling me that the majority of major book critics have nothing to say about most of these Fellowship winners. It reminds me of the point in Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill that we should not create articles for every "restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers". Creating pages out of those redlinks would likely lead to deletion for lack of notability; I'd not spend time on it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not the high water mark, that's a minute's search. I'm just telling you that there are plenty, I just didn't spend more than a minute. Here are more for Hrbek: New York Journal of Books [9], Publisher's Weekly [10] (and guess what, PW mentions Hrbek's James Jones award prominently) [11] Atlanta Journal and Constitution [12] (and guess what, James Jones prize prominently mentioned) Rocky Mountain News [13] (and guess what, James Jones prize prominently mentioned), Indianapolis Star [14]. Hrbek looks pretty good for an article. Same for Oliveira, here are half a dozen news articles: [15] But we're not talking about Hrbek or Oliveira, are we? We're talking about Smelcer. Or at worst about the James Jones award. Which, if your point was that it must go to nobodies, because we already have all the articles about everyone notable ... seems to be wrong. --GRuban (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more or less per GRuban. Subject fairly clearly meets the notability guidelines as a writer. The James Jones Prize (more precisely, the James Jones Creative Writing Fellowship) appears to be significant/notable; it carries a substantial prize (now $10,000), is awarded under the auspices of a legitimate university, was originally suggested by Kurt Vonnegut, and is discussed at some length in Jones's daughter's Harper Collins-published memoir. While the subject has requested deletion, his notability is not at all "ambiguous", putting his request for removal outside the relevant guideline. Moreover, he is a relentlessly self-promoting figure not trying to protect his privact, but to manipulate his public image, and Wikipedia should not be enlisted to assist that campaign, whether by action or inaction. The "controversy" may be described in the article at excessive length, but received significant news coverage, including a brief note in USA Today, and was presumably covered in various academic publications from that time not readily available online. In such circumstances, "Page deletion is normally a last resort", and there's no reason to conclude that whatever problems exist can't be resolved by ordinary editing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"there's no reason to conclude that whatever problems exist can't be resolved by ordinary editing" - indeed, sir. Perhaps you'd like to practice what you preach? --82.41.20.82 (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

::After your comment - I made a few edits, primarily one to remove what imo if it is to be kept .. was one of the major issues with the article , undue weight to the reporting of the 1994 resignation at the uni of Anchorage. I left the basic details of the issue. - Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was an improvement.Jarhed (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GRuban. Setting self-published material aside, there are still reliable sources ([16]). Few quotes: "John Smelcer's poems bring one a strong sense of his ancestry" (American Indian culture and research journal), "featured a section of poetry written and translated from the Native American Ahtna by John Smelcer accompanied by an eye-opening essay entitled" (The American Directory of Writer's Guidelines), "In an interview with Dale Seeds, published in a special edition of MELUS on Native American Literature, John Smelcer remarks on the endurance of indian stereotypes" (From misrepresentation to misapprehension). Three examples, and there are more. He seems notable per coverage given. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prokonsul Piotrus. I'm still not sure there's consensus ... time to re-list? Bearian (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just want to add that as this deletion discussion has progressed, some of the only verifiable material about Smelcer has been slowly whittled down to nothing. I have now restored most of it. The claim that the controversial material is getting undue weight is primarily a side effect of the larger fact that there is next to nothing verifiable about Smelcer except the Anchorage Daily News articles about his resignation and other legal troubles. Yes, a quick Google search seems to turn up a lot of hits that mention his name. But look closely. If you stop and read this stuff, you'll find that it's mostly passing mention, and mostly the result of Smelcer's own mastery of self promotion. He really knows how to get his press releases out there. But actual independent, reliable coverage? Show me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the bloat about the minor controversy that Bratland is insisting on keeping in the article, it imo turns the article into an attack page. - if he is going pot insist on keeping it then I support as per the subjects request - Delete - Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is extremely disingenuous. It looks like an attack page because of the lack of good material that isn't embarrassing to Smelcer. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a burden to go and get this supposed independent, verifiable sources material that meets WP:RS, and put it in the article. Cite what he is notable for and put it in there. That's where your balance comes from. But if you can't do it, then -- here's where we are in agreement -- delete this thing. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that someone has an agenda here. The entire UAA controversy was re inserted. I deleted it. This article is being used by someone with a vendetta—. I think it needs to be removed. R.Ant6071

Delete. This article is an unmitigated disaster. There is clear meatpuppetry occurring, and it's over nobody important. There are certainly mentions but in my opinion it doesn't clear WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Further, it's despicable how some of the drama is either coming from Smelcer himself or people close to him. It's worth nuking and paving for WP:CIVIL and sockpuppetry issues alone. tedder (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't understand how this can be anything other than keep. There are numerous reliable sources to the Anchorage Daily News, clearly a reliable newspaper. He one two literary prizes that, though not terribly important, are at least university-level important. Finally, he holds a named chair, which is criteria 5 on the professor test. Now, I don't actually agree with that professor test, but I've been told before that it's practically non-negotiable--that the simple fact that one is a named chair indicates that one's university finds one to be notable, and that named chairs are generally recognized across academia as a mark of notability. So we have the person meeting several points in WP:PROF, and meeting WP:GNG. What is the deletion rationale? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing a fellow[17][18] with a chair. He has a fellowship, a type of graduate scholarship aimed at funding education for Native Americans, with optional teaching duties, not a named chair and he is not a professor. Smelcer meets zero criteria of WP:PROF. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying--yes, I did mistake the scholarship for a chair; I've struck that portion of my earlier statement, and concur that he doesn't meet WP:PROF. How does he not meet GNG with the coverage in the Anchorage Daily News? (I do think that the forgery stuff should be taken out, because my general opinion is that BLPs should not contain info about crimes or alleged crimes that the legal system itself does not think exist; i.e., those that are expunged, set aside, or cases where no charges are filed; this, however, is an editing issue, and the information that would remain after such a removal seems like it would still be sufficient to establish notability). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've kind of stayed out of this discussion (except a tepid comment at the beginning), even though I was fairly involved in the article (Dennis was an enormous help), but I don't quite get what his notability is. Is he a notable professor? Is he a notable author? Is he notable because of the Native American University of Alaska incident? I don't see how he can can be notable for the incident. Therefore, he has to either be notable as a profess or as an author. It appears there is some agreement that he is not notable as a professor, so that leaves author unless he gets a little credit for the professor. As an author, there's very little secondary coverage - the only thing I see is the Milt Kessler prize, and isn't that restricted to just one university? I don't see how he satisfies WP:AUTHOR.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or he just has to be notable as someone discussed in detail in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Which he was, until Off2riorob removed them again under what I consider to be quite specious meaning. I usually side with Off2riorob on BLP matters, but I don't see how this is trivial or overblown or whatever--it appears to be a serious issue that was discussed in several different articles. Maybe people outside of Alaska didn't care, but it matters when a college professor may have been misleading in an application process (please understand that I am not saying that Smelcer did, merely that the University said the did and the newspaper reported on it). Yes, if those references are removed, the article should be deleted. However, I think those references should stay, and have reverted the removal. If someone (not a sockpuppet), ideally Off2riorob would justify on the talk page why the information is undue or trivial, then perhaps I and others could be persuaded to keep them out. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded regarding your addition on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am unwilling to accept such a broad application of WP:GNG. Someone is notable because of something he is or has done. Just because he receives coverage for scattered stuff but without any real focus on who he is isn't enough. Moreover, even GNG just establishes only a presumption of notability. "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article."--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what he did was make some claims regarding his tribal affiliation that ended up causing a scandal at a university. Now, if people want to argue this should be deleted under WP:BLP1E, I could possibly accept that, always keeping the possibility that circumstances may change in the future (i.e., that the subject has to accept that if xe does become notable in the future for anything--poetry, scholarship, etc.--that the article will be recreated and it will likely include the UAA info). I'm mainly just so puzzled because everyone seems to be arguing that the person is obviously non-notable, when the person clearly meets GNG, which means that we need to make a more sophisticated argument for deletion. I think it's far more borderline than that, though I can accept if we decide he falls on the side of non-notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As my original brief !vote implied, I think he's borderline, too. I'm just poking holes in some of your analysis. I think the UAA info should remain, but I don't think it establishes notability - it's just something that is newsworthy if the subject is otherwise notable. I'm just having trouble deciding whether he's a notable author or a notable academic, and at this point I'm neutral but leaning toward non-notability because I don't see enough in either sphere.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet notability threshold. Neutrality^talk 20:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iranian assassination plot. Closing as an editorial decision to redirect. If necessary, we can spin this back out later. NW (Talk) 00:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manssor Arbabsiar

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

(Based on the amount of news coverage, I'm AfD'ing this instead of PRODing.) I am doing so on the basis of WP:BLP1E - this guy simply hasn't done anything else notable other than this. HurricaneFan 25 23:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magyarization. v/r - T P 02:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magyarized geographical names

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

As has been stated before, this article has numerous problems yet it still remains. The following deletion criteria apply to this article:

- POV forking: Most (if not all) of these placenames have their own article, where its name in other languages appears (or should). If it doesn't, then that article is where the name in other languages should be included, not in a separate list. Why the need to have an article that just repeats this information? Hardly encyclopedic, and contrary to Wikipedia's general avoidance of lists for list's sake. The obvious conclusion is that this list is an attempt to further a particular POV.

- Overcategorisation: As above. Wikipedia could potentially contain myriads of such articles. For example, Anglicised placenames in Ireland, Germanised placenames in Poland, "Swedishised" placenames in Finland... the ridiculousness could be never-ending, but fortunately common sense prevails sometimes, and therefore they don't exist. (Additionally each one could have it's opposite article). Again, hardly encyclopedic.

- Original research: The contention Panonian that these names are "Magyarised" is not irrefutable, hence it is more than likely that your insistence on doing so is a POV that you are attempting to push. When populations are multilingual, it is inevitable and natural that each will have their own versions of placenames, but for you this seems to be "Magyarization". It just happens to be that in that period of time the Hungarian name was official because they were part of the Kingdom of Hungary; hardly a controversial or unique policy for any government. Whether or not Hungarians were in the minority or not is totally irrevelant and is not the issue here, Hungarian was the official language. Additionally, the source provided in the article is merely a helységnév-azonosító szótár; in English, a dictionary of placenames. Such a source certainly does not provide evidence of a place name being "Magyarised". Hunor-Koppany (talk) 23:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced original list. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source cited in the article; so your comment is no (longer) apropos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Magyarization article - Magyarization is very notable historical subject, and google books hits are showing that term "magyarized names" is widely used: [19]. Currently, article is a sort of stub, but it have potential to be expanded with large amount of info. Also, the point of this article was not to show "name versions in various languages", but names that "were magyarized within Hungarian language itself", i.e. to show non-Hungarian place names that were used within Hungarian language in more-less original form and that were changed to "more Hungarian forms" in the time of flourished Hungarian nationalism between 1867 and 1918. I have some published sources about this, but I do not have enough free time to translate them into English at present moment (I might do that in near future, of course). Anyway, here are some online references about this subject: "The government Magyarized place names and 'encouraged' non-Magyar citizens to adopt Magyar surnames", "the list of Magyarized names of persons, places and localities, drawn out in 1893 by the Hungarian Academy", "Magyarized names of localities", etc, etc. So much about accusation for "original research". PANONIAN 07:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if we accept that the etymology of those names can be demonstrably shown to be non-Magyar, I can't see the purpose of this list. It can grow up to thousands of entries, and the criterion is fairly weak. All toponyms in the world have some etymology, many of those from a different language, and by following such principle, we could have thousands of similar lists, each with thousands of entries, practically unmaintainable. I suppose that hypothetical List of Albanized geographical names would encompass 90% of toponyms on Kosovo, for example. Sure enough, pretty much every nation Foo, while ruling or settling in a certain area, will Foo-icize its toponyms rather than inventing their own. Add to that a difficulty to certainly establish the origin for many, opening a can of worms. No such user (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely unsourced and most probably unsourceable OR. No encyclopedic value. POV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even tried to find a source; a quick google book search turned up many - your OR that its "probably unsourceable" is either disingenuous or laziness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge: not sourced but could be find a few facts to expand the Magyarization article, short of a notable topic on its own. Dzlife (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced now. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the renaming of geographic features and places after conquest is quite notable - especially when accompanied by ethnic cleansing. The lack of sources is not a reason to delete; a quick scan of google books ([20]) shows among the following discussing the issue: Transylvania, history and reality by Milton G. Lehrer, Austria-Hungary by Louis Leger, The policy of the Hungarian state concerning the Romanian church in Transylvania under the Dual Monarchy, 1867-1918 by Mircea Păcurariu, Lumea: Issue 52, Modern and contemporary European history by Jacob Salwyn Schapiro, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's WP:POV and WP:POVPUSH. When not WP:OR, it may be WP:FRINGE (some of the sources cited above are not WP:RS, e.g. Lumea is not a peer-reviewed journal). But mostly WP:POV, as pointed above such a list prompts some questions: what is Magyarization? can we deal with facts and not with (minority) opinions? should we have lists for all places and languages? (just imagine the lists of Akkadianized, Gothicized, Aztecized, Mongolized, Arabized, etc. geographical names) Daizus (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to category Unless I'm much mistaken, each of these names should be a redirect from another language (see Category:Redirects from alternative languages). Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first two of the three reasons given by the nominator for deleting this article are actually at variance with current Wikipedia policy - we have not only Hungarian exonyms but also several dozen similar articles for other languages. And they are accepted apparently because they are useful specifically when editing Wikipedia - if a source gives a name for a place that isn't the generally accepted current one, then one needs an easy means of finding out what the generally accepted name is. The third reason is inaccurate as to fact - there was an official policy of encouraging the Magyarization of place names during the period mentioned by the article, and this explicitly involved officially replacing traditional Hungarian placenames obviously derived from those in the local language by ones which were linguistically fully Hungarian. And Hungary was far from alone in having such a policy - there was certainly a similar policy in German parts of Poland, and I think in Russian areas too. And while Britain does not seem to have had a systematic policy of doing this in Ireland, it certainly sometimes happened (Dunleary - Kingstown - Dun Laoghaire). However, I would agree that names should only be in a list like this where the fact that the name was changed can be reliably sourced (and preferably also at least an approximate date for the change). As such changes would have been a matter of official record, I would expect this to be possible for at least a significant proportion of the names in the list (though possibly only from sources either in Hungarian or the local language of the place concerned), but there is no indication that the current source does this. So the article does need better sourcing and, quite possibly, pruning. PWilkinson (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy Fighting Championships

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

This is a non-notable regional MMA organization. It lacks significant independent coverage and does not meet the recommended notability criteria at WP:MMANOT.

I am also nominating the following related pages because these are events sponsored by Legacy FC. They also lack significant coverage or notability. The articles are routine sports coverage of non-notable events.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all The organization is minor and its event pages are routine sports reporting. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Routine sports coverage of a non-notable regional MMA organization. Astudent0 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Local promotion and events--no signs of notability. Mdtemp (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - expressed well above. Neutrality^talk 20:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the metric system

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

Simple case of a fork of metric system. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a "simple case". The metric system is a subject that is known to have stymied generations of students in non-metric countries. This article is an honest attempt to present an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject. In that sense it is not essentially different from Introduction to M-theory, Introduction to entropy, Introduction to evolution, Introduction to viruses, and many other "Introduction to ..." articles. Yes, in a sense they are article forks, but not all forks are evil. POV forks should be deleted; they are an attempt to get around our neutral point of view policy, but that is not the case here. And forks that (usually unintentionally) simply duplicate existing articles should be merged and redirected. But this is obviously not a simple duplication. --Lambiam 22:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I overhauled the article Metric system a few months ago. I was worried that it was too high-brow and as it gets 4k hits a day, I felt that a complementary article was needed, so I wrote the article Introduction to the metric system. I have deliberately targeted the two articles at different audiences - one at people who have a solid scientific background and the other at people whose scientific background is minimal. I agree that there is a certain amount of duplication, but I did write both and I did take the photograph that appears in the lede of both. Martinvl (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—this article fits into a pattern of many, many, many (i was pleasantly surprised to be able to write so many manies) other "introduction to" articles on quite technical subjects that require, for wp to function properly as an encyclopedia, to be written at different levels for different audiences. think of the poor person who wants to know what a centimetre is compared to a metre and reads something like The base units used in the metric system must be realisable, ideally with reference to natural phenomena rather than unique artifacts. or think of the physics student who needs to know that In 1901, Giorgi showed that by adding an electrical unit as a fourth base unit, the various anomalies in electromagnetic systems could be resolved. The metre-kilogram-second-coulomb (MKSC) and metre-kilogram-second-ampere (MKSA) systems are examples of such systems but has to wade through simple explanations of what kinds of things are measured in units of various kinds. both this article and the technical article on the metric system are necessary, and neither is mergeable into the other.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the precedent of the other "Introduction to ... " articles. Imzadi 1979 → 00:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Simple case of failure to read WP:CFORK which states, "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". There is therefore no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, suggest early SNOW close - We need more of these for younger, unfamiliar, or less educated readers to be able to grasp concepts that are often irrational or abstract. Could we get one for quantum physics next? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—we both have one on quantum physics and do not have one on quantum physics until such point as someone clicks on a link and resolves the quantum state of the article. (support snow close).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Parallels such subject matter introductions as are listed under Category:Introductions. There's no good reason to delete this article. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent article, useful guide for inhabitants of countries that do not use the metric system. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Philadelphia School

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

No content given for non-notable school. Tinton5 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for re-creation PROVIDED a future article-creator provides evidence of notability in any future creation. As a side-note I did a Google News search of "The Philiadephia School" and filtered out things like "School system," "school district," "school of," etc. Among the first hundred or so results I found only one that even mentioned the school and it was a biographical sketch of a person who happened to be a board member of the school. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: AfD is not in the September 19 log. Assume the first time it was listed on the AfD page is today. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable K-8 school. Normally we would redirect to the relevant school district, but this is an independent school so that isn't possible. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Apart from a very sparse infobox it has no content whatsoever. It's obviously been abandoned by its creator and I see no reason why other editors would be expected to develop it - or spend more time on this AfD. It's practically an A3. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M1 motorway junction list

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

Totally pointless transclusion page. If people want a print they can print the template. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, template page and all. Entirely unnecessary, and there's a precedent against separate articles for junction lists. --Rs chen 7754 21:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I personally have found it useful to print off junction lists for use in the car prior to making a journey which is why I created this article. I notice that User:Rschen7754 is American; it might be that strip maps are common place in the US, but I have never visitied the US, so I don't know, all that I do know is that they are not common in the UK.
I originally planned to design the template so that it could be printed, but I found that the procedure for printing a template is different to that for printing an article - templates can only be printed using the browser print facility, articles have the Wikipedia printing facilities as well as the browser facilites including PDF facilites.
If this proves popular, I see a potential to create books of junction lists.

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating. May I suggest that this be revisited in say two weeks time and see how many hits this article gets. If it is getting a significant number of hits, then maybe the precendent against separate articles for junction lists need to be revisited - the railway and canal group's maps are all created via templates.

If it gets hardly any hits, then I agree, the experiment failed and it can be deleted. Martinvl (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace is the wrong place to conduct experiments. --Rs chen 7754 22:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, page hits have no correlation with the usefulness to the user, nor infer the intentions of the user prior to arriving at that article and upping the ticker. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any page hits will be inflated because of the AfD as regular editors that follow AfD see this "article" linked and discussed at that forum. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with previous editors on all counts:

How such an experiment be carried out other than in main space? The only other article that has been modified to accomodate this experiment is the Wikilink to this page in M1 motorway, the perturbation to the rest of Wikipedia is minimal and the results might well tell us more about what the outside world are really looking for. Moreover, we will be getting that information without the users realising that they are being monitored - the ideal scenario for an experment.
The most likely way to this article is via the statement immediately above the junction list in M1 motorway that says: "A version of this list, suitable for printing can be found here."
New articles always get a large number of hits on Day 1 and Day 2. Therafter the hit count drops. That is the hit count that we need to see, or are we so impatient as a community that we try to forecast what the outside world really rather than do a little experimenting to see what they really want. For the experiment to work, AfD editors must avoid visiting the site.

All I am asking is to let the users decide - after all they are our customers.Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not needed, the junction list can be included in the main article. ZoeL (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the table is in the main article, and a special version just for printing is not needed. As for Martinvl's comment about strip maps, they aren't as common in the US as he is implying. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. This is by self-admission of the author a travel guide. I rather think that the existence of WP:NOTTRAVEL is proof enough that "the users" have already made a decision here as to the suitability of this content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well-intentioned article, but on the wrong website. Content forks are a pain to maintain, and we shouldn't have duplicate information in Wikipedia pages just because someone might want to print out part of a page. For anyone who really wants to print off a list of motorway junctions from Wikipedia, on most computers a copy-paste into a word processor will do the job. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTTRAVEL as cited several times already. I personally feel that the creator's intentions are in themselves sound reason for deletion (using Wikipedia as an "experiment" to judge "potential to create books of junction lists"?) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, completely unsourced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to list in main article. Dough 48 72 02:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Giving less weight to last two keep !votes because this article isn't an index at all. In fact, there really arn't any arguments in this discussion that are based in policy other than the nominators. I find stronger arguments for delete and am less convinced by the keep rationales. v/r - T P 02:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of electrostatic generator patents

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

Prod contested. Indiscriminate collection of patents sharing the words "electrostatic" and "generator". No significance explained for any of this list, no unifying theme, no enduring encyclopediac value. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful for anyone wishing to know what patents/inventions related to this industry exist, and who invented them. Listing what year they were patented in would be helpful also to get an example of how things developed over time. This belongs in an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 08:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator Really? Which of these patents were important, and which were not? Which of these patents got turned into products selling, oh, let's say, more than $1,000,000 per year, as opposed to those patents that languished on a shelf? What is the criterion for including a patent in this list, other than mentioning "electrostatic" and "generator" somewhere in the text? I see there's at least one electrostatic *motor* on this list, which suggests a certain fogginess on the part the compiler. It's a fairly useless list; anyone who wants a list of patents with these keywords can obtain an up to date version as easily as read this list. Why does it stop in 1991? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It shows the development phase. How much money each one made isn't relevant to inclusion on the list. And a list being incomplete is not a reason to destroy it. Dream Focus 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I suggest you work on this article to improve it. Perhaps you might even like to join the happy band at ARS make a hobby of such constructive endeavours? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment by nominator The correct article to work on would be Electrostatic generator. A "list of patents" is inherently un-improvable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.T R 21:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We absolutely should not be creating lists of patents for every conceivable invention.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not liking something, isn't a reason to delete it. Do you have any other reasons? Wikipedia is not paper so no limit in space. Dream Focus 16:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the exact same reasons pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of homopolar generator patents. The existence of a patent does not equate to notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Yaksar above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Organization, thats probobally not the respone your looking for, but look at the artical, It is a highly organized comprehensive chart of the topic, a usefull tool. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organized and comprehensive are good qualities for a list to have. But they have absolutely nothing to do with a list article being fit for wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a useful WP:SETINDEX article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to read what a set index article actually is. I know it's important to some editors that every single article is kept, but it would really be nice if you could at least make your arguments consistent with the topic being discussed. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nothamerica10000 Christian75 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator How is this article an "index" to a list of similarly-named items? Patent numbers are unique, and this is a list of patents with the words "electrostatic" and "generator" in them. I thought we weren't supposed to make list articles of random intersections? List of left-handed Newfoundlanders, anyone? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You should probably know that AfDs are not just a vote. When you simply say "per another user" it doesn't mean too much to the closing administrator, especially in this case, where the argument you are seconding is not even correct or applicable.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EuQoS

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

Non-notable project. Existed only for a brief period and does not seem to have garnered much interest then or now. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—the find sources template above generates hundreds of hits in both gscholar and gbooks that discuss this project at great length (many devoting entire chapters or sections of chapters to the subject). the fact that these are not yet present in the article is not a reason for deletion (WP:BEFORE D3). it is clearly notable.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a person, would you regard those citation data as indicative of notability? (As far as I can see, the publications are from project members). I would not think this meets WP:PROF. Even less so considering this is a group of researchers of different universities. Note also that the project's homepage is a dead link. Also, many of the hits in Gbooks are to books using the (Spanish?) word "euqos", apparently not referring to this project. --Crusio (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

—actually i looked quite carefully at the first few pages of hits on both scholar and books, eliminated the ones with brief mentions. these are not citations, they are full on discussions. i didn't see any in spanish, and i've never heard the spanish word "euqos"; neither has google translate. if anything it'd be arabic, with the qos, but one doesn't tend to see eu in arabic transliterations. anyway look at [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. these are random selections from the first two pages of gbooks hits; i think it's clear from these that they're not mere mentions of the topic but discussion of it, and that's what makes it notable. i could easily have found the same results on gscholar.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I speak neither Spanish nor Arabic, but several of those hits quite obviously have nothing to do with this project. And what I meant by citations is an analogy with WP:PROF: we don't judge an academic notable because she/he has published articles. Only if those articles have made an impact do we judge them notable. I strongly feel that things should not be different for a project. That project members publish is to be expected. However, only if those publications have made an impact does this indicate notability. Hope this clarifies. --Crusio (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Tentative delete since like any other topic would need a truly independent source (not related to the project) to indicate notability. There were thousands of websites that sprung up for a few years and became defunct like this one. Usually I am a devout mergist, but it is not clear where this might fit. Probably the quality of service article itself? Ah, I see it is already mentioned there without any source, sigh. If any technology developed by this group was actually implemented, that might also be mentioned somewhere, but it is not clear it went beyond papers. From what I can tell, Next Steps in Signaling, Common Open Policy Service and Audio Video Bridging are some standards efforts in this area which outlasted this group. Those might need to be beefed up, perhaps mentioning this effort if relevant. Even if it survives this round it is going to fade into obscurity eventually; probably never become notable in Wikipedia sense. W Nowicki (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the proposed deletion was contested by User:Donalmorris, and I ran across this website that advertises a company founded by "Donal Morris" that seems connected to EuQoS. W Nowicki (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another EU-funded academic project. They held meetings, and collectively wrote a book. If the project's achievements were more substantial. No showing of notability, and not very informative at all: During the project the consortium produced a number of deliverables and conducted a number of trials on solutions for end to end quality of service over heterogeneous networks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i'm really not trying to be difficult here, but i just don't see what you all mean. i see that the first source i linked to there is by people in the project, although it's published by springer, which adds some weight to it. the second seems to be by people in the project, but the rest of the ones i linked to there actually seem to not be by people in the project. i agree that the article as it stands sounds like spam, but i'm mystified as to how you all know so easily that those many sources are not third party. they sure look third party to me. oh yeah, and i finally see what you mean about foreign language. it's greek, it's a river mentioned in thucydides. i didn't even see those because they were obviously irrelevant. i wasn't arguing lots of ghits means keep, i was saying that there seem to be hundreds of ghits that i actually looked at the abstracts of to be sure they were on topic. it's hard to be sure of independence with a project like this, but there don't seem to be just a few names popping up, and at least one of the links above is definitely third party, as it's an encyclopedia itself. i have absolutely no stake in the outcome of this afd, but i'm really mystified as to what everyone else means.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point that we should be addressing the topic and not the article, which what at least I was talking about. The article itself does not make any assertion of notability, but just has one external dead link to the defunct website, and an inline link to the book published by the project. Since you did the work to filter out some sources, they are worth a look, thanks:

The book writen by the project
Conference papers from project, refers heavily to Next Steps in Signaling, and Common Open Policy Service
A three volume series of which this one has 1296, seems to mention EuQoS on four pages (I can only see snippets)
Mentioned about four times in a book on wireless networks, probably Mobile QoS relevant. Editor from Canada, but it seems a chapter or paper reprint, and talks generally about future networks, even though published in 2008 when the project ended.
Chapter by people on the project talking about "next generation" and "future" stuff
Paper by members of the project talking about "current work"
Snippet shows one page on "Future Internet"; blurb says "expert international contributions" so not sure about independence
One mention found in a book about another EU project, so might be same researchers with a different contract

My point was that as a reader, I would much rather see a well-developed and sourced article on a scientific subject that describes the progress in a chronological context. For example, the Drosophila melanogaster has been the subject of many many studies over the years. There is one article on the species, not one on each study. I did some work on quality of service such as adding an archived copy of the EuQoS web site as a citation to put it in context with all the other mutlitudes of studies of this problem. W Nowicki (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, due to lack of independent sources on the project and as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 02:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers & Sisters (Family Guy)

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

All plot and unsourced information JDDJS (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't established. WP:EPISODE is relevant here. §everal⇒|Times 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Er, I could put a reception section and cite a review from The A.V. Club, which should help; there's an article for every episode of Family Guy; why should this be deleted?-
  - Well if you can improve it, why don't you? JDDJS (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done-SCB '92 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indiviudal episodes of this show are notable, compare The Simpsons, Futurama, etc. At worst, redirect to the list of episodes. Lugnuts (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually at WP:TV, it's been agreed that while most prime time shows can have a article for every episode, it goes by the state of the episode's article and not the show its from when deciding whether or not to redirect. JDDJS (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that this episode has received anything other than routine coverage or won any awards. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of episodes; not independently notable. Neutrality^talk 20:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Lugnuts. Gage (talk) 01:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. My googling is finding only program listings and promos, not in depth discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 01:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah al-Qasemi

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

Information unverifiable. Unable to establish notability. ^Bongo_matic 06:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: The sole reliable source I can find is Jürgen Wasella's 1997 German-language book Vom Fundamentalisten zum Atheisten: die Dissidentenkarriere des ʻAbdallāh al-Qaṣīmī, 1907-1996 published by Perthes Verlag (ISBN 3623004049). Gabbe (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This fella is notable, he has published many books and many discuss him. Check out sources in Arabic Google books, 186 results. Google news 52 articles. Will add some inline citations to the article later. Maybe his surname is rather "al-Qusaimi"?, I can find 3 results in English when using this spelling [29], this gets further complicated as "Abdullah" is also written as "Abdallah" and "Abdellah". --Tachfin (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to defer to your judgment but before I withdraw the nomination could you please give a description of the sources about him (rather than his books)? The English language references you provided don't go towards establishing notability. ^Bongo_matic 04:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but mark as needing better referencing. The links below seem strongish and the arabic wikipedia page seems substantial with a long history and many edits from many editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ^Message 19:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of books that discuss the subject in detail (from the Gbooks results I've given above):

[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]

Similarly, in Gnews results I gave above there are many articles discussing the subject including from reputable Arabic media (Asharq Al-Awsat, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Al Ra'i). Subject was known for being a Saudi Wahabi cleric who became an anti-religion atheist in his 50s. English sources are hard to find in this case. Tachfin (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there significant coverage or multiple passing mention? ^Bongo_matic 01:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Helland fiddle maker family. v/r - T P 01:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Eilevsson Steintjønndalen

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

Google Book search showed no results for the full name. The claim in the article that he "became a fine violin maker. But he gave it up at an early age" does not sound promising for satisfaction of WP:BIO. Editors fluent in Norwegian might be able to see if any of the sources for the first and last name at Google Book Search help with notability. Edison (talk) 18:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I cannot find any other reliable sources, including an Internet search and a search through the national library. The Norwegian article on him has some sources, but they all seem to be on fiddlemaking in general, and the same list is included in his father's article. So-called sources include a newspaper article from when he was 7, "private letters" and various books about the rural district. The article does mention one book, which covers the history of the Harding fiddle in general, but I do not know how much it discusses Steintjønndalen; a single mention of him there will not merit notability. It seems unlikely that Steintjønndalen is notable, particularly when the article says he quit early and only made a few fiddles. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Hegvald below, who makes a strong point. Most of the 14 people are probably not notable, but I suspect they are notable collectively. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging this and most of the very short articles on his relatives into the article on The Helland fiddle maker family? I will admit to my complete ignorance about Norwegian fiddle-making (and thus my complete ignorance about where to look for sources), but I suspect that a family like this one is more notable collectively than the majority of its individual members. The few members that have slightly more substantial biographies can be left with their own articles and the rest can be broken out again if it ever becomes necessary. --Hegvald (talk) 08:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books is extremely anglo centric and I doubt that you will find anything about Hardanger fiddle traditions or -players there. A better place to ask for sources is at the the folk music center at Valdres Folkemuseum or similar places. Talking to Frode Inge, and knowing his sources, I think the articles are sound and should be kept as individual articles. Its not the family that is important here, its what they have done as individuals. There might be a slight misconception here; in Sweden the family heritage is important and also in most other European countries. In Norway its not very important. We have a fiddle player from a family of musicians, not a musician from a fiddle player family. To me it would be very strange to collect these articles in one common article, but perhaps its just me. Jeblad (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian Hardangerfiddle heritage

Jon Eilevsson Steintjønndalen was a member of the Helland family of fiddlemakers, the family who developed the modern Hardanger fiddle. He was one of them who carried the developement foreward. He lived in a small community, Bø in Telemark, when the times were very harsh for fiddlemakers. So, after working as a fiddlemaker in the 1870-ties, he left his occupation and became a stone worker.
But the fiddles he made are still in high consideration.

I just had a telephone call with the autor of Hardingfela, amanuensis at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), mr Bjørn Aksdal, who was the leader of the just concluded The Norwegian Hardanger fiddle research project. He expressed his regrets about the deletion of the article.

The article is a piece of a more complete picture of the Hardanger fiddle history. Excluding Jon Eilevsson Steintjønndalen from Wikipedia will not make Wikipedia any better or more reliable. Very little is written about him but he is briefly mentioned in a number of sources. There is hardly much more known about him than written in the article. :Jon Eilevson Steintjønndalen is mentioned in this overwiev: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/norwegian-musical-instrument-makers-books-llc/1022742942But research continues and new information may be unveiled.

So, in my opinion it serves no sensible purpose to delete the Jon Eilevsson Steintjønndalen article.--Frode Inge Helland (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:prospection. v/r - T P 01:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prospection

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

This word has been used since 2003 by Voros and since 2006 by Gilbert to mean "looking forward in time" or "purposefully looking forward into the future." Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and even if it were, this neologism does not seem to be in wide use. "Prospection" seems to have a different meaning in archeology, as "geophysical survey," which might hamper searches for refs. Edison (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—i agree with nominator regarding the possibility of an article on either what this one is currently about or on the archeological meaning. on the other hand, there seems to be a concept called this in (maybe) discourse analysis or linguistics which is analyzed in what seems to me to be an encyclopedic manner at length in reliable sources. see e.g. these sources:

Mona Baker; Gill Francis; Elena Tognini-Bonelli (1993). Text and technology: in honour of John Sinclair. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 71–. ISBN 978-90-272-2138-4. Retrieved 11 October 2011.
Susan Hunston; Gill Francis (2000). Pattern grammar: a corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins Publishing Company. pp. 242–. ISBN 978-90-272-2274-9. Retrieved 11 October 2011.

i'm not sure what to say. maybe there ought to be an article called this, but this article is definitely not it.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to wiktionary:prospection. I agree with the nominator that this is a dictionary definition, so I started a wiktionary entry. It is not a common word, but it isn't a neologism; the OED gives citations back to the 19th and 17th centuries, with essentially the same meaning. I think the references to linguistics given by alf.laylah.wa.laylah really have the same meaning too, though used in a specialized context and obscured by jargon. There are several articles which could be written, for example on Archaeological prospection or Stumbling on Happiness or Joseph Voros, but I don't think Prospection is a good title for any of them, and I don't think this stub is a good starting place either. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

redirect as per Dingo1729. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unterheiligenstadt Parish Church

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

This article about a parish church does not indicate that it satisfies the relevant notability guideline, WP:ORG or the general notability guideline WP:N. . Not every church congregation (or church building) is notable by Wikipedia standards, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory of every church in the world. This is a translation from an article in the German Wikipedia, which is no better referenced. Edison (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing appears to be notable about this suburban church. The building is not historic, the architecture is nothing special, and the church or its parish do not appear to have any particular claim to fame. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and MelanieN. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Teymur

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

Contested PROD. All of these subjects are one sentence stubs along the lines of "___ is a neighbourhood in [an area]] of Mashhad. None of them are referenced. I will be redirecting the articles that can be logically redirected (none in this AfD). When I did a Google search (where none of the results were reliable sources) these AfD'ed articles fell into one of three categories:

The name came back with more than one result, so that a redirect to Mashhad may not be the most logical, but where the subjects weren't notable enough to warrant a disambig page.
There were no reliable sources for the neighborhood.
There were no sources that referenced the neighborhood at all.

The neighborhoods fail WP:GNG, and redirects are illogical as they cannot either be confirmed that they are Mashhad neighborhoods, or there are too many potential redirects without any of them being notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all unreferenced an non-notable, without a good option for a redirect:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - A number of editors have tried to communicate with the author to no avail. There were all created in a short timeframe and they're all sub stub quality. We don't even accept all villages and it seems that these are all neighborhoods within larger towns (some of the "districts" they're within have similar 1 line articles, which is telling). Shadowjams (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By creating blue links sub-stubs conceal the need for a proper article. Now someione go and nominate the hundreds (I mean hundreds) of sub-stubs created by Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs)! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- No sources.Farhikht (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as failing WP:GNG for being completely unsourced. Suggest to the creator that they work on such pages one and a time and include (a) the arabic name(s) for the suburb and (b) two or three references or sources that talk about the neighbourhood. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Toliver

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

Never played in a regular season game of professional football. Isn't notable by WP: Notability (sports). College Athletic career doesn't meet WP:GNG. William 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —William 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — William 17:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep College football players qualify under WP:GNG if they have received significant coverage in the mainstream news media outlets, regardless of whether they ever play in the NFL. In this case, Toliver passes the test. He was the leading receiver for the No. 8 2010 LSU Tigers football team and the offensive MVP of the 2011 Cotton Bowl Classic. He gained over 1,800 receiving yards at LSU, which is one of the elite college football teams in the USA. A search of various newspaper databases reveals dozens of articles about Toliver. I've added a number of these sources to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG as a collegiate athlete with a good amount of coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 01:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Leamington F.C. season

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

This is merely a list of results per WP:NOT#DIR. Only sourced to the League's website, which is of course primary. Also, a team playing at such low level, whilst notable in itself, should not have a season article as even if coverage was aviailable, any possible sources would either be primary or very minor local publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Amended from 'Keep' to a 'Comment' thanks to Black Kite (t)'s contribution.

I would be happy to see it go, but I think it's important that it's done according to clear and consistent guidelines.

The PROD proposal preceding this deletion proposal read: "The club is not Conference National or above meaning it fails notibility for an individual season article." -- implying that this was a formalised consensus on notability. I have found no evidence that this is the case.

The page falls under the influence of WP:FOOTBALL which has its own notability guidelines at WP:FOOTYN. The team is objectively notable by those criteria, since it plays in the national cup. I would be sympathetic to the assertion that, with 761 entrants in the FA Cup, that criterion is too broad; but currently the page says what it says.

The page follows a template used by many teams, and provided by WP:FOOTBALL at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/League_season. If WP:NOT#DIR precludes this kind of page, then surely that should apply at every level of the game?

The reference to the league's web page, while primary, would appear to me to be the most appropriate one. It provides evidence for the facts, but not, I agree, for notability. If secondary sources are really a requirement, it stands to reason that local newspapers, and the national Non League Non-League Paper could be referenced.

May I suggest that WP:FOOTYN be updated such that it provides sufficient guidance, whereupon this page, and pages like it, can be deleted with little ceremony (a link to the relevant paragraph in the PROD proposal) --Ukslim (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the issue is WP:FOOTYN. With such cases, we have to take them on their own merits. As it stands, the article is effectively unsourced and also fails WP:NOT. I suppose it is technically possible to write such an article, but in the vast majority of cases the sources would necessarily be trivial. If one thinks about it, this is logical. Where I live there is a Level 8 football team, which has its own Wikipedia article. I could write a season article based on the local newspaper's match reports ... but WP:N contradicts this; "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage". Whereas you'll find for league teams, such articles are often sourced to significant sources such as the BBC or national newspapers. Personally, I wouldn't have any of these articles, because I think they all fail WP:NOT#NEWS, but I suspect I'd be in the minority. Anyway, wouldn't this be better off summarised in a paragraph in the team's main article? Black Kite (t) (c) 10:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point re local press/sports coverage, and I've downgraded this to "comment". I maintain that there should be a clearly communicated cutoff point, and WP:FOOTYN seems to be the place to put it. I don't think (e.g.) 2011–12_West_Ham_United_F.C._season should be deleted, even thought it is "merely a list of results" (and transfers). But how low in the league system should we go? The PROD alluded to Conference National being the cutoff; it's arbitrary but it's as good a place as any, but it should be made explicit somewhere like WP:FOOTYN. I assume that the reason these are not merged into the team's main mage is that they are voluminous, intended to be kept for posterity, and intended to accumulate over time.--Ukslim (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -It is sourced there is one match report per game. I Searched and checked and can find two more match reports per game although do not see they are any better than the ones that are their already although at least they are not club ones. To me there is no clear consensus within WP:Footy as to whether these are notable or not. Some see it as Conference National some like i think its an arbitrary limit. For me it is a keep until consensus is determined. I also have looked for further sources and could add a full section of transfers with sources not just the club ones. I am willing to do this but only if its agreed its worth saving. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, which requires independent third party sources with substantial coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus to delete or redirect. v/r - T P 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer McCreight

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

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

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

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

This is a WP:BLP of a student who organized an event called Boobquake and has blogged and commented on feminism and atheism. Boobquake is a notable event that passes WP:N, but I believe that this biography page fails WP:BLP1E. If one looks at the sourcing unrelated to Boobquake, and non-local and independent of the subject, the remaining reliable sources consist of the following. An article in The Guardian about the dominance of men in the New Atheism, [47], mentions the subject twice in passing. A short profile of the subject is one of fourteen in an article at More.com, [48]. A book review in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, [49], briefly comments humorously on something the subject wrote about joke gifts. Aside from some rather light references in several blogs, that's it. Much of the page summarizes the subject's education, but the subject clearly does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Editors have discussed on the article talk page finding more sources to establish notability, but mostly agree that all the sources have already been found. I think the best result would be to make the page a redirect to Boobquake, but one editor has objected to doing so, which brings us here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am of the opinion that I did an excellent job of finding numerous sources that exceeded the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. I'm aware that simply as an academic she's not notable; however, she's become a regular on the atheism/skeptic talk circuit. I also feel like you're oversimplifying the sourcing- at the moment there are 25 references about her, and I'd say a great deal more than four (or so) are reliable. I do want to say that I understand your concerns with the article but don't agree with them. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the collegial way you said that; I understand your perspective too. To be clear: there's plenty of reliable sourcing related to Boobquake. There's also additional sourcing related to her roles in atheism and feminism, and the issue I'm raising isn't reliability per se, but rather reliability in combination with being non-local and being truly independent of the subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I asked the question on the talk page rather than start an AfD because I have been on the cusp. At the time I was aware of some reliable sources not in the article, but not sufficient to establish notability. The result of my inquiry was some sources I had not been aware of. It was still a weak case at best, but in the absence of objection, I did not file. Now that someone else has filed, I think it best remains a redirect until a better case can be made based on more thorough coverage.Novangelis (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this is a borderline case, I would argue that McCreight is just notable enough in her own right as an activist to warrant a separate article. The primary arguments against this article--that most of the sources discuss Boobquake and those that don't are either "local," in-passing mentions, or "minor"--are not on their own an argument for deletion or against notability. The basic criteria for notability states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" (emphasis mine). I interpret this to mean that it is allowable and possible to use a body of "minor" coverage by multiple sources to establish notability, but absent any other central claim to notability, this is probably not enough. I will concede that McCreight is primarily known for Boobquake, which is indeed her central claim to notability in this case, but the unrelated, fully independent sources, taken as a whole rather than individually, demonstrate that she has become notable as an atheist and feminist activist and writer in general.

I also think that perhaps my definition of "intellectually independent" sources is different than the nominator's. Nowhere does that imply to me that local coverage should be excluded (or counted as less). Further, we need to take into account the context of McCreight's activism--coverage of both atheist and feminist activism suffer from the phenomenon of "name loading" in the media(where the article throws as many relevant names and quotes at you as possible to "prove" that the ideas presented aren't fringy). The Guardian article is probably most guilty of this in this list of sources, but the nominator also uses the fact that McCreight is one of 14 profiles in a More magazine article (it was in print, not just an online feature, by the way) as evidence that the coverage was "trivial." If you look at the coverage of almost any other major name in atheist activism with similar blogging or writing credentials as McCreight (many of whom have articles that could definitely use some love and independent sources of their own), you'll see the same media treatment. Perhaps that's an argument for putting up at least 4 or 5 more AfDs, but again I argue that a central, cohesive claim to notability that can be supported by a broad body of mostly minor independent coverage is enough to tip the balance toward "notable enough" in borderline cases such as this. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point in your first paragraph, but I think that if one goes through each of the sources, and removes those that are about Boobquake, there isn't much left. A lot of what I meant by "local" are sources either from the university the subject attends, or groups of which the subject is a member. I fully agree that there are plenty of Boobquake-related sources, and I guess it comes down to a judgment call about whether the additional sources add up in the way you describe – and I do agree that this is a judgment call. About "name loading" in your second paragraph, I'm afraid that seems to me to be original research. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is frowned on (for excellent reasons) *in articles*. I don't see that there's anything wrong with it in AfD discussions. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you have a good point there. Let's change what I said, then, to "personal opinion, and I'm not convinced by it." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Name loading" (or something very similar) was a phrase that I recall reading in a paper about logical fallacies and the psychology of groups while I was in grad school. I've looked high and low for the actual paper and I can't manage to find it. (I know you have no reason to take my word for this, but bear with me here.) Admittedly, it's a bit of a neologism, but it's related to the concepts of Argumentum ad populum and Argument from authority as a way to frame groups outside of the traditional mainstream as acceptable because a lot of people are doing it, and then by listing actual names, it puts a human face on it and make it all the more palatable. I'll keep looking for the paper (or one that talks about the same thing). This is actually driving me crazy because I can't find something I know that exists, even though at this point it's really tangential to the discussion. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion existing references are sufficient to show her notability. Francis Bond (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very well known figure in the atheist community so I am surprised sources are so hard to find, I have added a few and I think the article just scrapes by. JORGENEV 06:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to add those. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boobquake. Most of the above keeps are worded very tentatively. Perhaps what makes them uncomfortable and certainly what makes me uncomfortable with this article are the sources, which are mostly either web flotsam and/or obscure regarding the subject herself (e.g. using her student web page as documentation for grad student status or podcast liner notes), or are emphemeral and/or articles written by the subject herself about Boobquake, e.g. this one. None of these really are WP:RS about McCreight, as notability policies require. Rather, the 28 sources in this article tell me collectively that the subject is known to the broader world only through Boobquake, which was (so far) a one-time-only event – textbook case of WP:BLP1E, I would say. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The linked page is not "her student web page." It is an official profile on the department's web page that exists for each one of its graduate students, which is not under her control. It's hard to imagine a more reliable source for the claim that she's a graduate student in that department. --Grouse (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that the issue here is not whether we have sufficient reliable sourcing that she is a student in that department (or, as a recent edit added to the page, that she won an undergraduate academic award), but whether such sources establish notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. --Grouse (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a well-known figure in atheist and skeptical circles and is a sought-after speaker at national events. The focus of the current article, however, perhaps is a bit too much on other aspects of the subject which do not meet the criteria for notability. --Grouse (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-sourced. Gamaliel (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Please see below. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. McCreight is already well-known enough in atheist and feminist circles to qualify as notable for her blogging and activism, not just Boobquake. As pointed out above, she's a sought-after speaker at atheist conferences. She is also sufficiently active within those circles that she is likely to become more notable in the future. That moves her strongly into the keep column. --Rocketgeek 21:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Note: this editor has made no previous edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors have commented that the subject is well-known in atheist and other circles, but editors simply saying so does not make it so. We need sources that indicate the subject is notable in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My attempt to cite that when I wrote the article was to cite the guest lists of these notable atheist/skeptic conferences (for example, The Amaz!ng Meeting: [50]) and her appearances on podcasts (ex: Savage Love) - how else would you go about citing that? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand that. I'd argue that you would need sources beyond the blogosphere that commented that her appearances in such places were of note. I don't think that there are enough such sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Two of the "keeps" immediately above are arguing WP:FAME and WP:CRYSTAL, which specifically do not move her "strongly into the keep column". We need WP:RS that discuss her specifically and, moreover, outside of her association with Boobquake. Failing that, this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Agricola44 (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think they're so much arguing WP:FAME as they are simply saying she's notable outside of Boobquake. There are certainly RS in the article that are outside of Boobquake, the key question of this discussion is the detail and breadth of those sources. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reference to FAME meant that they were just saying that she is notable outside of Boobquake, without backing that assertion up with an analysis of the sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisiely. The above arguments are nothing more than assertion of WP:FAME. With respect to sources outside of Boobquake, they're either trivial mentions of her name, e.g. 2: "bloggers like ... and Jen McCreight replied...", ref 7: "of women like ... McCreight ... indicates anything, it's that...", discussion on blogs (e.g. ref 8, ref 21), listing on organizational websites (e.g. refs 12, 19), etc. There's little if anything here that qualifies as WP:RS. She is undoubtedly famous in some sense, but I think that if we are following our own rules, an article for her will have to wait until there are real sources. Agricola44 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I have noticed that the subject of the page is commenting about this AfD in her blog (which may be why some comments have appeared here). Since she is probably reading this, I'd like to say that my nominating the page is definitely nothing personal against her! My reading of her post is that she is saying, in part, that it feels awkward to watch people discussing whether the article about her should exist. In my opinion, this is very much an important part of why we have WP:BLP1E. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic speculation

- Post is here. Given the presumption that most of her readers are sympathetic, I'm afraid it's also possible that Miss McCreight is engaging in off-site canvassing. Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  - BLP discussions are not appropriate forums for speculative allegations against the subject of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but WP:CANVAS is routinely called-out in all AfDs, whenever it is detected, although I'll note that I did not make an accusation. I only raised the possibility – because this case is unusual in that we do not typically have web-savvy subjects commenting on their own AfDs off-site in real time. I don't know whether you've read the blog post. But there is, in fact, a suggestive excerpt written by Miss McCreight, "It’s also weird finding things wrong with my article and not being able to fix it, due to the rules about not editing stuff where you have conflicts of interests. I won the Undergraduate Student Research Award from the American Society of Mammlogists, not Microbiologists! And then there are other awards I’ve won that don’t have documentation available on the internet, and therefore get lost in No Citation land. Oh well." This passage expresses dissatisfaction with the situation and supplies information to presumably sympathetic readers who could get involved in this AfD. If this were her intention, it would absolutely be considered canvassing. I don't think it's possible to know, but I think we should ask Miss McCreight, if she is reading this, for the courtesy to reserve any further comments on her own blog regarding this AfD until after it closes. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Since you've used your response to expand on your allegation tenfold, I've collapsed this discussion. Commenting on something is not canvassing, correcting errors is not canvassing. When the subject of the article actually does something that constitutes canvassing, you can call it out here. Until then, please keep unsubstantiated speculation regarding living individuals to yourself. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you've mis-interpreted legit AfD discussion (twice now) as "allegation". If it makes you feel better to obscure this from others, so be it. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Another source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/26/new-atheism-boys-club?newsfeed=true 76.175.197.99 (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's already reference 7 in the article and it's one of the ones that only makes trivial mention of her name (see above). With all due respect, it appears you've read neither the article nor the AfD carefully. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Foiled by the match-case checkbox in ctrl-f :( but it looks like the nominator has put even less effort into finding more sources. Cite Pharyngula. PZ Myers has a larger readership, and is more of a reliable source, than the typical paid-journalist hack who mindlessly copies press releases and plagiarizes other journalists. WP:RS does not disqualify blogs categorically and I've no more time to waste on this ridiculous AFD nom. 76.175.197.99 (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:RS doesn't categorically disqualify blogs, WP:BLPSPS does, with the rationale that self-published blogs that do not have some editorial control exerted over them are not reliable as sources about living persons. I see the argument there, as there are a lot of gossip blogs and blog drama that can result in sourcing of incorrect information, and it's hard to police the entire blogopshere as to which blogs are known for reliable information and which aren't. I don't necessary agree with the policy as it unnecessarily discounts a lot of sources which would be considered acceptable as supporting sources in academia, but this isn't the place to have that fight. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The piling on of repetitive source after repetitive source does not alleviate the crystal-clear WP:BLP1E-ness of the subject. She has done one thing of note, the Boobquake thing; everything else is the typical blood-squeezing from a stone that fans typical try to to to 1E biographies to inflate the importance. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear case of BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Off-topic speculation

Comment. Re "Off-topic speculation" discussion hidden above: That post now has a response by a "susangerbic" saying that McCreight has canvassed for this article via blog in the past and invites readers to get involved. Lest others be upset, I'm not saying there is canvassing going on now – only reporting what's on McCreight's blog. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Reply Actually, the post says that the subject's blog linked to a blog about skeptics countering "woo" on Wikipedia a month ago. I think that "canvass" is a loaded term. There is nothing to suggest that there was any intent to skew the process. She has drawn attention to this site on her blog, and it is fairly likely that some of the opinions here were a result of that post, and that they may not be representative of editors otherwise here. That factor should be taken into consideration at close. On the other hand, there is no active call to save her article. We owe her the courtesy found within Wikipedia:Assume good faith and should accept her post as honest bemusement at this discussion.Novangelis (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Novangelis. I saw the posting to which Agricola44 refers (if you go to the link, scroll down to comment number 16 – after pausing to see comment number 4!). It's very clear that the subject comments about this AfD, but the reference in that posting is to people coming here to improve the page in the past, not to canvassing in this AfD. I think there have been some SPA comments in this AfD, but they are easy enough to identify and discount. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect It seems to me that this falls under 1E, at least for now. Subject is a young, energetic blogger but not established in her field, not a published author, and really only known for one thing (Boobquake). That is why I think redirect is the best answer - that way if she further distinguishes herself later we can remove the redirect. Allecher (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Despite all the wikipuffery this still looks like a clear case of BIO1E to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WriteWorks Publishing

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

Publisher of almost unknown authors: Lowenkopf has no books by this publisher in Worldcat, Eileen Workman's book isn't even in WorldCat, etc. etc. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam promoting unknown publisher, created by same SPA that created Eileen Workman. EEng (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to demonstrate notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Workman

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

Writer with 1 book, published by almost unknown publisher. Book not even in WorldCat. No usable references DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to demonstrate notability here. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious spam. Same SPA created WriteWorks Publishing. EEng (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Ziyazan

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY Hasn't played in a fully professional league and no senior international caps. Contested PROD, removed by ip editor without comment. Ravendrop 17:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, failing WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Federal Vampire and Zombie Agency

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

Two brief mentions in USA Today and the NYT, that is all--the rest of the references are not reliable or significant enough to make this subject pass our notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete—there seems also to be this (unfortunately paywalled) item, but nothing substantial.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - our notability guidelines are clear that incidental mentions are not enough. Kansan (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Fails WP:GNG. Trusilver 17:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above. Neutrality^talk 20:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - as above. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Confucius say, keep.. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confucius Peace Prize

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

I previously nominated this article for deletion last year as a non-independently-notable, non-recurring prize that the recipient Lien Chan implicitly disavowed. It was kept after fairly vigorous discussion. Part of the "keep" arguments last year was that it was not known at the time that the prize would survive for a second year — and since then, it appears that the prize has been cancelled this year and, while there is talk of reviving it for 2012, I really doubt that it would actually happen. All of the arguably notable aspects of the prize are already included in the other articles involved (Liu Xiaobo and 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, mostly). I am suggesting a Delete again at this point (although I must admit not feeling as strongly about it now as I did last year, but I'd still like a rediscussion in light of developments). Nlu (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable farce. See this New York Times article about the intrigue surrounding the attempt to give the award again in 2011. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The link provided directly above demonstrates WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in my eyes. Metropolitan90's description of subject as a "Notable farce" is very apt. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would argue that it should be kept because it meets both WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and Diversity of sources inclusion criteria.--Discott (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annabel Simms

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

Article was previously deleted by PROD, which was apparently later contested by article subject. Article was undeleted, with advice to article subject that she offer suggestions for sources on talk page. None forthcoming. PROD concern was Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. ClaretAsh (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything notable on google (plenty of publicity though), and nothing in Daily Telegraph, perhaps her articles there were anonymous or too long ago. Article as currently written is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiswick Chap (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 October 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply writing for a living does not constitute notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Lots of google hits, but as an author not subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Patrick's and St. Brigid's College

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

Delete: non-notable school with no notable alumni; only external link is dead. Second AFD, apparently. [email protected] (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - Appears to just barely pass WP:CORPDEPTH, as this school continues to receive ongoing coverage in Irish newspapers. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage is not enormous, it appears to be ongoing, although some is incidental. Here are some sources added to the article:
"Bishop Lagan commends College." Derry Journal.
"Drumkeerin Community News." Leitrim Observer.
"'Your Future Is Local'." Londonderry Sentinel.
"Lisneal leads anti-litter campaign." Londonderry Sentinel.
"More Northern Ireland grammars may lose status." Belfast Telegraph.
"Lisneal pupils amongst fingerprinted." Londonderry Sentinel.

Also, I fixed the link to the school in the article, it's now "alive" (functional). Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 02:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a secondary school, and established consensus if that secondary schools are presumed notable, unless a strong case is made that the school is not notable. In a few minutes, I found coverage of their cricket team here, the headmaster speaking out against dependency here, the school implementing biometric fingerprint identificatiion of students here, the school described as "a specialist school in Enterprise and Business" here, and the school described in several paragraphs of detail here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does "school with no notable alumni" have to do with whether we ought to have an article about this school? That is not a valid argument for deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cullen, none of the "we can't even verify it" concerns exist.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the recent references are only trivial community news items that don't prove the notability of the school. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no need to depart from the convention and experience that with enough research sufficient sources for high schools to meet WP:GNG will be found. TerriersFan (talk) 03:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage found to justify an article for a high school. Dream Focus 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long enough history involving enough individuals and events to justify notability. Sngourd (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra (software)

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

Non-notable. Has been PRODded and dePRODded. References all very thin - apparent magazine article appears to be company press release ("Copyright Hydra Management"). Other refs support the facts that it exist, is subsidiary of X, was recommended for purchase 7 years ago by Y. Does not appear sufficiently notable to have an article in the encyclopedia. A similar article appears to have been speedy-deleted G11 soon before the creation of this article - see User talk page on 10th Oct. PamD 15:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for the speedy deletion by dint of G11 see [51]. The present page has also been deleted before, because of an expired PROD (see [52]). However, the concern given doesn't make sense to me, and may have referred to a different topic by the same name. --Lambiam

The Hydra article is no different from many other company listings such as @task. We are doing our best to meet your guidelines, every other product in the Comparison_of_project_management_software page has a similar page to what we are trying to create. — --Neil (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't carry weight in these discussions. The concern here is that this software product is not notable. It is probably the case that there are many other articles on non-notable software; these should then also be deleted. If you want to argue that Hydra is notable, you should at least try to show it meets one or more of the inclusion criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (software). --Lambiam 16:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have appeared in many project management magazines over the years but the nature of these is such that the articles are only available to subscribers and hence this content is not available on the internet. We attend the main UK project management trade show (http://www.projchallenge.com/exhibitor_page.cfm?id=251) and regularly come up against Oracle, CA, and Microsoft and win business over them. Just because there are only a few mentions of us on the public internet does not mean we are not of interest to people using Wikipedia. Along with this our founder Geoff Reiss is now a leading Project Management expert and has written several books on the topic(https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gower-Handbook-Programme-Management/dp/0566086034/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-6 and https://www.amazon.co.uk/Project-Management-Demystified-Geoff-Reiss/dp/0415421632/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318360082&sr=8-1).--Neil ) 19:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in a periodical do not have to be available online to be acceptable sources, and certainly not if the periodical is carried in major libraries. But the magazine's content has to be under editorial control aiming at responsible publishing standards (implying fact-checking and avoiding distortions). And for an article to count towards notability, it has to be independent of the subject. So newspaper or magazine articles written by company employees or based on a company's press releases don't count. And also, the coverage has to be non-trivial; mere routine reporting doesn't count. By the way, WP:USEFUL is another argument that carries no weight in this discussion. --Lambiam 21:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the other 130+ articles about similar software and ensure they meet your notability guidelines. In terms of quality of content it would seem to me that having no comparison of products is better than having one which is incomplete. By not allowing the article you are preventing users finding this content yet allowing them to find similar content on other similar providers which is grossly unfair. The WP:OTHERSTUFF rules means there will never be consistency of content on Wikipedia and without consistency the content cannot be trusted to be accurate and complete.--Neil (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 11:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability, no reliable sources that are independent of the firm.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG, since none of the sources appear to be independent of the software / company. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hansen (magazine writer)

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. A small-time freelance writer, has not won any awards or anything especially noteworthy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE non-notable.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite there. He was interviewed once by NPR, but that's not enough to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above; no evidence of notability. Usual Caveats apply, however, as the subject is still early in his career. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As User:MichaelQSchmidt correctly points out, there appears to be WP:CSB due to lack of English language sources. Using the name Елена Черных uncovers more sources than the anglicized name. Closing as no consenus as the one keep !vote is a much stronger argument than the delete !votes and introduces significant information that I cannot be sure the delete !voters are aware of. v/r - T P 01:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yelena Chernykh

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

Delete as non-notable; no info. on Google search; only link dead; whoever created article knew her maiden name and traffic accident that claimed her life, that's about it. [email protected] (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Rms stated. The article contains no data about her apart from her death. This appears to have been made using only the one source. Unless more info can be added, definitely delete. Akjar13 (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Talk about WP:CSB. Someone chose to write about an actress perhaps notable to Russia, and I would hazzard a guess that English coverage will be minimal and that available news sources will be difficult to find. As her death merited news coverage,[53][54] due to her affiliation with Volgograd theater, so perhaps her life did too. Time to dig. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Schmidt: There is no bias here. That is offensive and obnoxious. I never heard of the woman before she died. An article comprised of just her marriage, maiden name and death in a car accident, created with one dead foreign language link, do not make her article notable. It is the responsibility of the article's creator(s) and/or those who wish to keep the article to improve it so that it is notable. It is not at the current time and the links you provide are in Russian, a language I do not speak or understand in any way. If you wish the article to remain the onus is on you to improve it sufficiently. Quis separabit? 01:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that she is not even "perhaps notable to Russia" as it appears that no one from her own country has even created an article for her on Russian language Wikipedia. Quis separabit? 01:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No "onus" on me, as I have not opined either a keep nor a delete. And no need to be so "offended", as "Systemic Bias" here refers to the unfortunate imbalance of topic coverage due to reliance of en.Wikipedia contributors on searches for English-language coverage for topics that may be notable elsewhere, even if not in English-speaking countries, and editors often not being able to find or read non-English sources. This does NOT mean any editor or group of editors are themselves personally biased... and such is obvious by both my polite comment and your response "...links you provide are in Russian, a language I do not speak or understand in any way". I do not read Russian either... and that was why I included this article in the "list of Russia-related deletion discussions" in the hopes that someone more able might assist here. No more... no less. I an surprised you find it "obnoxious" that I suggested we seek input from editors beter able to search for and read Russian sources than either you or I. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but question did you search on Russian? I still voted for delete, because it seems like her death was more notable as herself (sources reported only her death rather than her career); a case of WP:ONEEVENT? Also note that it was deleted on the Russian Wikipedia, with similar reasons.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 09:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for that link. Now we know that her stagework is more searchable under "Елена Черных" than it is under the Anglicized "Yelena Chernykh".[55][56][57] Translators, help! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mr. Schmidt: My comments here were not a personal attack on you as your misleading edit summary contends. It was a response to what I perceived as your snide ("Talk about WP:CSB") comment to me. Had you chosen to discuss the matter on my talk page I would have been happy to discuss it. I no longer am interested in doing so. Your provocative and accusatory edit summary indicates to me you are more interested in generating atavism and attention than anything else. Quis separabit? 22:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your own first response to my bringing the project's concern toward CSB forward was to call it "offensive and obnoxious", and I pointed out that it should not be seen as either. So please do not take my "Talk about WP:CS" as an attack directed at you, as it was rather a simple and neutral three words directed at the growing problem on a growing Wikipedia as more and more editors bring us topics unknown to the English-speaking/reading world, and we deal with the problems inherent in sourcing such. It ain't about you, as I am not fixing blame... but trying rather to address the greater issue of this topic being difficult, if not impossible, to source in English. What an AM interested in is generating attention to our need for editors better skilled linguistically to deal with the sourcing, as we both admit our weaknesses in dealing with the Russian language sources. And had you responded on my talk page rather than taking my observation as a personal affront here, the talk page is where these exchanges would be taking place. If you took a personal offense, please know that none was meant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow continued improvements. "Елена Черных"+театра (her name in Russian cyrillic, plus her occupation in theater) knocked out many false positives and showed that sources addressing this actress DO exist. So far, I have been able to expand and source, but is IS slow going. What was in good faith nominated as having only one dead link as a source, has been expanded and sourced with live ref links,[58] and is beginning to shape up. There is more to do, certainly, but as we do not have BLP violation and the topic is shown as expandable and sourcable (my thanks to User:GreatOrangePumpkin), I think it behooves us to show ru.Wikipedia just how article improvement can be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3) as a blatant hoax.. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Angus Fairchild

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

PROD removed without discussion by article creator (is it not ever thus?). This appears to be a hoax. The sources do not support the article: I have checked a copy of Barker's Brief History of the Royal Flying Corps and found no mention of Fairchild, and I am unable to verify that That Shatty Sky even exists. Gbooks and gnews draw a blank. In addition, the London Gazette, which should record his awards of the Distinguished Flying Medal and Distinguished Flying Cross, has no record of him. Even if the man was real, there aren't enough sources to confer notability per WP:GNG. Yunshui (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any mention of the Distinguished Flying Cross at nationalarchives.gov.uk. The lack of sources is surprising for a man who is supposedly "one of the great Fighter Aces of his era". utcursch | talk 15:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this must be a hoax. There is no "Lord" Angus Fairchild, and the only mention of him with the RAF on google is a lot of Swedish aviation chat (yes, I can read it) in tones of disbelief that there's nothing better on the web. A quick check on ancestry.co.uk shows that there was nobody born in Glespin, Lanarkshire with the name Angus Lesley Fairchild anywhere near 1894. "That Shatty Sky" is plainly a joke. Ralph Barker's book certainly exists but I bet AF isn't in it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh, and the "Simple sketch of Lord Angus Fairchild" (File:Lord Angus Fairchild.png) is Skytrucker001's "own work". I think he was telling the truth about that! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edison (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does not currently pass the notability guidelines. If it does in the future, just contact me and I'll restore it. Or I can userfy it if anyone wants it. Big Dom 08:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (Street Meat)

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

Lack of notability FunkyCanute (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:FILM. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent press coverage. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails every part of Wikipedia:Notability (films) and no reliable third party references, in fact no refs at all.Theroadislong (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This lends validity to the topic, but I am not seeing similar coverage from multiple sources. Is there any coverage about its appearance at Cannes, if it even did? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.shortfilmcorner.com/sfcfilm/filmfiche2.Aspx?id=53539507

Also in places such as this:

http://www.sesiff.org/4th/program/en_noncomp.asp?category1=Bloody+Night&keyword=anonymous+%28street+meat%29&x=46&y=17

moved here from talk page of this AfD

Dear friends:

The image of the eye was restored (gun image was not) -- all images are available in "anonymous (street meat)" Google images, please, take a look. https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inbox/132e812637a7fb8e

However, the file was truncated. Meanwhile, I was interviewed by someone from the Huffington Post yesterday. The interview centered on my inspiration for "anonymous (street meat)" -- a 2-year ordeal with Bank of America. With demonstrations and movements like "Occupy Wall Street" going on against Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks, thet script for "anonymous (street meat)" was was a metaphor ahead of its time by having a plot that dealt with bank abuse with harrowing images. That's why the film has been well received at festivals abroad -- in Seoul Korea, for one, it was screened in over 14,000 monitors throughout the city. The HP article will link up to "anonymous (street meat)" and it is scheduled for publication on November 1st, or earlier. This sort of coverage is remarkable for a first film by a student while still a student (UCLA third year). "anonymous (street meat)" was finished, complete with sci-fi special effects, on January 21, 2011 - it had been presented before class at the UCLA Bridges Theater on December 8, 2010.

Whether one agrees with "anonymous (street meat)" or not ,and whether one even likes it, this is part of the news and the broader sociatal picture.

Thank you for your support in this endeavor --

Kind regards,Mig (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mig, please see WP:GNG. There needs to be significant, independent coverage from multiple, reliable sources. For most films, this will be reviews or coverage about how the film was made. Is there anything like that for this? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cameron (WP:FILM). Also fails WP:GNG and author fails to give a convincing argument for salvation of the article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will be an article on this film in the Huffington Post to be published by the beginning of November or before that will tie the film to current events -- thank you :)Mig (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the links above help establish the notability of the article. November isn't now, and that doesn't help either. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Return to author for now per WP:TOOSOON. I see an author defending her work which bodes well for possible improvements... BUT out of article space. At 'National Association of Latino Independent Producers',[59] I read "The film screened at the California International Shorts Film Festival, where it received an Honorable Mention, the Cannes Festival de Film, Daazo Centre European Films in Cannes. It was nominated by Famewalk International Film Festival, Seoul Extreme Shorts International Film Festival, St. Petersburg International Film Festival Beginning (Russia). Up next is a screening at the Burbank International Film Festival." So the film IS out there and receiving verifiable minor recognition at festivals.[60] As is rare that a short film makes much of a splash at all, and if author's contention is correct and this film has coverage pending, then we can reconsider a return to article space if/when that coverage is available and shared. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

anonymous (street meat)

Thanks for your entry, Michael. It's true what you said. I'm surprised at the editing reaction this entry engendered, but I'm also surprised that the film has received such positive attention worldwide. Short films don't normally get reviewed nor covered. That's one reason I was surprised at the Wikipedia page (since removed) for "Saturday Night Special," which depicted that particular short (passing itself off as a full length movie on the Wikipedia page) as a "masterpiece." But I know that short films don't get that kind of critical acclaim or press, unless someone famous is involved -- and even then. I believe that perhaps the film festival note received by "anonymous (street meat)" may be because of its subject matter -- bank and corporate abuse presented in a metaphorical manner. Incidentally, the film was also in Cyprus on Oct. 15, 2011, and I wrote to them requesting any Cyprian press coverage available -- the same with Korea and Russia. The problem, I believe, that one can't get here their local press coverage, if any exists, is that such coverage would be in the native tongue of the country and it may not be accessible through a Google search. It's also difficult to contact film festival representatives because they act in anonymity for obvious reasons.

This is a first film, a UCLA student film, made by a screenwriting MFA TFTDM candidate, not a "directing" student per se, for an experimental film class which required that a five-minute film be completed in eleven weeks from start to finish. This is NOT a thesis film, but a class assignment. The short film was screened at UCLA bridges Theater on December 8, (I believe) 2010. Special effects were added thereafter and it was completed on January 21, 2011. So, in reality, the film was "released" in 2011.

Nonetheless, the film and I will also be covered by the Huffington Post (or a very similar on-line publication), as I was interviewed by columnist Daniel Cubias a week ago. The article is scheduled to be published at the end of October or November 1st. It will be tied to the movement "Occupy" of which I play no part.

Thanx again and kind regards, Mig (talk) 14:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that any recognition by a film festival of a film is not minor recognition. A screening is not minor recognition -- this is because film festivals see thousands of films before they decide on a handful of films that will become a part of their festival for the entire year -- they spend a lot of time, money, resources and effort promoting the films selected. Being selected is in and of itself recognition. "anonymous (street meat)" represented the USA in Russia, Korea and Cyprus.

From the Wikipedia page " Film festivalFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_festival

"A film festival is an organised, extended presentation of films in one or more movie theaters or screening venues, usually in a single locality. More and more often film festivals show part of their films to the public by adding outdoor movie screenings.[1] The films may be of recent date and, depending upon the focus of the individual festival, can include international releases as well as films produced by the organisers' domestic film industry. Sometimes there is a focus on a specific film-maker or genre (e.g., film noir) or subject matter (e.g., horror film festivals). A number of film festivals specialise in short films, each with its defined maximum length. Film festivals are typically annual events."

The article also goes into how film festivals -- which vary in recognition and prestige -- charge an entry fee. "anonymous (street meat)" has been invited to most of these film festivals and the entry fee has been waived, so that does not apply. Mig (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the same people who ignored the double standard example I mentioned of "Saturday Night Special" are the same ones who are arguing for a speedy deletion of "anonymous (street meat)" and I question their selectivity. There are precious few films (long or short) made by women -- fewer yet made by Hispanic women. I shouln't have to run from one page to the next (as they keep popping up) with a hobbled computer to point out that simple fact of reality and statistics. I'm disappointed that things are not read by people and that a remark is made that an article that is being written, is something "in the future," "not now." Is November not soon enough for anyone? Do columnists write articles without first doing the proper research or even verifying acceptance of same with the publisher? This is too selective for my taste because I am a fair-minded person, so I have to ask our review committe to stop by and take a look. Thank you for your contribution. Mig (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toward your comments on Saturday Night Special (film), please read WP:OSE. The article was removed in 2007 (before my time here) per WP:CRYSTAL as being premature.[61] and was removed again 5 days ago as being the recreation of a article previousy deleted per a deletion discussion.[62] Had the new version of that old article been sufficient different or better sourced that its predecessor, that deletion might be reversed. But I do not know the content of either and so cannot judge.

And it does not matter if a film is that of a student or major filmmaker, WHEN it has coverage is the deciding factor...not that it WILL in the near future. Having this one placed for a short time in a WP:USERSPACE will give it the needed time. If the sources come forward, then it might be considered for article space. Lacking those sources, it is premature. I ask you to read WP:Notability (films) to see Wikipedia requirements, WP:V to see that anything in an article must be verifiable IN reliable sources, WP:RS to understand what Wikipedia's requirements are for reliable sources, and WP:COI and WP:NAU to understand Wikipedia strongly dscouraging editors writing about themselves or their projects. Wikipedia mandates a neutral point of view, and your being so close to the topic makes that difficult at best. Also, please read WP:PRIMER to get a handle on the above requirements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hader

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

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with general notability guidelines and topical notability guidelines for entertainers and authors. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. References provided don't satisfy WP:RS. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. As noted by Burpelson AFB, references cited are not to Reliable Sources, and Google News finds only passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, no assertion of notability and no references Tone 11:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angel's Perfect Dream

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG, can't locate significant coverage in reliable sources Hekerui (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there's an album review on a semi-decent Slovene rock portal (here), but as the only source it's a bit weak. — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Italian supercentenarians. v/r - T P 01:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venere Pizzinato

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

Subject's only claim to notability is having lived very long. As explained on the page of the Oldest people project, this falls under WP:BLP1E. All useful information in this article (age record, country of birth) is present in List of Italian supercentenarians and the other lists enumerated under "see also". Crusio (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As she is the oldest Italian ever, I think there are many people that want an article about her. We should have a few days to improve it. --Leoj83 (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(see below). I just noticed that this AfD was not posted to the talk page at WikiProject ~~WOP~~World's Oldest People that Crusio had mentioned in his comment above. One could construe that he made this AfD intentionally without informing the WikiProject members in which he was already aware of. To address his use of WP:BLP1E, it does not apply here because he did not quote the next paragraph of the WikiProject ~~WOP~~World's Oldest People: "Supercentenarians whose age has been reported in reliable sources should be included in longevity-related lists, whether or not other notable, reliably-sourced facts justify a stand-alone biography." In the case of Venere Pizzinato, as she was the oldest verified Italian ever in that country, she garnered multiple reliable-sources articles regarding not just her longevity itself but as well as being in the record books in her country as the oldest person ever. Her status was not an one-time event; rather, it was across multiple events, i.e. reaching her 112th and subsequent birthdays (related to longevity only) as well as becoming the oldest verified Italian ever (a new, separate notable event). In light of that, I agree with Leoj83 above that we should have some time to improve this short biographical article with more reliable sources. Cheers, CalvinTy 15:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel I must protest the suggestion (above) that this AfD be "posted to the talk page at Project WOP" -- really, you'd think a more tasteful way might be found to refer to Italian-related discussions! EEng (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I hope everyone knows I was just kidding. EEng (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly one dolt didn't. One trout-whack per editor, please. David in DC (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, WP:AGF. There is no obligation whatsoever to contact a Wikiproject when an article is brought to AFD, so you should construe this as regular procedure. In addition, most projects use User:Headbomb's AAlertbot and get notified automatically of any PROD/AFD/etc of articles tagged for their projects, perhaps this project doesn't, so you should consider getting that fixed. Concerning your arguments, you misconstrue BLP1E. Her being the oldest Italian ever was the "one event". That's why the article cannot give any other notable facts about her, because there aren't any. Once people get over 100, many newspapers will publish articles on them around their birthdays. If your reading of 1E were correct, then everyone 110 or older would be notable for the multiple "events" of having subsequent birthdays. As for time to add sources, an AFD usually runs for seven days, so there is time to improve sourcing. Your reading of the phrase from ~~WOP~~ World's Oldest People is wrong. It means that supercentenarians should be included in lists even if they are not notable. Only reliably sourced facts that confirm notability justify a stand-alone article. --Crusio (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly to WP:AGF and I am not familiar with that bot you mentioned. Hopefully some of the more active project members will take note and act accordingly. Thanks. Now regarding BLP1E, I think you also may be in error in trying to "mesh longevity and record-holder" events into one continuous event. If your reading of 1E were correct, then Jeanne Calment should not have a Wikipedia article because her longevity and record holder as the world's oldest verified human ever 'were all one continuous event' from say, 1988 to 1997, is that what you are saying? Granted, I agree that many supercentenarians (110+) do not have articles, and nor should they, simply because of lack of media coverage (and reliable sources). Regarding the timeframe, I just feel that an AfD was not necessary because this article had stood for years, even before she became the oldest Italian ever. With the AfD in progress, you are speeding up the timeframe to "only 5-7 days". Why did you not express your concerns about the article in its talk page and let people update the article first? There is no deadline. Your first & only & last comment in the article's talk page was when you disagreed with an IP editor today and you immediately say to that editor, "I'll take this to AfD now and you can give your arguments there." It looks like a policy similar to "shoot now, ask questions later" in the form of "send for deletion now, edit later if have to". That was why I felt that your action for this AfD was jumping the gun at this time and bears attention to the underlying cause of you initiating this AfD. CalvinTy 18:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just said it: the article has stood for years without any improvement forthcoming. It is nothing special then to redirect such an article to an appropriate target or to take it to AfD. "Jumping the gun" would (perhaps) be if I took this to AfD 10 minutes after creation. --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you only replied what you wanted to reply. What about my questions such as "why did you not express your concerns about the article in its talk page and allow editors due process to edit the article?" Sometimes all it takes is someone to mention on an article's talk page saying, "I don't think this article can stand as it is, and I'm considering taking it to AfD." But no, you sent it to AfD the same day as your comments on this subject's talk page (regardless of minutes or hours; quite trivial). I also note that you chose not to answer my question about "then Jeanne Calment should not have a Wikipedia article because her longevity..... were all one continuous event... is that what you are saying?" In my honest opinion, this AfD cannot have any merit if you are unable to answer those questions as they directly parallels to this particular AfD. If you recognize that Jeanne Calment should have an article for being the world's oldest person ever, what's the difference between her and Venere Pizzinato as the Italy's oldest person ever (other than the country & world aspect)? They both are still encyclopedic. CalvinTy 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist: 1/ There is absolutely no obligation to discuss anything on an article's talk page before starting an AfD. Personally, I'll start a discussion if I think an article is salvageable. As I feel that this article is irredeemable, I went to AfD immediately (being pretty sure that a PROD would have been removed immediately). The article has been around for years,so there has been ample time for improvement. In fact, AfDs run for a week, so there still is time for that. 2/ Whether or not Jeanne Calment is notable is not the subject of this discussion. One article at a time, please. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ Per nom and the rule against bio's of people whose notability hangs on a single event. (Strictly speaking, the rule only applies to living people, but its logic applies no less just because the grim reaper has been staved off no longer.) This article, and many others in the longevity suite of articles, are more properly included on lists, with the name of the person whose only notable characteristic is their recurring birthdate used as a redirect to the list. Some of these lists, i.e. List of supercentenarians from the United States, feature mini-bios. If supercentarians like the subject of this article have enough press coverage, the most fascinating things about their lives, properly sourced, could go there. But stand-alone bios of every centenarian or supercentenarian ever reported trivialize the encyclopedia. The whole focus on longevity as a competition, replete with record-holders and -breakers, down to the geographic level of Japanese prefectures and Swedish counties trivializes the serious study of human longevity.
This article is as good a place as any to start prunibg what I've long argued is a WP:WALLEDGARDEN.
As for listing this AfD on the ~~WOP~~ World's Oldest People wikiproject chart of proposed deletions, I'm off to do that presently. David in DC (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David in DC, I invite you to see if you can answer the same question I just posed to Crusio. Do you think Jeanne Calment should not have any Wikipedia article because her notability, in your own view, "hangs on a single event", a simple yes or no? If you don't think she should have a Wikipedia article, why have you not recommended it for AfD? I have already pointed out that not all supercentenarians should or even shall have a stand-alone biography -- because I agree with you -- that can trivialize the encyclopedia. That's besides the point here. Venere Pizzinato is not an example of an unknown supercentenarian without any significant reliable sources that details her life and how she became the Italy's oldest verified person ever. The mini-bios you mentioned are actually no longer encouraged by Wikipedia standards if I recall from memory; I'll be happy to find the appropriate guideline, but rest assured, I think the consensus was that the "mini-bios" format in some articles like List of supercentenarians from the United States makes the entire article look much less encyclopedic. I would feel that even a stub looks better than that type of format! Regards, CalvinTy 04:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. David in DC (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(see below). The main reasons are 1) She is the oldest person in a country's history. I think this have encyclopedic value and should stand out in form of an article. And 2) There have been a lot of media coverage, which have been ingnored previously, probably because most of them were in Italian (but I have added several of these sources and extended the article). --Leoj83 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, this paragraph and "source" does not help make a policy-based argument for notability. It's a yahoo newsgroup, for heaven's sake! David in DC (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok sorry if I did one mistake here (I'm not that experienced yet here on wiki), but I do feel you ignored the overall effort, the other sources and extended bio, plus the argument that she is the oldest in a country's history. As I have said earlier, I think this fact alone motivate an article (of course on the condition that it live up to standard quality) My contributions may not be big but it is a step in the right direction, don't you think. Cheers! --Leoj83 (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've put a similar inquiry on my talk page. I've answered there, with a bit of technical advice, as well. Thanks for your cordial approach. David in DC (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a bit of fun answering Calvin's first inquiry in an excessively literal fashion. I hope no offense was taken. I answered "no" because editorial judgment comes into play here. Being the oldest person on earth is qualitatively different from being, for instance, the oldest person ever from a Swedish county.
And I haven't done any AfD nominating in recent days because it was my impression that, in the wake of the ArbCom longevity decisions, I should to focus my volunteer time on topics that ought be less divisive, like bringing the articles into compliance with the MOS and improving the footnotes. That doesn't mean I don't think a lot of these articles are AfD fodder. I do think that. But, as a member of the project (and in reaction to the fustercluck that ensued after I filed an MfD shortly after the decision) I've chosen to try to make the articles that exist better stylistically (Flags, bolding, proper footmotes that actually provide information about the source rather than a gazillion "Report of XXX Claimed YYYY birthday"). Wikipedia has no deadline so I figured we'd eventually get back to the core issues of WP:N and WP:RS. This AfD, filed by someone not at all involved in the former WP:BATTLEGROUND aspects of the project, presents a good place to start. David in DC (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. I was asking for it when I saw your answer, "No"; I actually had to think what that meant since my question was using a negative in it. Go figure that I end up confusing myself in posing my own question. :-) I understand and have seen how you have focused your efforts on quality of various styles in articles lately. I have no problem with that thus my lack of objections to date ;-). I can see why you feel that many articles are "AfD fodder". Like Crusio says, one article at a time, so back to this particular article -- I unfortunately cannot understand that view of "Being the oldest person on earth is qualitatively different from being, for instance, the oldest person ever from a Swedish county." I am not advocating that every Italian supercentenarian gets a stand-alone bios, but certainly, the oldest person of a country -- ever (added for emphasis) -- should survive an AfD if the article is improved? For current living ones who is "simply the oldest of the country right now" (like you are fond of saying, they are just "staving off the Grim Reaper"), I can understand if there is a lack of coverage to justify a stand-alone bios for that current living person. This is not the situation here as Venere Pizzinato will always be in the history books as the oldest Italian ever for a period of time (2010 - present). Just my opinion. I encourage more editors to improve this English article on Verene Pizzinato; although, most of the reliable sources would be Italian. I will see what I can do. CalvinTy 15:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One problem with "oldest person in XYZ country" is that it is arbitrary (there won't be many supercentenarians in Nauru or Liechtenstein, for example) and in addition, unlike what nationalists like to think, countries are dynamic, not stable, well-defined entities. This person is a case in point. When she was born, her birth place was in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Later it became Italy. Suppose Jeanne Calment had been born and lived in Strasbourg. When she was born, that was Germany. It became French when she was 44 years, then German again when she was 65 and then French again when she was 70. Would she now be the oldest French woman ever or the oldest German woman ever? Or both? Fortunately, she lived in Arles and we don't have this problem, but this hypothetical example illustrates the problems with these nationality-based "records" and lists. --Crusio (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another is bias, in favor of western sources. The liklihood of finding good sources for every country's oldest person ever is much greater for Western Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia, and certain Asian countries. The encyclopedia winds up looking like there are more long-lived people in these places than in, say, Botswana, Tajikistan, or Bangladesh. There's no reason to believe that's true. David in DC (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good discussion here. Both Crusio & David in DC brought up an inference about lack of supercentenarians in some particular countries. David in DC feels there is bias in Western sources, but he ends up doing original research by saying "there's no reason to believe that's true". Let me clarify -- there are 3 good reasons why some countries seem to have higher verified cases of supercentenarians than other countries in no particular order: 1.) life expectancy of the citizens of that country, 2.) the population numbers of a country in comparison to other countries, and last but not least, 3.) some type of an uniform birth registration system as well as regular population counts (i.e. the decennial United States Census). All together, it would quite explain why there is no verified supercentenarian from Swaziland, for example.
Last thing, to answer Crusio's question about if Jeanne Calment had been born and lived in Strasbourg, she would be the oldest German-born woman ever without ambiguity. It is based on what country was named when that person was born. If a person today was born in France, but 50 years later, there is a new fictitious mega-country called 'Spafrany' (combining Spain, France and Germany). That person would still be French-born even if that person lives to be the oldest 'Spafranen' person ever. Not knowing what a "nationalist" truly means, yet I think it is overreaching to declare that any country's records should be thrown out of window because "they are actually a dynamic entity". What? Is it arbitrary to have articles about a country's government and/or its leaders as it is recorded today? No. Even 50 years later when that government and leaders are later made obsolete by a new physical or political boundary in the future, they are still encyclopedic in nature -- and so are their records. That's the viewpoint I am coming from. Sorry for the long read! Cheers, CalvinTy 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without discussing the general question of notability for these individuals, I do not consider ONE EVENT relevant--even if the person were living, which she is not. Living for 114 (or however many) years is not a single event, but a continuing process. As for general policy, we can regard as notable whatever we decideto regard as notable . I have no opinion about what we should do in this subject area. DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All people who stood/stand out in something (for talent, work, exploit or record) deserve to have a personal Wiki page. You should NEVER snob a field of knowledge! So her article should be kept and improved!--Pascar (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't formed an opinion on this yet (give me until Saturday), but this isn't "a field of knowledge", this is more like "a field of being old". Someone notable in this field of knowledge would be a geriatric researcher of some sort, not someone who happens to be old. As to some of the comments above; I personally think it's easier to wait until someone dies before starting an AfD. Once they're no longer the oldest person in some geographical area, it tends to be much easier to discern their long-term notability; now this one has started (a couple of months after her death, which is good; the media flurry will have died down by now), so we'll have to roll with it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other people who lived more then 110 years have an article.User:Lucifero4

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Crusio (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean but a woman that live more then 110 is notable.User:Lucifero4

Delete. It's essentially WP:ONEEVENT. Also, the two "keep" votes above this don't comport with policy. Neutrality^talk 20:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality, thanks to Crusio above for that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS link as I had not recalled reading the entire 'arguments to avoid in deletion discussions' page before. There, I just learned quite a bit today. I noticed you did exactly what it said not to do there in WP:JUSTAPOLICY by simply quoting a policy without explaining your rationale (for instance, why do you think it is essentially WP:ONEEVENT when DGG above took the time to explain otherwise?). It is not WP:JUSTAVOTE and it specifically says: "As Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. Any statement that just consists of "Keep" or "Delete" with a signature can easily be dismissed by the admin making the final decision." I am confident that the closing admin here would concur & not count your statement as it stood. Regards, CalvinTy 03:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, as well as others, have given policy-based arguments for deletion. DGG argues that 1E does not apply, but refrains from !voting. --Crusio (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Voting is evil. (Somebody hadda say it. :)) David in DC (talk) 12:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wiki should be a free encyclopedia. If someone from Italy wants to search for the oldest Italian ever, he or she should get a result. If this article is deleted, there will be no result. The purpose of being an encyclopedia would fade. Makila 21:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My response (and I actually still haven't made up my mind yet) would be the following; what if someone from Italy wanted to find the tallest person ever from Italy? We don't have articles on people simply for being the tallest or shortest person in a given geographical area, so why should it apply to longevity? There are other things that I'm considering here, but I don't follow the logic there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not true that it would be unfindable If this AfD succeeds, Venere Pizzinato should become a redirect. Please see Stella Nardari-Vecchiato, Virginia Dighero-Zolezzi, or Lucia Lauria. None of these people are WP:N-notable. Longevity is not a competition. Perhaps if it was, there would be notable contestants, record-holders, record-breakers, etc. (Although I think many of the soccer, baseball and NASCAR "celebrities" with their own wikipages stretch the notion of notability beyond logic, as well.) But, as we've already resolved, I think, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a slender reed to rely on, to make a policy-based decision in an AfD. Like Lucia, Virginia, and Stella, the article about Venere's name should be deleted and her name should be enshrined forevermore on en-wikipedia as a redirect term. David in DC (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. Researchers don't study the tallest people to try to make people taller...in fact, since it's unhealthy, researchers try to limit height.

2. Researchers do study the oldest people to try to make people older...it's good to live longer. But since false/exaggerated claims distort the research, it's important to establish whether claims are true or not. This requires some life-story details, along with documentation, to make sure the person is the age claimed.

3. People in the past believed that longevity varied by nation. By showing national records are quite similar, that notion is being countered. Makila 04:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Just where and by whom -- and on whom -- are these creeepy-spounding research efforts, which "try to limit height," being carried out?

2. It's not self-obvious, as you blithely say, that living longer is always better. (Tithonus (poem):"Tithonus asks Eos for the gift of immortality...but forgets to ask for eternal youth along with it. As time wears on, age catches up with him. Wasted and withered, Tithonus is reduced to a mere shadow of himself. But since he is immortal, he cannot die and is destined to live forever, growing older and older with each passing day.")

3. Isn't it great to be smarter than "people in the past," who had silly ideas such as that longevity varies with genetics and geography?

Even granting that Trait A is good and trait B is bad, it doesn't follow that extremes of A are worthy of study while extremes of B aren't. In fact, you'd want to understand both. In any event, Wikipedia doesn't judge the worthiness of knowledge by its practical usefulness. EEng (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Height is unhealthy? I must be cursed, then, at 6'3". Actually, many people want to be tall for various reasons, and it's quite an advantage in many ways. I'd say more, but EEng has pretty much hit on everything I would have. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay? So why is there a news report on the "oldest" marathoner then, but not the tallest : http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/17/sport/oldest-marathoner/ Makila 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little off topic, but the answer is that being tall isn't an impediment to running a marathon (it's very beneficial if you have the right build, as you have a longer stride), whereas being old is. That's why it's so notable for a 100 year old (assuming that's his actual age) to run a marathon. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blade, we're at the nine-colon indent level, and I'm told that at ten Wikipedia's servers start to overheat. "Makila" (whose real username appears to be User:petervermaelen) will probably say something else next, and if so just let him have the last word. It's a waste of time continuing to engage him on this, because short people will never get over their jealously of tall people, because even if they live to be 100, or 110, they will never get any taller, and they know that. EEng (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent to avoid server meltdown. David in DC (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Makila is my nickname on the internet, while Peter is my real name. Any issues with that? Okay. So I have the last word? Fine. First of all, we are not against "tall people". You asked why "we don't have articles on people simply for being the tallest or shortest in a geographic area." We don't have articles on people simply for being the tallest or shortest person in a given geographical area, so why should it apply to longevity? There are two reasons. One is that there is not significant media coverage. The other reason is the one you give: being tall isn't an impediment whereas being old is. That's why it's so notable for a 100 year old (assuming that's his actual age) to run a marathon. According to your own answer, being extremely old is "so notable." So, we agree... (P.S.: we can live with a "merge" but I would argue that we can have mini-bios for "oldest living persons" like Stella Nardari and a standalone article for the oldest Italian person ever. Mini-bios are for persons with not enough notability for a standalone article, but Venere Pizzinato Papo's article meets the "general notability guideline" and so we can have a standalone for her. Makila 17:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) Despite the feeling I'm gonna regret this...

I personally find it annoying when an editor's signature presents something totally different than the username displayed in change histories and other lists.
Look, you can't say "we can live with a merge" and then go on to say Venere Pizzinato Papo should have a standalone article, because Venere Pizzinato Papo is the subject of this AfD, and is therefore the subject you just said could be merged. So which is it?

EEng (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~(see below): Apparently Makila didn't try the experiment himself because if he had [63] he would have been led to List of Italian supercentenarians where Pizzinato is duly listed. The question here is whether she should have her own article. Though no doubt she was a sweet old lady and somebody's beloved cousin or aunt, she doesn't seem to have done anything worth noting in her life, other than prolong it -- an achievement justifying memorialization in the "List of", and nothing more. EEng (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but if I search for the oldest Italian, I want to find more than just a name + a list, telling me, she was the oldest. And that is what I will get if her article would be deleted. A name without any explanations. Makila 04:31, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would completely agree with you if there were anything of interest to tell about her life that isn't already in the table. Apart from her age at death and the fact that she was an Austrian by birth, there is absolutely nothing in her bio that has any encyclopedic value. --Crusio (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A biographical sketch of each oldster could be included in the existing tables of the "List of" articles. In fact, if one is interested in e.g. why some people live longer, that would be more useful than scores of scattered stubs, and anyway the data available on most of these people is limited for obvious reasons. 11:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For examples of mini-bios on a list page, see Carrie White, Fannie Thomas or Florence Knapp. (Above, CalvinTy indicates that this approach is disfavored. I cannot find a policy-based reason why, but I've been wrong before. Cal?) David in DC (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I apologize as I was typing from memory when I said the above about mini-bios. I wouldn't be able to quickly confirm this. However, I think EEng below said it all for me: "Of course, if there's something really worth saying about the person's, which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables..." I can see how the mini-bios would be a great solution to this, although the format may benefit from a better way of displaying a number of mini-bios (something better than what we currently see at List of supercentenarians from the United States). That was my concern with mini-bios, but right now, I have no qualms with what Leoj83 has done at List of Italian supercentenarians. CalvinTy 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution? I think the best solution - perhaps this have already been mentioned - would be to have mini-bios in the article List of Italian supercentenarians. A new section called People. This is where Pizzinato's bio could be moved to. (Someone could also "go back in time" and transfer bios from recently deleted pages of other Italian sc's, like Dighero-Zolezzi) --Leoj83 (talk) 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and created the above mentioned section and added Dighero-Zolezzi, as a start. This article (List of Italian Supercentenarians) need this section anyway, no matter what we decide regarding Pizzinato. --Leoj83 (talk) 22:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Italian supercentenarians. She has enough coverage for a mini-bio there, but not really enough for an article, so that seems to me to be the best fit; we can keep the content, just in a different place. Leave her name as a redirect to a section in the article. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Leoj83 and BNL. David in DC (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can live with such a merge. --Crusio (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I add my blessing to Leoj83, BNL, Blade. Re Leoj83's bold change: It seems to me that all or almost all of the info in the Dighero-Zolezzi mini-bio is either already in the tables (e.g. birthdate) or could be represented (and more usefully at that) by careful extension of the tables and templates already in use: when she became the oldest, "predecessor/successor" for this and that record, cause of death, birthplace. That makes even these minibios unnecessary as well. Of course, if there's something really worth saying about the person's, which can't be fit into the tables and yet doesn't lend notability for a separate article (though I predict there will be very few cases of this) then the table can #anchorlink to a minibio below. Or where there's a photo available the table can #anchorlink to that too, and the bottom of the article can have a nice gallery of pictures, each caption carrying one or two interesting facts that don't fit in the tables e.g. Fred Flintstone, a WWI veteran[1] and lifelong stamp collector,[2] hang-gliding at 108. I don't intend to get further involved in these longevity-topic disputes (they never never die, it seems), so good luck to you guys. EEng (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Italian supercentenarians per Leoj83's bold change. CalvinTy 20:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional men of All My Children, volume 2

(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

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

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

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

These above articles could not establish notabilities for their fictional characters of a cancelled soap All My Children, especially from third-party sources. Speaking of sources, there are very little amount of sources cited right now, and third-party sources are absent. Each article is either overly detailed or full of plot and in-universes and empty of factual perspectives. Even List of All My Children miscellaneous characters cannot stand alone any longer with non- or less-notable characters, even when above articles would be redirected to there under consensus. I will vote later. --Gh87 (talk) 09:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of these articles are relevant and notable. They do not deserve to be deleted because they include information that is correct, sources that are reliable and up-to-date.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have said the same thing in every AFD of soap characters. An article that I've nominated either doesn't have a reference, especially from the third-party sources, or has unreliable citations, especially from TV.com. By the way, I have given you the welcome message in your talk page; you are free to choose to whether create a username or stick to your anonymity. --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for forty-one years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this show. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As said to the other IP user, I could say the same thing to you. --Gh87 (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion rationale was the same in all your other AFDs, which also involved fictional characters from notable series, so why should a counter-rationale for keeping vary? What I described is standard operating procedure for content of this kind. It does not matter that an article does not currently have references so long as it is verifiable. Nor does it ultimately matter whether there is third-party sourcing for every detail regarding a TV series we've already decided is notable, so long as reliance upon the primary sources does not venture into interpretation or synthesis. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The series is notable; the characters are fictional and not as notable as Erica Kane and her children and the supercouples, such as Greg Nelson and Jenny Gardner but should require notability establishments if you want them kept as individual articles forever. Look at Homer Simpson: full of plots and all-sided perspectives. What about Mark Dalton (All My Children)? His legacy was the failed accidentally-incestual relationship with his half-sister Erica Kane and the drug use which destroyed him and his career; too bad there should be third-party sources, such as journals, magazines, print encyclopedias, and news articles, which are neglected in the article. The rest, as I think, cannot stand alone any longer. What are you proving? Why do references not matter to you, as you said that yourself? --Gh87 (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether references are currently within the article does not matter because we don't delete articles based on their current state (verifiable, not verified). If there are no references anywhere in existence, whether currently in the article or not, except for primary sources (i.e., the TV series itself), then that's a good reason for merging and redirecting into character lists in lieu of maintaining standalone articles for each character. Which is what I said above, I did not say to maintain these as individual articles. postdlf (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into AMC article. I'm a little wobbly on Jake Martin, but since Jamie Martin was an obvious deletion candidate I guess Jake would fall under the same heading.Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This AFD should not have been bundled. While some are major characters, others are minor and would appropriately be merged. Based on the format of this AFD, I recommend the articles kept. If the articles were unbundled, my recommendation would differ. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for me to withdraw and then immediately re-nominate individual articles separately? Your arguments have proven your sole dedication to soap operas and your concisiveness about this AfD. I will be doing that soon without adding Oldafdmulti in talk pages. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)~~ Actually, if I withdraw, then I have to merge some articles into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters if you all soap dedicators approve. --Gh87 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The soap is not cancelled it is being moved to a different media, the internet. Jake Martin is a main character on All My Children and his page should not be deleted, especially when linked to several other characters pages. Additionally I'm sure fans will just recreate another page for this character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.24.119 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would Jake's role as the main character help keep that article? I have nominated other articles for the same reason: insufficient notability establishment, too much plot and fictional perspectives, and insufficient sources. Also, when this AfD is resulted as no consensus, I will plan to merge some articles of the 1970s characters, such as Tom Cudahy and Mark Dalton, and then re-nominate some similar articles for individual AfD discussions. Otherwise, if kept, then I will re-nominate all of them separately without knowing when the right time is. Articles of fictional characters have potential be well-informative and fully perspective; too bad the more reliable sources for real-world perspectives are the publications from the past before the internet boom. As the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas said, the soap operas help the notabilities of fictional characters, but I think: just only soaps as source of notability for fictional characters won't help keep individual articles of characters OR list of characters, unless the administrators found arguments well-said enough to keep articles. Even existance of fictional characters is insufficient enough to establish notability. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)~~ If you want to recreate the information of a character, an individual article may not be the best way per WP:RECREATE; how about a section in the "List of..."? --Gh87 (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, you really need to read, review, and come to an understanding of the deletion policy. Additionally, please note that arbitrarily merging outside of consensus is inappropriate and disruptive. If you desire to merge, please make sure to follow the process for proposals. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 12:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All My Children has not been cancelled anymore, it's going to the internet. Each one of these characters you have nominated have still very important ties to the canvas. Jester66 (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect all to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters: The fictional characters do not meet the general notability guideline and their articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. As the majority of the content is not referenced, I believe that a merge is not warranted. In order to generate consensus, redirection is an acceptable alternative to deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some/Redirect others - Sam Woods can be redirected to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters along with Damon Miller; as for the others they have much more of history on the show and are very notable. The writing can be improved, so instead of nominating them for deletion, tag each on for clean up.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1031 Canal

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

This is a proposed high rise that doesn't have much other than simple announcements of the proposed building. It's not even named other than the address right now. i don't think it meets WP:GNG. Shadowjams (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. None of it's in the article right now, but this is a high-profile project that has been the subject of considerable attention and controversy, because it proposes to plunk a high-rise building right on the edge of the French Quarter in a very visible location at the corner of Canal Street and Rampart Street, replacing a vacant Woolworth (that's "Woolsworth" for you Confederacy of Dunces readers). The project and controversy have had extensive coverage; recent examples include [64][65], here's a 2005 post-Hurricane Katrina article about a previous version of the project [66], and here is a recent commentary in the architecture journal Metropolis[67].--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add information to the article about the controversy (which appears to have been written to minimize same). A high-rise at the corner of Canal and Rampart is bound to be either noteworthy or notorious, and either way it meets WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above. There are sources out there, as indicated, making this a notable project. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Slaton, Texas. v/r - T P 00:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Slaton Sausage Festival

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

Trivial local festival held by a church in a small town in Texas. Routine local sources only. An encyclopedia article requires some reason for it, and anything like this is just local news filler. Even if it technically meets the GNG, that does not guarantee an article. DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was based directly on existent Wikipedia articles, for the exact same type of events. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_the_King_Sausage_Fest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Fest Adambehnke ( talk ) 13:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC) — Adambehnke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to satisfy the guideline WP:Event which says "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This sausage fest is only of local importance, and routine coverage in local media does not rise to establishment of encyclopedic notability. "Other similar articles exist" is only a compelling argument for more AFDs. Edison (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is local in scope and mostly of the "this is when it is/was, here's the food they served, etc." ilk and simple directory/events calendar type mentions. Ultimately just routine coverage around the time of the event but nothing that shows lasting non-temporary notability. Might be worth mentioning in an article about the school, but nothing here to show why this should be a standalone topic in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ (Changing my opinion to Merge and Redirect per Bushranger below) I am sure that (as Adambehnke points out) we have other articles here that don't meet our notability criteria, but that won't help keep the article. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) But the information could be put somewhere else in Wikipedia, rather than in a whole article of its own. Is this St. Joseph Catholic School the school that sponsors it? (I wasn't sure because that St. Joseph's is said to be in Bryan rather than Slaton.) If so the information could be added to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - it looks as if the St. Joseph's School in Slaton is different - and only goes through 7th grade so it would probably not qualify for a Wikipedia article. In that case I'd suggest you add the information about the sausage festival to the article about Slaton, Texas. --MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Slaton, Texas. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Insight

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

The few 3rd party independent references of this promotional article are merely to articles where someone from the firm has been quoted, which does not amount to notability . DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG,

If I did this wrong I apologize. I see these guys quoted alot so I made them an article. Rather than deleting this can I try again with a different approach?

So two questions:

First, what would you have me do to make it less promotional? Basically, what strikes you as bias. Would adding a criticism section (if I could find that material) be helpful?

Second, what would make for better sources? I figured being frequently quoted would count as notable so that's why I used that for most of the sources. What kind of sources are you looking for?

Please advise. And sorry I'm new!

Thanks!

Ps - If this isn't the proper way to respond to your comment I also apologize for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Going back to the sources point I skimmed the sources policy and I'm curious to hear your take on this. Given what I've seen on Wikipedia that counts as "sources" there seems to be a pretty big contrast between policy and actual practice.

In your opinion, DGG, as someone who is experienced with Wikipedia, would constitute better credible sources? I'd rather learn from you or anyone else what the actual policy is.

I thought an article by Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Newsweek, TIME, and USA Today would be credible 3rd party sources! Would you like to see more news articles? Or maybe different ones by equally well known sources that are more relevant? More purely financial reporting outlets, where I first started seeing them?

I think I've seen the President guy Mike on TV as well would that be a better source? I'll see if I can find that.

Thanks!

thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so here's my last comment on this. I added more news sources including a TV appearance I found. Is that any better?

I also tried to think about how to re-write this article to address its perception as promotional. And I admit I'm not sure.

Basically I made this article because while I clearly don't know much about how to properly use a Wikipedia discussion page I do know alot about finance. And I've noticed that most of the large financial institutions in the United States and therefore in turn the media are going to these guys for questions on how the hot trends, like online, like mobile, like social media are changing the financial industry.

But the problem is that last sentence sounds incredibly bias! I guessed that I couldn't put something like that in an article. So I tried to make a company page that was more of a straightforward description of what they do. I certainly think an organization who is seen as the source (by both the media and the institutions themselves) of how the new trends of the era are shaping an industry as large and important as the U.S. financial industry counts as notable!

Ps - as you could probably already tell, I'm resisting having my first attempt at a page end in a failure!

Thanks!

--Marino9813 (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nomination. The article seems to be another of those articles inserted by a publicist. It begins, not by describing the business except in the most general terms, but with what's essentially argument that the business is notable. The coverage turns out to be a peck of offhand mentions in publications that aren't about this business and do not speak of it in any detail. The business itself is another consulting firm apparently promoting mobile phone technology to banks and other financial firms. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ihocoyc,

I would counter that if you look at any consulting company page on Wikipedia (McKinsey & Company, Oliver Wyman, etc) the article starts with a paragraph stating that the company is a consulting firm and then a second paragraph of consulting firm X is prominent for XYZ reason. I imitated them! The only difference is that the larger ones tend to list out their sizes, how many offices they have, where they are, etc.

Again this goes back to why I'm confused by policy vs. practice. I'm happy to work on this page! You mentioned that this page should start with more general terms. I tried tweaking it a little. Is that any better? What would you envision a be better "general terms" for a consulting company page to be... even thought it's pretty much the same as others...

I would also argue that you're being a very selective with the sources. I strongly disagree with the statement that "The coverage turns out to be a peck of offhand mentions in publications that and do not speak of it in any detail." Of the 24 sources I bothered to include I admit that some of them only feature quotes. But part of that is the nature of the "business" that you misidentified. There doesn't seem to be any direct competitors for this kind of niche consulting and research, hence the company is quoted so much. Most of these sources, however, are all about Corporate Insight! The first source is a Wall Street Journal 1-on-1 interview with the President. Others are a CNBC article about one the companies reports, a Journal article on a report, A financial times article about a report, a Newsweek article about a report, NYT times on a report, a MarketWatch article on a report, etc. If you honestly read through these 24 sources and came to that conclusion I would be both surprised of your dedication to Wikipedia and surprised you came to that conclusion. Additionally, If you're familiar with quality journalism that "notable" publications tend to use most articles rely on multiple sources for quotes and never rely on a single source. Moreover, the company doesn't "promote" or sell technology as much as it is paid for for it's expertise as the lone player in this industry.

And I guess there's no way to prove I'm not a publicist other than if was I'd be a pretty bad one? I am bad accepting defeat though...

Again, I'm not just trying to push back but looking for recommendations for how to improve. DGG gave the impression that it's not notable enough, Ihocoyc that it seems too concerned with why it should be notable and thus is promotional. Please advise for what kind of changes you would like me to make!

Thanks!

--Marino9813 (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ihocoyc:

I'm writing this as the Webmaster at Corporate Insight. As it has been stated before, we are a small company based in New York. If the old saying was "you're not legitimate unless you have a website," I believe the new saying is "you're not legitimate unless I can find you on Wikipedia." All of the major financial firms that we cover have a Wikipedia page, and we would like to join them in adding our page into the Wiki-world. When researching our company, potential clients, employees, and investors will be looking for more information that what is found on our website alone; the source most people turn to first is Wikipedia. I can promises you this is not a page put together by a publicist; it is a page for informational and research purposes. If more or less information needs to be included, please state what should be included, and I shall add it.

To your criticisms: It begins, not by describing the business except in the most general terms, but with what's essentially argument that the business is notable.

- This has been updated to include more information on what Corporate Insight does, and what it offers the public as well as its subscribers.

The coverage turns out to be a peck of offhand mentions in publications that aren't about this business and do not speak of it in any detail.

- Coverage about the business itself exists, but as a research firm, we are often cited in scholarly web-based publications.  Articles aren't often written about those that write the news, but those that write the news are often cited.  This is our role in the financial industry.

The business itself is another consulting firm apparently promoting mobile phone technology to banks and other financial firms.

- Our firm is not promoting anything, we are providing research to our subscribers as well as the public through our newsletters and blog postings.  We aren't in the marketing field, and have no bias towards any of the companies we cover; we provide a third party look at the firms we cover and provide our opinion on their offerings.

If you have further criticisms, I would be happy to address them and update the page accordingly to promote its acceptance.

-- dgcinsight —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Dgcinsight,

Is that page better? I feel like the current intro paragraphs would fall more under what Ihocoyc and DGG were talking about with something that strays too close too promotional material.

The original two intro paragraphs I made before you revised it.

Corporate Insight is a New York-based financial services research and consulting firm. In general terms the company advises clients on trends that continue to shape the financial industry such as online banking and investing, mobile apps, social media, etc.

Corporate Insight’s studies and reports are frequently referenced in articles by financial reporting agencies such as Bloomberg, CNBC, Forbes, and The Wall Street Journal.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Since the company began doing projects and consulting work related to mobile and social media trends it has garnered attention from more mainstream publications such as the New York Times, Newsweek, TIME, and USA Today.[10][11][12][13][14]

---

Thoughts? What are other peoples recommendations?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(to Marino9813): Not sure if DGG is around, but to answer your questions - Wikipedia demands a Neutral Point of View, i.e. it's written as an encyclopedist describing the company, person, place, etc in a calm way ("The company is...", not "We are proud to announce...", for instance). And similarly, good sources have to be independent of both the company and Wikipedia, and reliable - NYTimes not Twitter, for instance. Hope that helps - I suspect you can easily find good solid materials. As the article stands, I would recommend Delete as the existing sources are either not independent or not reliable (or both). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chriswick, Dgcinsight, and everyone else --

@Dgcinsight -- Don't think those new intro paragraphs are any better since they definitely sound more promotional. I replaced it with the old one, however if you feel strongly about that you can change it back.

I've been kind of all over the map here with my questions spread out over several different posts so let me summarize my confusion better and the questions I would like answers before you take this page down.

First, I can't help but get the feeling that many of you haven't bothered looking at most of the sources or are being very selective with the sources. Everyone raised this issue. Of the 24 sources I bothered to include I admit that some of them only feature quotes and a few are from the company website. But that is inevitable! Quality journalism that "notable" publications write rely on multiple sources for quotes and never rely on a single source! More importantly, most of these sources are all about Corporate Insight! The first source is a Wall Street Journal 1-on-1 interview with the President. The others are a CNBC article about one of the companies reports, a Wall St. Journal article on a company report, a Financial Times article about a report, a Newsweek article about a report, NYT times on a report, a MarketWatch article on a report, a businesswire article on a report, etc. etc. If you honestly read through these 24 sources and came to that conclusion I would be both surprised of your dedication to Wikipedia and confused how you came to that conclusion.

Second, it seems like you’re holding this page to a pretty unfair standard (picking on it -- whatever you want to say) because it is less well known among certain circles than an international consulting firm like Bain. To quote Smerdis of Tlön’s earlier accusation: "It begins, not by describing the business except in the most general terms, but with what's essentially argument that the business is notable." PLEASE LOOK AT ANY OTHER CONSULTING COMPANIES PAGE AND SEE THAT IT FOLLOWS THE SAME FORMAT THAT I DELIBERATELY IMITATED!! The article starts with a paragraph stating that the company is a consulting firm and then a second paragraph that is something along the lines of consulting firm X is prominent for XYZ reason. Look at any other consulting page, like Bain & Company, Booz & Company Oliver Wyman, McKinsey & Company, and while they may have some more info about the number and locations of offices can you honestly tell me that it's at all different??

Third, I have asked this before and I will ask this again. Which specific language is considered too bias or promotional? If you identify certain sentences or phrases I will re-write them! Again going back to comparing it to the standard that you seem to hold the larger companies too it doesn’t really seem that different! For example, the second sentence of Bain & Company’s page is “Bain is considered one of the most prestigious consulting firms in the world.” Or this from the first paragraph of Booz & Company’s page, without any source: “Booz and Company is among the top recruiters of graduates of the top-ranked business schools in the world, in addition to hiring first-rate people with advanced degrees in science, medicine, engineering and law." How is that any less promotional in tone??? I could probably find better examples with more time but again this seems pretty unfair. Even though I know none of you personally had anything to do with that, you do seem very hypocritical when chiding me for not writing it in a more objective tone.

Therefore, I resolve that until someone can specifically address.....

Why the standards that applies to the similar (albeit larger) consulting company pages does not apply to this one. Quite simply, that just doesn't seem fair.
Why a long list of sources, all of which are from major publications and many of which are exclusively about the company report or opinions are not "independent," reliable," or “notable.”
What specific language is too biased or promotional in tone. I guess I didn't do a good enough job of that but I would be happy to re-word or re-work and sentences you have issue with!

..... Then this page should not be deleted!!!

~Marino9813 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above WOTs (Walls of Text, or perhaps Wastes of Time) are exactly what WP:COI is meant to prevent. Mr. Corporate Insight webmaster, please disengage from this discussion and from further editing of the article. If your firm is indeed notable under Wikipedia standards, others will make that argument, and others will write the article. You should not have anything to do it with. EEng (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

Okay now is the time when I start ranting and give you another WOT. Someone sent me a message to my user page but I figured it was better to respond to this. At this point I don’t care anymore about this generically named company that sounds like a front for the mob. I care because everyone is pissing me off with this hypocrisy.

I made this page because I follow the financial world as well as the “tech” world in the most generic sense closely. I’ve noticed these guys because they’re always quoted on stories that relate to the financial world’s interaction with, again, in a generic sense, “tech” devolpments. This is why they are important – they are looked to as the authority on these issues and are treated as such by the media (and presumably their clients). But when I searched them I found that there’s a bunch of cluttered results and when you look at their company page they have the typical corporate BS that is meaningless. The same information that I don’t really care about that the company’s webmaster guy copy/pasted for the introduction. And I thought to myself, hm, these guys should really have a Wikipedia page for who they are. Then I joined Wikipedia, attempted my first page, and now I am… here.

I tried to just make a straightforward description similar to comparable pages but you guys didn’t like it. I am happy to reword. What stands out? Is “notable publications” section unnecessary? It makes sense that you’re understandable suspicious of anyone and there is no real way for me to prove that but I DON’T WORK AT THIS COMPANY that dginsight guy does.

But I do find it ridiculous that everyone keeps saying this company doesn’t count as noteable. Maybe you’ve heard of the financial industry? It’s kind of important. Maybe you haven’t heard of these things everyone keeps talking about like online, mobile, apps, social media… the point is you are smoking crack rocks if you don’t think that this counts as notable. Again, going back to the blatant hypocrisy point let’s look a few pages that Wikipedia counts as notable that I managed to find pretty quickly: cat organ, Foam take-out container, mammary intercourse -- that one’s to prove a point (with shock value) & that I’m not a conflict of interest employee at work right now since that one is definitely not safe for work -- Stockwell Stakepark, Vince Hudd... point is based on your peers who the hell are you guys to judge that this doesn’t count as notable??? Furthermore, I just skimmed the “General notability guideline” on the Wikipedia:Notability page… what are you guys talking about? The sources absolutely comply with it!

Please refer to my previous comment for a response to criticisms that is less pissed off and more based on facts.

I ask that you take a step back and think about how ridiculous you all sound to a new user.

If you decide to delete this page I’m giving up on Wikipedia before I even begin.

Rabble Rabble Rabble This is ‘Murica, Justice and Freedom. I rest my case.

PS - couldn't get the Stockwell Stakepark like to work so here is the exact address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Skatepark

--Marino9813 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ps - I realize that most of you have obviously already made up your mind, but for anyone who is undecided on whether or not this company is notable I invite you to take a look at my user page discussion (I would link it here if I knew how) where a user named Cullen asked me to try convince him why this company is notable.

--Marino9813 (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Delete This company fails the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage (addressing the subject directly in detail) in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I have reached out and welcomed Marino9813 on the new editor's talk page in an attempt to obtain such sources. The article now has 24 sources, and I've now read every one. Most of them are passing mentions of the general form, "John Smith of Corporate Insight said that a report they've published concluded etc. etc. etc." Sources 6, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are press releases, and are therefore not independent. Sources 15 and 19 are from the company's own website and are therefore not independent. I will be happy to change my recommendation if at least two independent, reliable sources addressing the company in detail are provided that show that this company meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Marino9813 points to Cat organ, Foam take-out container and Mammary intercourse as examples of "blatant hypocrisy" here. The problem with that line of argument is that all three of those topics have been discussed in detail in independent, reliable sources, and therefore meet the general notability guideline. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

Many thanks to @Cullen for spelling out for me what I would need to improve. I really appreciate that since everyone else has made me frustrated as I'm trying to figure how this works and what I'm doing wrong here... and only growing more frustrated when I look to other pages for guidance.

I'll get this done by sometime today. At that point if everyone still disagrees with me go ahead and delete it. Again, my frustration stems more from what I perceived to be pretty arbitrary standards and less from this specific company.

Thanks!

Ps - @Cullen... when you log into Wikipedia where do you go to look for things that need editing? I assume that there would be some sort of portal or forum (ideally broken down into topics) on different topics that need work? Sorry if that's a rookie question — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marino9813 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone,

@Cullen gave me some good recommendations on how to pitch this along the lines of what your looking for. I'm not sure what to say other than read this and hopefully it will all make more sense.

Conflict of interest statement:

I am a…

Male, currently living in the mid-Atlantic region.
26 years old. Until recently I had been employed in the financial industry. I worked at the same firm for three years, but on the private wealth management side with no connection to these guys.
I am the kind of person who reads three newspapers each morning… a news junkie if you will.
I am also one of those guys who other people would call a “techie.” That one should be self-explanatory.

I’m not sure what else there would be to disclose but if anyone else wants to know what I ate for breakfast today I’ll be happy to tell you. Any biases I may have should be clear.

My thought process behind making a page for this generically-named company & reasoning for why they are justified in a page:

I made this page because I follow the financial world as well as the “tech” world (in the most general sense) closely. I’ve noticed these guys because they’re always quoted on stories that relate to the financial world’s interaction with, again, in a generic sense, “tech” developments like online banking and investing social media, apps, mobile, whatever. This is why they are important – they are looked to as the authority on these issues and are treated as such by the media. Perhaps there is some competitor both I and the media are unaware of but they seem to be the only one who are the source on this in the most general sense.

So when I Googled them I found that there’s a bunch of cluttered results and when you look at their company page they have the typical corporate BS that is meaningless. And I thought to myself, hm, these guys should really have a Wikipedia page for who they are and it would certainly make things easier. I also realized for the “techie” that I am I have no idea how Wikipedia works. So I joined Wikipedia, attempted my first page, and now I am… here.

I’m sure when you read this, my other posts, or this Wikipedia entry you jumped to whatever stereotypes you have (this guys is an angry buffoon, maybe you saw a name like Corporate Insight and thought that’s clearly some hole in the wall consultancy being written by a PR person) that have been reinforced over the countless times you have probably had to deal with something like this. But just think about this from a new user perspective – instantly shot down – went looking for recommendations or suggestions for a process I don’t yet understand – didn’t get recommendations – then went to look other pages for guidance and instead very different standards across the board and got very frustrated. Think about what it would be like to be a confused new user receiving a hostile reception, and then finding a page like cat organ… anyway big thanks to @Cullen for reaching out to me.

Sources:

Thank you again to Cullen – I was using quantity of sources to show that these guys are always quoted. I thought that would be better but I obviously I was off. As you suggest, here are 3 sources with detail.

Source #1 - What it is: an article about lie detecting technology in Russian ATM’s in the New York Times. Why I included that: To me, them being quoted in this article is a pretty straightforward example of how they are the informal authority on all things tech and finance. Ask yourself – why would Corporate Insight be quoted if they don’t do anything regarding ATM technology or lie detections. Like I said before, it’s because they are the informal authority on all things tech in the finance world. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/business/global/09atm.html?pagewanted=all

Source #2 - What it is: A CNBC article called “financial services get social” discussing the findings of a Corporate Insight report on how social media is changing the financial industry. Why I included that: Again, it seems like a straightforward example of how the financial world looks to this company for its opinions on tech, in this case social media. Link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/39764810/Financial_Services_Get_Social

Source #3 - What it is: A Wall St Journal video of an interview with the President of the company regarding Brokerage reports. Why I included that: It seems like a straightforward example to back up the sentence that they are frequently quoted in financial news agencies. Link: http://online.wsj.com/video/spicing-up-adviser-report-cards/565CAAA8-43E9-4299-9E19-8AC14E7733C5.html?mod=googlewsj

Note: I obviously didn’t use a specific citation style. Does Wikipedia endorse one style? Chicago? MLA? Also, if that’s not the kind of details you were looking for let me or you simply need more detailed sources let me know.

Closing thoughts:

These sources clearly meet the standards of being prominent, reliable, and independent etc. That much shouldn’t be in question. If you accept my reasoning that they are often quoted and in the news as the informal authority on how the financial world interacts with tech developments that this should be a no-brainier.

At this point, the only angle that I can see somewhat eye-to-eye with you guys is if you think that because none of the sources contain something like a quote from the Wall St Journal saying something like “The Wall St Journal considers Corporate Insight to be the authority on all things finance and tech etc. etc.” That is understandable since my word doesn’t mean anything in an impersonal forum like this.

But I don’t agree that that’s necessary. While there are obvious exceptions like government agencies, prominent news outlets like the New York Times, Bloomberg, the Wall St. Journal, etc. don’t tend to make statements like that. When was the last time you read something from a respectable publication outside of the food section that dubbed an entity something like “the official authority” on X. This is especially true when X is something as large as the financial world and tech. In the back of your head you know that’s true. Hence I did not make a statement like that when I made this Wikipedia page, instead opting for a general one noting their frequent press coverage.

If that is really the issue I could probably do some more Google News trolling… but I’ve already put way too much effort into this and I’m not really motivated to do that... nor does that seem necessary. Hopefully the long list of other sources they’re quoted is enough for you to believe me. @dginsights guy you work at the company right? Go ask your press person and find something along those lines.

Let me know if you have any questions. After reading this you may not see eye-to-eye, but hopefully you can see how someone with eyes in my head would see these guys as worthwhile and would initially get very frustrated with this whole process. I am open to any all suggestions or recommendations while I learn this process.

~Marino9813

--Marino9813 (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you go looking for work?

So a question to everyone... Anytime you log into Wikipedia looking for something to do... where do you start? I assume there's got to be categorical forums or lists of pages that need more work? Or do you just troll?

Regarding this page, what happens now? Is that a good enough explanation to satisfy everyone?

This is another rookie question but I've tried to start a new discussion on my user page asking that question about where you go looking for work. For some reason I can't get it to show up as a new discussion. It keeps showing up as text at the end of the previous comment thread. It looks like a user who answered my citation question had the same problem. Is that a common problem or am I doing something wrong?

Thanks!

Marino9813 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HIPAA certification

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

Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable certifications issued by a non-notable organization. Mostly an advertisement for the issuing organization. Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be disguised spam for a company called hipaatraining.net. HIPAA itself is notable and important, and already has an article. Any general (and noncommercial) information about certification could be added in a paragraph to that article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The creator of the article posted the following on the article's talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this page should not be deleted:

As HIPAA is a federal regulations & not a organization, it cannot endorse ANY certification from private entities as “OFFICIAL” certification. HIPAA requires all employees of covered entity & business associate to be trained based on their job role. The certifications listed here are the ones that meet those requirement of organization and allow them to validate individual’s knowledge based on the job role of the individual. Hundreds of individuals including government entities like National Institute Standards & Technology (NIST), US Army, County Government, State Government, NASA and many more have registered for the certification.

Individuals get CEU credits for this course to maintain their professional certification and medical degrees like nurse, doctor etc. This is possible ONLY if the content is relevant and up to date and accepted by certification issuing authorities.

Definitely certification is in its infancy stage but that does not mean that it is irrelevant in validating individual’s HIPAA knowledge. If putting information about the a certification program from private organization is against your policy then many articles on Microsoft, Cisco, CISSP.

The people who may need HIPAA certification is limited to healthcare industry and organizations servicing healthcare industries so it not be a main stream certification like others but it is very important for those who are in the industry as a basis to validate their HIPAA knowledge.

I am sure you will see genuine reason not to delete this information. is it better to create a article based on certification name instead of adding all information under generic name of HIPAA Certification which is very broad term? Look forward on receiving guidance.

Roopashri (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything non-redundant to HIPAA. Delete the remainder as the subject doesn't appear notable on it's own. This content may be useful but it needs to reference independent, reliable sources. §everal⇒|Times 20:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Closing administrator please note: There is a redirect page to this article at Hipaa certification, the result of a page move. If this page is deleted, the redirect page should be deleted as well. --MelanieN (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caligastia

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

Article shows no evidence that this character from a religious text ( The Urantia Book meets our criteria of notability - the only sources are the text itself. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party sources that I could find that demonstrate notability. First Light (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources all seem to be connected with "Urantia" text, so fails GNG. Basically no notability, no evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Google books has some stuff on it buried beneath all the Urantian commentary (1, 2, 3, and some stuff in snippet previews), but right now I'm supposed to be working on stuff to make sure my next couple of weeks only reach the level of fuster cluck. While I'd like to see the article improved, I don't think we're really losing anything by dropping the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CrossFit. v/r - T P 00:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anníe Mist Þórisdóttir

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

Lack of notability FunkyCanute (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's already listed at CrossFit and notability beyond involvement with the CrossFit Games isn't claimed or established. §everal⇒|Times 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect rather than delete. While this and similar articles are a lot like spam for what is essential a brand of contrived athletic events, this athlete might become notable beyond this single event, so I'd like to keep the article history. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there isn't enough for an article here but a redirect to CrossFit seems sensible. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nancy Kwan. v/r - T P 00:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Pock

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

Bernhard Pock is the son of a notable actress. He does appear to have been a stunt actor in a large number of films, but being involved in films does not make one notable. His primary claim to fame is the role his death played in his mother's life and her dealing with it. Notability is NOT derived from familial relationships and the fact that he is mentioned in a documentary on his mother does not make him notable ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Nancy Kwan article, in a new 'Personal life' section, detailing her husbands/son. Giant Snowman 20:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why relist? If nobody is arguing to keep the article, simply treat it like a PROD. Delete/redirect as one would normally treat a prod.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much standard practice to try for two relists before throwing in the towel on a crickets-chirping "discussion". ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've always thought it was a dumb practice particularly when it is something as benign/non-controversial as this one. If a PROD would do and the result is obvious, it becomes just a beaucratic action to relist. I could see relisting when there is a legit discussion or where the closing admin looks at it and says, "Hmmm, I don't think this should be deleted without more discussion" but in that case, they should chime into why. Relisting an article that is going through AFD as a formality is a waste of time and effort.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 20:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - we are not a memorial website. We have almost always merged the relatives of famous persons into the notable person's biography. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wadsworth Jarrell. v/r - T P 00:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wadsworth Jarrell and the AFRI-COBRA movement

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

AFRICOBRA and Wadsworth Jarrell each have their own pages. Much of the content of the article is duplicated from these pages Dac04 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Wadsworth Jarrell ~~and AFRICOBRA~~ and then ~~delete~~ redirect. There's not enough on either topic to start crossing them like this. Some redundancy on WP is fine but this is too far. Lagrange613 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question merging and then deleting removes the article history. If there is content suitable for inclusion on wikipedia and it is merged elsewhere, then the original article is deleted, then how are the original editor's contributions acknowledged? Polyamorph (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the article's history has been adding content to and wikifying the original version; take a look at this version, which is dated 24 minutes after the article's creation. I don't think we'd lose anything deleting the history. Lagrange613 (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'd lose the usernames of the contributing editors. My point being if content is saved but merged elsewhere their contributions will not be acknowledged. I suggest including their username(s) in the edit summary or talk page should any merge of content take place, or else make the page a redirect then the history will remain. If you were simply suggesting to delete the article then there is no reason to acknowledge the contributing editors. However, a merge should never take place with out referencing the original source. In order to comply with wikipedia licensing requirements deleted content cannot be used elsewhere on wikipedia without adequate attribution. See WP:CWW. Merges always require at the very least the source to be attributed in the edit summary. The template {{Copied}} can also be useful. In which case it is better to have the original page as a redirect. I wonder how many pages like this get deleted after merges without proper attribution to the original authors. Attribution of content on wikipedia is obligatory. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on merges is that the page being merged from must remain as a redirect to preserve attribution, per Wikipedia's copyright policies, I believe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I was being sloppy. As it turns out the part about AFRICOBRA was copied and pasted from that article, so we can just selectively merge and redirect to Wadsworth Jarrell. I'd also be okay with just redirecting if whoever was actually doing it felt there wasn't anything worth salvaging. Lagrange 613 05:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge and redirect as discussed above. Polyamorph (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cobra Commander says delete. I don't see much of a point in having a redirect to anything from this title; anyone who typed it into the search box would get Wadsworth Jarrell anyways. This text is not neutral, and the only way to make an encyclopedia article out of it would be to remove it all: Jarrell's 1972 work Revolutionary depicts a larger-than-life woman in a fiery state of impassioned speech. It is important to note that the woman is Angela Davis, a vital figure in the fight for civil rights. In the piece, Davis is pictured as a monumental character who dons a belt of bullets, an allusion to the militaristic attitudes held by the Black Panthers, a combative sect of the Black Panther Movement. Davis is literally surrounded by social slogans that were echoed throughout the era of civil rights. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete all except Suffolk County, New York article. v/r - T P 00:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zip Code 30052

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

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

Non-notable zip code, prod removed with this reasoning" Removed marked for deletion. Individual zip codes are notable as geographic entity used for postal delivery.", no reliable sources for this zip code, there's tens of thousands of zip codes out there, and prior nominations indicated zip codes aren't notable Delete all Secret ^account 04:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our precedent is not to have articles about individual zip codes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not govern by precedent. Dream Focus 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is a reflection of consensus, which does govern Wikipedia. Peacock (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Individual zip codes are not notable, as there are 99,999 of them, and they are pretty much the same. OK, 90210 is the exception that proves the rule. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: added other ZIP code pages to the original nomination, as the came conditions apply to all of them (bar one, not nominated) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect all to the populated place they are associated with~~Delete all except Suffolk County. As the same conditions of the original nom apply to all ZIP code pages, I added them all to the nomination (bar 10048 (ZIP code), which is notable). But none of these are. They may have some utitlity as redirects (there are quite a few others already existing as redirects), however - but that would be just as the number itself, not as "Zip Code foo". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless they pass the GNG like 10048, which none of the nominated articles do, individual ZIP codes aren't notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as original research, Not Directory, no independent third-party published sources, or whatever criterion salves your conscience. With due respect to the creator, this is a kettle of fish best not opened. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Unless reliable sources are produced that discuss a specific zip code as a topic in itself, as is the case for 10048. There will be a tiny number of exceptions at best. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all All zip codes are evidently notable, being discussed in detail in works such as Community Sourcebook of ZIP Code Demographics and Rand McNally zip code atlas. In many cases, the zip code seems to correspond to a particular named town or district and so some merger or redirection might be appropriate. Indiscriminate deletion of zip codes just seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT unsupported by any policy. Warden (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Indeed the Zip codes are listed in several publications but that does not make them notable in their own right and we already have List of ZIP code prefixes where each 3-digit Zip code links to the populated place. ww2censor (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not just listed but are discussed in detail. That does make them notable, by definition, per the WP:GNG. The suggestions to the contrary above are factually incorrect. Warden (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you listed are primary sources, like an atlas, not the secondary sources that meets WP:GNG Secret ^account 19:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the things Wikipedia strives for is to be an almanac. These could be useful for someone looking up information about what areas are in zip code. Rather educational really. I say keep all of them, and please don't go around trying to delete the many other zip code related articles out there either. Category:Postal codes by country Dream Focus 01:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true, we don't strive to be an almanac, that's why WP:NOT exists. Can you give a policy based reasoning please. Secret ^account 03:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Five pillars "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." That's been there since the very beginning of Wikipedia I believe. I thought it was listed somewhere else too, but can't find it. Dream Focus 08:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - Fruit punch "incorporates elements of" an apple orchard, but is not trying to be an apple orchard. To reach this ~~purported~~ imagined "almanac" status, we need articles on all of the individual telephone exchanges in the country (which, of course, cover far larger areas than mere zip codes), each Social Security number range (covering areas limited by state, of course, but also covering (in some cases) employment), etc. I'd suggest we get started with an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of keyboards creating random articles. Then we can keep every conceivable variation of Hamletand every code (zip, phone or otherwise) used by anyone anywhere. After all, where else am I going to find every meaningless detail about the history of 12 gauge lamp wire? - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - List of North American Numbering Plan area codes Have them for each individual state as well, plus other nations. Social Security numbers are randomly generated these days. Previously they just used the zip code for them. Dream Focus 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, we have one article listing area codes. I'm talking about individual articles for each exchange (If you'd like one article listing every zip code in the country, knock yourself out.). Yes, SSNs are randomly generated, except that they aren't. The first three digits are now based on area, the fifth is (now) even and the last four are sequential. In the past (once notable, always notable), the first three had some that were area and occupation (such as Pennsylvania RR employees). Surely this would be part of our newly invented mission as an almanac. You'd better start rounding up monkeys. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        They are random now. Read the part starting at "On June 25, 2011, the SSA changed the SSN assignment process to "SSN randomization"". Any yes, every area code has its own article. Click on any of the numbers listed and you can find articles like Area code 205. We also have additional articles on this, not just one, which you can find listed at Template:Area code list. And we have too many monkeys around already, no sense trying to round up more. Dream Focus 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        <typing very slowly>"Once notable, always notable." The previous meaning hidden in SSNs is as important to this newly invented almanac mission as it was when certain SSNs were allocated to employees of the Pennsylvania RR, etc. Assign some monkeys. No matter how many times you talk about area codes, I'm talking about telephone exchanges which are of a scope similar to these trivial zip codes for our new almanac mission. We'll have to allocate monkeys to this. And there are thousands of similarly trivial codes to attend to. Heck, let's just start Wikimonkeyalmanac - the meaningless compendium of trivial details attached to every code number any organization has ever used and call it a day. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In case it isn't clear, a telephone exchange is the second three-number group in a 10-digit phone number: 1-407-555-1234 is, in order, country code, area code, exchange, individual number. (Yes, every time you dial long-distance starting with '1', you're entering the country code. You could win trivia games with this. :D ) The trouble with claming that zip codes are notable enough for articles because area codes are (aside from it being a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument) is that area codes, as a rule, cover a much larger area than zip codes. Area code 850, for instance - in Tallahassee alone there's at least a half-dozen zip codes. Now, that said, it's possible that lists of ZIP codes on a county-by-county basis could, possibly, be notable enough for inclusion - but articles on invidivual ZIP codes will almost never be notable (with, as mentioned, 10048 being the exception that proves the rule - it's worth noting that there wasn't even an article on 90210...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per general notability guidelines. All these individual zip codes are definitely not notable geographic entities. Peacock (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zip codes of Suffolk County, New York I agree in part with Dream Focus's argument above, but not to the point of separate articles on each and every zip code. Individual zip codes are not in general independently notable, but they are notable as part of a system. A List of zip codes article would therefore be genuinely encyclopedic but very unwieldy. It therefore makes sense to break it up, say by state - except that a List of zip codes of New York State would still be unwieldy. So this article is, I would suggest, on an appropriate scale for such an article, though it could certainly do with improvement. PWilkinson (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' To clarify, are you saying keep Zip codes of Suffolk County, New York and delete the rest? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Basically, yes - though I note that many of the others seem to be in Georgia, and I would have no objection, if anyone is inclined to do so, to seeing them merged into a similar article (though if it didn't cover the whole state, I'd want to see some kind of geographical rationale). PWilkinson (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keeping the Suffolk County page would be fine with me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. v/r - T P 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON temple Punjabi Bagh

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

No reliable sources to assert notability. Gaura79 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have reliable/notable sources.But check this http://directory.krishna.com/old/index.php .It shows the list of ISKCON temples in the world and there is a temple in "Panjabi Bagh".But can't confirm whether this the same temple or not.Vivekananda De--tAlK 10:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, no citations for verification. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than the actual size of the congregation, there is no allegation of notability of a temple that I can see. I'm not even sure if it is a relatively large congregation in India, a nation of almost 1 billion souls. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion about merging to, as mentioned, take place on talk pages. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

London Nationals

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

Simply put, the London Nationals page as it currently exists is a duplicate of information readily available at London Knights. Historically, the original London Nationals are a Junior B team that moved to Ingersoll in the 1965 season when the Junior A Nationals came into existance, and a year later returned to London as the Bees and many other future names (including the Diamonds), eventually reverting to the Nationals in 1991. The page currently at London Nationals is the team that eventually became the Knights, and thus has no unique information and should be deleted to make room for the Junior B team, currently operating under that name, to occupy that space. As a further complication, the team history is not correct on the Junior A version; the Junior A Nationals became the Knights in 1968 with no change since, hence why the separate page is not needed. CycloneGU (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reverted article to its form before a POV anon vandal turned it into the Jr. B page. The article makes a lot more sense now. Don't worry, your tag is still up. There is discussion to be had. DMighton (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This follows from a discussion on my talk page where I opined that a simple rename of a hockey team does not break continuity, and therefore does not warrant a separate article. (for instance, we do not separate Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and Anaheim Ducks) I argued in favour of a merge, but suggested getting further input. However, AfD is not the right venue - if there is a merge, the edit history of this article should be retained, and this title would simply redirect to the target. Cyclone - I would recommend withdrawing this AfD and beginning a discussion at the article's talk page. Reso lute 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still do think deleting this page and putting the older franchise here (and the only one still using the name) is procedural but thought this might be the way to go about doing it; if I am mistaken, I accept that mistake. The article talk page hasn't had activity since creation, but I do hope we can generate some discussion on this subject there. As for a history merge, this would do no good as both London Knights and the page under discussion here existed independently, and putting a London Nationals page version as more recent than a London Knights one is ridiculous. The information about the London Nationals is already at London Knights due either to the same contributors or different ones; we don't need to merge histories, merely move a little bit of information that isn't already merged. CycloneGU (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't we simultaneously put the Nationals and Knights up for merge AND put the Jr. B Nats up for relocation to this page on the condition that the merge is successful. We can do that right? But I would prefer if we merged, so that the edit history isn't lost on the old Nationals article... and the Jr. B Nats just replace the redirect. Thoughts? DMighton (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholly with the duo merge and relocate options. However, a history merge makes absolutely no sense. This revision of London Knights on March 27, 2010 is newer than this revision of London Nationals on June 13, 2009 but older than this revision of London Nationals on May 2, 2010. They would appear in a history merge as revisions in order in the history. In other words, the page changed from Nationals to Knights to Nationals back to Knights and back to Nationals again. I am fully against a history merge for this reason as well as the fact that London Knights already contains a good chunk of information from the Nationals article. Merging the articles, however, is necessary in some fashion, even if it means adding information from the prior article with reference to the old article in the ES. CycloneGU (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss as per Resolute. Completely agree, but possibly instead move the other Nationals to this title as it is the older franchise. Either way, future discussion. DMighton (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, in this specific case, I think it will end with a history merge and the Jr. B team moving to this article title. Reso lute 14:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute. I think we will likely merge these articles but afd is not where merges should be discussed. That should be done on the talk pages with some merge tags. -DJSasso (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People Who Love Peepholes

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

Essentially a plot only description of a television episode that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Other than an extended plot description, the article provides nothing more than is already contained in the episode list article. Only two references, one of which is for the same ratings figure used in the list article, while the other is incorrectly used to justify a ratings figure in the "production" section. AussieLegend (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every episode of this show probably passes the GNG. Regardless, the first few eps after Sheen was replaced by Kutcher have received massive coverage. Not that I really care, but keep is what our policies and guidelines recommend. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably" isn't good enough. Notability needs to be demonstrated and the article certainly doesn't do that. A search doesn't find anything that would demonstrated notability either. WP:GNG is a guideline and WP:PLOT is policy - Neither of those recommend keeping this article. Both indicate it should be deleted. However, redirection to Two and a Half Men (season 9)#ep179 is the better option. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a few sources.[68][69][70] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why it can't be redirected here? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two and a Half Men (season 9)#ep179 is the actual entry for the episode. There's no reason it can't be redirected at all. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episode is significant because it is part 2 of a 2 parter which sees a new cast member join the show. Instead of erasing a significant article consider improving it(Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- The new cast member joined in the first part. There's no issue with the significance of that episode and its article demonstrates the notability and significance of that episode. The significance is not really the issue here though, it's whether or not it is notable and it doesn't seem to be the case. As time progresses, notability isn't likely to improve and it seems that nobody is interested in improving this article. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. No reliable sources have been found to demonstrate nobility. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shpendi Sollaku Noé

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which demonstrate the notability of this Albanian poet under WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Albanian resources are very thin on the Internet, which definitely an issue here, his works certainly exist, as demonstrated by this WorldCat entry [71], the one book tagged with his name here has two copies in libraries in the US. Books has five of his books [72] but no references otherwise. The Italian and Albanian WP articles only include his own web site. Not sure of the reliability of [73]. Can't help but feel like I might be missing something, but ... welll, additional sources welcomed as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not enough coverage for our purposes. Nom and J04n sum it up pretty well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: this never got appropriately listed, and Twinkle refuses to complete an automated attempt to relist, not sure why. Anyway... one more time around the track... --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is hard to review as Joe Decker says. Amazon.co.uk actually mentions 11 of his books at http://www.amazon.co.uk/Abysses-Voragini-Shpend-Sollaku-Noe/dp/1438967004/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318357297&sr=1-1, and 6 of his books are on sale there, so there's no doubt he exists as an author. But is he notable? If we believe the Amazon editorial it would be a yes. There's very little on the web, but I suspect that's the web, not the albanian author's fault. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources, and his books on Amazon all seem to be published by AuthorHouse, a vanity press. Pburka (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then - no Verifiable evidence, only vanity self-publishing - we have little option but to Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any coverage in third-party reliable sources which is required per WP:V. The fact that he's using a vanity press to print his books doesn't say much for notability either. Hut 8.5 19:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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