Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 October 24 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm Kissing You[edit]

When I'm Kissing You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not only unsourced, but even the Twitter source sums this article up: "Not true, that I know of". As fragile a piece of WP:CRYSTAL as you will find. —Kww(talk) 23:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No confirmed release date or track listing, and I could find no coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be textbook WP:CRYSTAL.  Gongshow Talk 02:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since even the songstress behind the music has denied that the album will be called this, there's no reason for this to exist. Totally WP:CRYSTAL Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. No confirmation on album title or release date. This article shouldn't exist until more information becomes known. Fan4me (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:36, 24 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maneater of Hydra[edit]

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

Unremarkable horror film. Fails WP:GNG and uses poor sources. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Original 1967 Spanish release title:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original 1967 US release title:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep With respects to the nominator, I looked beyond current state and did some research. My conclusion is that the topic does meet WP:GNG and WP:NF.[1][2] While yes, the article will benefit from being tagged for cleanup, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in the article itself... and we do have sufficient coverage for this 44-year-old horror flick, even under the article's unsuitable TV title for this film. There are more, but I find full length review and commentary in such as DVD Talk [3] and Monsters & Critics [4] to be strongly indicative of a meeting of WP:NF. More, and preceding its TV release, we have additional coverage under its original 1967 theatrical Spain release title of La isla de la muerte and its 1967 US English release title of Island of the Doomed.. With respects, improving the article seems a reasonably addressable issue, and as such does not require deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sourcing identified by MichaelQSchmidt which establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 07:53, 29 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. DGG makes a convincing case here. Tone 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph W. Moss (writer)[edit]

Ralph W. Moss (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really covered in reliable sources. Quite simply, there's just not enough information to make a sufficiently good, balanced article, and searches for good sources have apparently failed for many years.

Note that the only good, strong sources in the article... are just background sources, not specifically about him, used merely to provide the mainstream view on fringe theories he espouses. Once you ignore those, you end up with an incredibly weakly-sourced article, with no apparent hope of improvement. Source #3 is especially telling: http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/ralmosphdonl.html - this is used in close paraphrase to provide the history of Moss' life, despite coming from a questionable transcript of Moss talking about himself. It's not a suitable source for a WP:BLP, and fails pretty much every point of the guidelines for self-published sources by the article's subject, but it's arguably our main source for the article.

As for source #7, the only reliable source actually about Moss, it's available on Google books [5] and from that, we can see the coverage is limited to a single paragraph.

For a biography of a living person, we need top-notch sources. Without these, we pretty much have to fail it under the general notability guideline, since we simply lack the material to make an article. 86.** IP (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

86.** IP (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search of Google News, Scholar and Books have not shown any substantial information with which to build an encyclopedic article from independent sources. Redirect to Amygdalin may be an option as most sources discuss his views on and involvement with Laetrile/amygdalin. Yobol (talk) 22:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I think this is really on the borderline in terms of notability criteria; it could probably be argued either way. But when you have borderline notability in the BLP of a controversial individual, I think we should default to delete, so that's what I'd support here. MastCell Talk 03:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite strong Keep as a notable writer. Meets WP:AUTHOR with several notable books His Free radical : Albert Szent-Gyorgyi and the battle over vitamin C has reviews in New York Times [6] LA Times [7] And it was on the New York Times Bestseller List for March 13, 1988. [8]. We've always considered that by itself as notability. And it is is in 364 WorldCat libraries, including all major academic libraries.
His books on cancer have reviews similar or greater holdings: The cancer industry : unraveling the politics has a review in the LA Times [9] -and Publishers Weekly [10] and Oncolink published by the Abrahamson Cancer Center of the University of Penna. [11] -- and there are 464 WorldCat holdings, again including all major university libraries- [12] The Cancer syndrome, his earlier version of The Cancer industry, itself has reviews in the Boston Glove [13] and LA Times [14] -- and 487 World Cat holdings, including the main academic libraries. [15]
The reviews prove notability. Library holdings are not a formal criterion and are not regarded a proving it, but they help show the notability. I can't imagine hundreds of mainstream health care libraries buying these books if he were not a major influence to be contended with. For most works by alternative medicine figures, there may be many public libraries, but only a few universities trying for completeness. Regardless of that, the reviews prove the notability of the author.
In declining the prod, I gave considerable weight to his membership on the Alternative Medicine Program Advisory Council of the National Institutes of Health. The Toronto Star apparently agrees with me, for they found this appointment worth an article . [16] The NIH also in its principal public review on Laetrile lists his work as the only non-academic reference they include. [17] and gives him a profile [18] I am really puzzled how the i.p. nom missed all this -- which is just from Google News Archive, supplemented with Google. Maybe he didn't look--I notice he does not say he made any attempt to check for references. The first commentator above right after him says he did look in G News--but he seems not to have found the many dozens of items, so maybe he didn't check in their Archive also. It's time people stopped judging by appearances. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis by 86.** IP Going through in order:

Conclusion: I do not believe that DGG's references serve to show that an article conforming with the stringent standards of WP:BLP can be constructed for Ralph W. Moss. A BLP has too high of standards to go by inherited notability. His books likely could have encyclopedic articles on them,.

In the end, between WP:BLP (we need high-quality sources), and the WP:GNG (there simply isn't the substantial coverage in secondary sources about Moss himself that we require), we don't seem to have a choice.

I admit this is surprising - one would think his career would make him more notable, but we have almost no information about him. I am happy to be shown wrong, but don't think DGG has as yet. 86.** IP (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per DGG's excellent sources. I do think he has it. Moss has written several very widely reviewed, notable, books. We normally consider that sufficient to make an article about the author. This isn't "inherited notability" in the sense of WP:INHERITED where the subject didn't do anything to become notable, books aren't relatives, they're his professional output. Moss is an author; writing these books are what he does. Writing books that are this widely read and reviewed is a sign of notability in his field. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what are we supposed to use to make the article? If there's no sources about him, we can't. 86.** IP (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can make a fine stub article that lists the non-controversial stuff, where he was born, went to school, worked, etc., plus a bibliography with a few reviews. That's enough. Whoever tagged the fact that he graduated such and such a school with "self-published source" was being overenthusiastic. With rare exceptions, when someone writes he personally graduated such and such a school, we believe them. That's not the "unduly self serving" material that WP:ABOUTSELF warns us about. --GRuban (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - nom did not execute WP:BEFORE; DGG had to do it for nom. The author's work is notable, author is notable, sources exist. (I've removed the misleading double blank lines above, which imply some sort of break in discussion.)
The Toronto Star article found by DGG is probative: the man has been publicly notable for a number of years. GNG. Let's go ahead and cite that in the article.
Nom's analysis isseems zealous and incorrect, and seems to assume bad faith. I am sorely tempted to strikethrough its errors: I sincerely hope nom will do so.
  1. About ref #7, a paragraph is quite sufficient. It meets the definition of "substantial", and is clearly not trivial.
  2. Nom claims the NY Times 1988 book review "A Cut Lemon Doesn't Turn Brown" (single-page) spends only "one sentence" on Moss, but the article bears reading to show that's not true. 86 claims "not a book review at all", when in fact it clearly states "Mr. Moss's book is a detailed and quite readable study of the life of a man" and "he presents a generally sympathetic portrait of a man he clearly admires. He does not, however, gloss over ...". Bluntly, it's a book review.
    The way I read it was that it mentioned the book, then went on to talk about the subject, without mentioning the book again. I did skim, however. 86.** IP (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The NIH bio is not self-published; though it may have been provided by Moss, it is published by the NIH National Library of Medicine. It is therefore not an autobiographical statement, it is a biographical statement. If there were factual problems with that bio, it would either have been pulled or redacted. The NIH NLM PR office would not sanction unverifiable bios. As is the case with all secondary sources, we basically trust them.
  4. In fact, most BLPs about authors of notable works are thin on biographical totally independent sources (the reason for so few BLP GAs!). Most secondary sources about living authors consist of spotchecked autobios, and interviews. We trust them. The sources rule. Is the nom suggesting deleting all of the author BLPs, even though their works have attained considerable notability? I would hope not. This author is conclusively notable through their works and offices held, which (now, thx DGG) have RS.
  5. About the paywalled articles, per WP:V, verification has to be possible, not guaranteed to be easy or free. This includes university alumni records - all alumni can verify them, unwashed public cannot - but they are still considered verifiable, like it or not, because all it would take for anyone to verify that source is to register for a class, or befriend an alumnus, etc. An editor cannot arbitrarily exclude sources that he cannot or will not personally verify, see WP:SOURCEACCESS (trust me, I have some bitter experience with this).
  6. PBS's two productionsThe two documentary productions broadcast by PBS based on his work were in the 80's, and articles about them and press releases will be on paper. Again, WP:SOURCEACCESS. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE, if there is reasonable certainty about the existence of sources, deletion should not be pursued.
  7. About WP:BLP, we require sourcing primarily in order to avoid blatant promo, falsehoods, and defamatory content. We permit wide latitude in primary sourcing, as long as secondary sources are also cited. Of course, extraordinary or controversial claims require stronger sources, but I see no such claims in this article mandating such a zealous pursuit of deletion.
  8. It is unseemly for a nom to argue, belittle, and gainsay every single point of every !vote different than the noms, and this should stop.
Auxiliary supportive, but not definitive, source: This validates Moss's claim, of his film documentary Albert Szent-Gyorgyi: A Special Gift - 1984 (production company, Pacific Street films). We'll have to go through offline 1984/85 newspaper archives for reviews of that show and The Cancer War - 1983, which may have won an award. My point is, sources exist, probably offline. The fact that the online independent biographical material is thin is insufficient justification for deletion. --Lexein (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I didn't think Book reviews would be good enough. I see that that's apparently acceptable, now, but please, assume a little good faith here. As for evaluating DGG's sources, that's what one should be doing, surely: I disagreed, yes, but only after considering it. Had I NOT considered them, that would have been far worse. 86.** IP (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The seeming stridency of the analysis and its seeming ABF prompted my stern-ish wish for some strikethroughs. Your courteous reply above frees me to AGF going forward. Analysis is good, but should still be civil. I tend to agree that book authorship and reviews alone would be on the bubble, without best-seller or other notable attached events or RS pub of any bio details. However, we have broader coverage than that, fortunately: films, officialdom, organizations, advocacy, etc., and we don't know any of his book sales ranks. I hope for depth at the library, and some movement of found sources into the text. . --Lexein (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise. I didn't mean for it to be uncivil; I merely meant to express disagreement, but was balancing 10 pages at the time, so was probably too blunt in my analysis. Honestly, if book reviews are enough, we can probably close this now; we'll be limited in how much we can say, but, I suppose DGG and you are right - we can say a bit, and I guess there's no harm doing the little bit we can. We can always look at it again later. Withdraw? 86.** IP (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gah - "never give up, never surrender". Text is a harsh medium; things can easily seem to be what they are not. I think a certain amount of grumpiness should be permitted, but I also overreact. I'm fine with this staying open for the usual period, for other voices (I've been wrong before), or withdrawing. --Lexein (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are sources that show that this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no way possible his books can be notable, without the writer being notable. The source found by DGG prove he is a notable writer since they talk about his work. Dream Focus 01:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:GNG is fully established with the broad number of books this individual has published, and has coverage across the internet. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per notability guidelines for people, section WP:BASIC, multiple sources can be utilized to establish topic notability. Paywalled book reviews are valid despite being paywalled: see WP:PAYWALL. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:12, 30 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Washington Observation[edit]

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

UFO claim is cited to a single fringe site. Does not have notability in reliable, independent sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing in gnews. [19]. this is original research. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You're probably not going to find much of anything if you use "Mount Washington Observation" as your search term. If you play around with your search terms, you'll find stuff like this and this. Nothing great, but enough to prove that this isn't totally OR. Zagalejo^^^ 07:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering the lack of attention the subject's been given, this could never be more than a two-sentence article. It may be best to merge it to List of UFO sightings. Turns out it's not even a legit UFO sighting but some sort of hoax/exaggeration that hasn't gotten any traction in non-fringe sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interestingly, we have the picture in the database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.114.30 (talk) 13:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article improved. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.114.30 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Mount Washington image is used to illustrate the UFO article in Bulgarian, Bosnian, Croatian, Hungarian, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Latvian, Macedonian, Polish, Russian, and other wikis, suggesting that this is a popular UFO story (or alternately that someone with a lot of time on their hands has been adding the image to a lot of different wikis). I'd be kind of curious where this story comes from (e.g., who originally decided that the photo looks like a UFO?), but a quick search didn't turn up much in the way of historical context. I did find another book that mentions the photo, Haunted Hikes of New Hampshire (1), although it's just a snippet view and doesn't seem to have much context either. If the article can be improved enough, it might make a nice Halloween DYK. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third-part recognition of this particular UFO-sighting has been forthcoming in my attempts to research this on the internet. UFO-enthusiast sites don't really count per WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the actual stereocard
  • Delete and bury in a block of ice As far as I can ascertain, this has no identifiable source; it is passed around from UFO blog to UFO blog, but since every single such mention goes off about this auction in 2002 (unsubstantiated, and if anyone really did pay that kind of money for it, they were gypped), the two more recent mentions cannot be traced to any better source, even if they are in marginally more reputable publications. More damning is that the full image (shown at right) doesn't show a sky scene, but instead shows some sort of ice formation; one may guess at the nature of the fleck but it could just as well be a piece of wood. Ironically, the only way we could have a reliable source on this is to get someone else out there to do the debunking for us; then we could write it up as a hoax. as it stands, since you have to be right to be reliable, we don't have any reliable sources. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That it is an ice formation makes it all the more notable - it means the UFO has landed! Looking at it closely, it's not a chunk of wood (too much structure at one end), it's not crud on the lens, it's not a smudge. It must be real. After all, it's not like a photographer taking a picture of a really large ice formation might have wanted to put something there for scale, is it? . . . Ach! . . . . never mind. Delete Maybe we need some special rule for WP:FRINGE material, whereby it has not met the benchmark for notability until it has become well enough known for someone with credibility to publicly debunk it. Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One site even claims that a swastika is visible on the, er, thing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No mainstream third-party sources are covering this. The fact that nobody noticed the unidentified smudge or artifact in an old stereoscopic photo for so many years indicates that it is not a notable smudge or artifact. Delete, per WP:Notability#Smudges. First Light (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only inside view of interested parties. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even within the fringe Kenneth Arnold is supposed to be the one who spotted a flying saucer first (at least in the USA). Can't find any sources to support this or even reject it, which is a shame because an article debunking this would be particularly fun. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:30, 28 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy App[edit]

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

Declined Prod. Application does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A search revealed no substantial, third-party sources which would suggest otherwise. France3470 (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like an obvious failure of WP:GNG. Also, while not deletion arguments as such, appears to consist entirely of WP:OR, possibly with some marketing material mixed in, so it's not like what we have is particularly worth saving. 86.** IP (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alchemy (game). There's no reason whatsoever for this to have an article to itself, but it's worth a brief mention in the game's main article itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Upon looking at the article, there's already a brief mention of the app version in the intro, which is all that's really required.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pacifica Online Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica Online[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Seems to fail WP:GNG, and the only potentially reliable source I could find was the video of the Homepage TV show. A Google search failed to provide any other reliable sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Inks.LWC (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate or userify since it might generate lots of press once released. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (constabulary) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no significant coverage or claims of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly incubate. Article's four refs are all primary. Nothing in Metacritic or GameRankings. All the Gnews and general search hits I see are primary, sales sites, directory listings, and press release mirrors. Happy to look again if anyone can find something substantial from an WP:RS site. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 13:46, 30 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. At the moment there is simply no consensus to delete, but the article needs a lot of work to prevent another AfD in the future. – sgeureka t•c 08:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Love of Three Oranges (Dad's Army)[edit]

The Love of Three Oranges (Dad's Army) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - We seem to have an article on every Dad's Army episode; for the sake of continuity, I would suggest that this is kept (unless you propose we delete all of the episodes). Furthermore, Dad's Army is a very notable British TV series, so it seems an article on the episodes would be appropriate. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a perfectly good source here, for example. Warden (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article current consists mainly of plot details and consideration of a redirect to List_of_Dad's_Army_episodes#Third_Christmas_Special would be in order. Looking at this entry we have a ref to "McCann, (2001), p.247"; i.e. McCann, Graham (2001). Dad's Army: The story of a classic television show. Fourth Estate. It does appear to have had sufficient coverage to be notable. Edgepedia (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator - The existence of two potential sources does not constitute significant coverage. The notability of a subject is not determined by the existence of other similar articles. For example, some Smallville episodes are sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, but the vast majority are not. Just because some aren't sufficiently notable doesn't mean that the articles about the notable episodes should be deleted. In the case of this episode of Dad's Army, the general notability guideline is not satisfied. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To avoid confusion I've struck through this !vote, because as nominator, you've already !voted. postdlf (talk) 22:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (converse) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dad's Army is easliy one of the most popular UK sitcoms and as such has a number of books published on it. Only three days ago I picked one up with episode listings and details, unfortunately I don't have it to hand, I'll look for it tomorrow. Someoneanother 22:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Judging from the title of this news report from The Guardian, this show is notable. To quote a portion from the report: Croft's long-running partnership with Jimmy Perry spawned Dad's Army, arguably the most successful British sitcom of all time. Originally aired between 1968 and 1977, it remains one of BBC2's most popular shows even today. Pmresource (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does lack referneces, but is well written enough to possibly keep with the adition of citations, even if it must be merged into another article it should not be simply deleted.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wantage#Education. The opinion here is relatively split between merging the content and outright deletion due to lack of notability, though some do favour redirection. Common practice will generally redirect non-notable schools to a parent article, and I note that in this case Wantage#Education exists, so I'll redirect it there and anything worth merging can be done from the history, but care should be taken to not give the school undue weight in the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrew's School (Wantage)[edit]

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

Junior schools are not generally considered notable in Wikipedia and the article offers no reason to view this one as an exception. asnac (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the locality, which is what we normally do. No need for AfD to accomplish it. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging into Wantage not an option as the school doesn't exist now. asnac (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that it no longer exists is not a reason to delete, but this school served ages 3-11 and thus does not meet our presumption of notability for secondary schools. For that reason I would !vote "delete". However, the article states that school's main building enjoys listed building status, which would normally be a reason to keep. Bottom line: the lack of information at Google News and Google Books about this school or its buildings means that it should go.--MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk to me) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Defunct primary school, no significant coverage treating the subject in detail. Neutralitytalk 08:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "the lack of information at Google News and Google Books about this school or its buildings means that it should go" Egads, is Google the sum and total of all human knowledge now? But DGG's merge suggestion is reasonable due to lack of currently available sourcing.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Where would you merge this defunct school to, Milowent? I'm happy to take the key facts and put them into the relevant article if you can provide me with a link. asnac (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would create a new Education subsection in Wantage and put it there. Sorry for the lack of clarity.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping you were aware of a schools in Oxfordshire type article - I haven't been able to find one. I considered Wantage above, but if the only educational establishment listed is a defunct private school, I'm not sure that Wantage would be any better for it, and in any case I foresee other editors blanking the section as soon as it's created. asnac (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first sentence to Wantage, and perhaps a very small amount of the remainder. Most of the rest is outdated or too newsy. A nice, tight sentence or two should fit in the destination, which is a town of under 10,000, after all, and will not become too bloated as a result. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged I have now created an education subsection in Wantage in which I have included a reference to St Andrew's. asnac (talk) 17:02, 30 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. I know the AfD hasn't run a full course, but it doesn't have to - in this case, the hoaxes should be eliminated immediately. m.o.p 05:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Cruse-Cohen[edit]

Baron Cruse-Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sir David Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jean Alexandre Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These three articles are hoaxes. There are various false claims that can be checked, e.g. that Sir David was a Privy Councillor or that Jean Alexandre Cohen (in early versions of his article) was Mayor of Charlotte, NC, but the basic point is that there is no such title as "Baron Cruse-Cohen". I have checked Debrett (the only source cited) and, also thepeerage.com. This AfD is a start on clearing a tangled web of hoaxes and misinformation inserted by a group of users, mainly throwaway accounts which edit on only one day, but one longer-running account and two IPs which appear to be static and which it may be possible to block. Credit to JoannaSerah (talk) and Vivisel (talk) who flagged these and have done considerable work on checking them out. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as hoaxes,per nominator's statement that the one reference did not substantiate the claims. I found nothing about these at Google Books. Edison (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as (rather sophisticated) hoaxes. Thank you JohnCD for kicking this off. I've spent a fair amount of time combing through this stuff - it is fascinating and bizarre, but these three pages are definitely fake. For more information, please see this page, which I created to track the fakery. Vivisel (talk) 23:34, 23 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. Tone 21:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Desa.FM[edit]

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

Seems non-notable; no Google hit for any reliable, third-party source. The source cited does not even mention desa.FM. PleaseStand (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written and without many sources, this article can be deleted without any great loss. It might be possible for someone who cares to completely rewrite the article, but otherwise deletion is the best course. As a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, I see the tag for copy editing, and think that deletion is the way to go.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Malaysian Internet-only radio station. Web search hits are primary, directory links, mirror sites. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:50, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Quazilbash[edit]

Obviously I feel the article should be up. She's notable in Oregon and I feel it worthy of a wiki entry. Time since graduation from college is technically an irrelevant detail and the sources used are clear - they're from KTVZ! User:AAMKhanMD —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

A news producer for the 5pm newscast at a TV news station in Bend, Oregon. Just graduated college and has only been a producer for 21 months. Article says she is a newscaster, but unable find references to where she is or not. There are videos of news stories on Google with her name attached, but never show her. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG due to complete lack of independence in references. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems appropriate for Wikipedia, given popularity in Oregon and featured newscasts. Questions regarding "where she is or not" [sic] are precisely why a Wikipedia article helps. -Jzee789 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzee789 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (state the obvious (or not)) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, first 20 Google hits are social networking or station promotional information. —EncMstr (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: (Google search results for context)
  • It says at WP:BASIC, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article at its current state doesn't satisfy that, neither do the search results. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:31, 28 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.

Ijosé Chow[edit]

The result of this discussion was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "histhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ijosé_Chow&action=historyory" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife Acoustics[edit]

Wildlife Acoustics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:45, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had been looking over the 'bat detector' page, preparing to do some editing to include better information about some of the more state of the art "full spectrum" detectors (such as those made by Wildlife Acoustics and Pettersson Elektronik). I am a bat researcher in the U.S., and have used many of the call recording & analysis systems available. When I found that the page for Wildlife Acoustics has been proposed for deletion, as "not notable" I posted comments to apparently the wrong place (talk) so am adding them here. I believe that the Wildlife Acoustics entry is notable, has publicly verifiable information and should remain a separate entry. This company's products are in use worldwide in wildlife bio-acoustic studies and surveys. I suspect that when the bio-acoustic and bat detector Wiki entries are updated & improved, then the significance of Wildlife Acoustics's contribution to state of the art technologies for bird and bat surveys will be more apparent. I am familiar with some non-industry sources, such as bat research and professional meeting presentation that have had discussions and evaluations of the products and technologies that are being developed by this outfit, including coverage in at least 3 formal presentations at the Western Bat Working Group 2011 meetings and articles in the newsletters such as the one on page 20 of Western Canada Bat Network- Newsletter - Fall2009.Bigearedbatguy (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)— Bigearedbatguy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (gossip) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Truly, I feel most of WP:GNG is met, however I would like to see a larger description of the company themselves, enough emphasis has been put on the product, a strong introduction in my opinion helps clarify its notability. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

t*Keep here's enough to show the company notable in its special field. that's all that is necessary. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no significant coverage of Wildlife Acoustics in reliable sources. That one of the company's products was reviewed in The New York Times does not warrant an article for this company. According to WP:PRODUCT, "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result" (my emphasis). The Boston Globe article discusses two entrepreneurs, one being Ian Agranat, the founder of this company. Most of the article focuses on the product of the company rather than the company itself.
    A Google News archive search returns only trivial mentions and press releases. Goodvac (talk) 09:16, 31 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 Catholic Answers. The points raised by the keep !voters generally stated that the article had sufficient references. However, there is also a general agreement that the sources in the article were not reliable and independent. As such, the result lies with the delete or merge !voters, who generally agreed that Jimmy Akin's coverage in Google News claimed sufficient noteworthiness that could be used in the Catholic Answers article.

Anything worth merging can be done from the article's history. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 01:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Akin[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:AUTHOR. prod removed without change. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all sources trace back to him or his publishers, and simply writing for Catholic Answers isn't enough for real notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of Google News coverage. The article needs references, but in fact WP:BEFORE would have found that they do exist. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 23:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please identify any of the sources found by Google News that have coverage of Akin, rather than just quoting him? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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, Rcsprinter (constabulary) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, name 2 that are not a Blog or a CA publication.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:14, 26 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Cheng[edit]

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

Article doesn't state reason for notability, however it has been around for a long time. Is this person really notable? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clicking on the IMDb link provided, can't even find his name in the cast of the latest tv series where he's supposed to be an actor. Pmresource (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 23 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 consensus at this time seems to be to keep the article, but this does not mean it cannot be re-nominated at a future date. Those in favor of deletion note that there is no available information for a biography and those in favor of keeping say there is. The article is less than a month old. I would suggest letting it be for a couple more months to see if anyone can add any useful biographical information before renominating for deletion. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giuliano Mignini[edit]

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

WP:NOTSCANDAL This article lacks any verifiable biographical information because it is not publicly available. The page as it stands only exists to question the reputation and credibility of the individual. I would suggest the content should be split into The Monster of Florence article (which currently has nothing on him mentioned, even though it has been cited as grounds for notability) and into either Murder of Meredith Kercher (the only article to link to him) or Trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (if it continues to exist) and probably given a good review to ensure that it is not being given undue weight. Connolly15 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I often favour redirection over deletion, but there is a real question here of where exactly the redirect should point to (i.e. MoF or MoMK?) This article is basically a WP:BLP2E Could have used a better link to illustrate my argument, possibly WP:CONTENTFORK. SuperMarioMan 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) - while there is significant involvement in two high-profile court cases, practically nothing else about the subject himself is worthy of note (even his date of birth seems to be a mystery). The lower half is simply a content fork of MoMK, and the information relating to MoF could just be merged into that page. I can't help but feel that the creation of this article was poorly-timed and very much in haste. SuperMarioMan 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like you have not read your own link to WP:BLP2E which I will quote here for you: "BLP2E or Subjects notable only for two events is not a policy on Wikipedia. It is a misconception of some editors that WP:BLP1E can be extended to two (or more) events. Arguments invoking BLP2E as a reason someone is not notable are outside of policy and fallacious. It invokes induction where it doesn't apply. It is similar to saying that a hamburger stored at room temperature will never rot because if it is edible now, it is also edible a microsecond later." Dougbremner (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you did not read the banner at the top of WP:BLP2E, which states that the page reflects the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors and is not an authoritative policy or guideline. My point is that instead of offering any kind of balanced overview of the subject's life, this BLP is almost exclusively dedicated to a small handful of events with which he is connected, essentially forming a content fork of other articles (or should that be POV fork?) SuperMarioMan 15:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SMM, I think the point is that you made an argument that seemed to point to a WP policy/guideline supporting your view, when in fact it is not a WP policy/guideline and it directly opposes your point of view. I mean, go ahead and make your point, that's fine. But why make the point in a condescending and arrogant tone when it looks like your original opinion was not as accurate or clear as it could have been.LedRush (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm still trying to get my head around 'that' response. I certainly won't waste that much time in the future. It is just argumentative and banal. Dougbremner (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, the link was a poor choice, and for that I apologise. That aside, in my original comment I still went on to explain quite clearly how I believed that the article was unsatisfactory (i.e. the lack of unique, non-WP:CONTENTFORK text). SuperMarioMan 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only reason Mignini is known at all in the English-speaking world is for the Kercher case, and--relatedly--because he rubbed Doug Preston the wrong way, which led Preston to make him the villain in his 2008 MoF book, which in turn allowed Preston to give many more interviews than if he hadn't made Knox's prosecutor a central character. So Mignini really is a one-event guy, who doesn't even have his own page in Italian wikipedia, and given that he been portrayed so badly in the English speaking media I see a lot of potential for BLP abuse and not a lot of up-side. Brmull (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a lot of biographical material about him in reliable sources that hasn't been added to the article yet, and it's material that sheds light on issues in both the Kercher and Monster of Florence cases, which could only be summarized in these other articles. There are 199,000 Google hits for his name, 20 in Google Books, and several news articles or book chapters devoted almost entirely to him. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been live for almost 2 weeks and I raised this issue a few days ago. It was only after it was nominated for deletion that some biographical information was added (by you only I believe) and it seems to all be cited to one book - "A lot" of information seems to be missing if you have it in reliable sources. I have looked through a lot of the Google hits (mind you not 199,000 worth) and most are covering the same story - the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. (Connolly15 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. This is a man who has publicly accused twenty three different people of involvement in Satanic rites. If this was the 17th century, and his name was Matthew Hopkins, these people would be dead. He thoroughly deserves his own article, and each case, and accusation needs to be detailed. We need a list of the twenty people indicted over the doctor's suicide. Amandajm (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check WP:NOTSCANDAL. Although this may be true, Wikipedia is not a venue for a witch hunt and you cannot write articles about living persons which only seek to attack them. (Connolly15 (talk) 04:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A Google search between 1/1/2001 and 10/31/2007 (day before the murder) filtered as follows: "giuliano mignini" -2008 -2009 -2010 -2011 -knox -preston, gives 14 hits. The number one hit is an obscure essay Mignini wrote on Christianity and the law. This is not notable man apart from the monster he has been been portrayed to be by his two nemeses. Brmull (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing to say of worth or value about the man beyond his involvement in a few overly-sensational court cases. What will come out of a bio such as this, then, will just be a laundry list of criticisms and catcalls from his detractors, particularly from the Amanda Knox fan club. Tarc (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarc. Relevant content can be dealt with in other articles. --Errant (chat!) 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After the latest updates the article isn't anymore against WP:SCANDAL, because we now have a bio with some basic informations and balanced informations about the episodes he was involved in. Objections about WP:BLP2E aren't relevant about the deletion (as explained there). What happens on it.wikipedia (page speedy deleted years ago) isn't relevant here 'cause they have different criteria about notability. --Juanm (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a ton of biographical information about him that is not yet in the article, and the person is incredibly notable as having been a prominent part of two incredibly high profile court cases. It isshocking to me that this is even up for discussion. The notability guidelines are met easily. Those editors here who argue that the information should be in MoMK or the Trials article (which should be one article) are the some of the same who argued that Knox's info should also be those articles, but then object to the inclusion as off-topic or non-notable. This would seem to be the case here as well (much of Mignini's info simply doesn't belong in the other articles) The one issue that should be addressed is with regards to BLP concerns. Of course, that is a reason to be vigilant regarding the content of the article, not to delete it.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. I wasn't questioning notability. I raised BLP concerns, which were not addressed by the editors of the article (and I tried to find the information myself without success). Some progress has been made to address the distinct lack of biographical information but only after this deletion request was made. Unfortunately, the "ton of biographical information" was excluded from the article originally, which seems to suggest it was not created with the intention of being a biography at all. I'm happy to see a couple of authors are now making efforts to address the BLP concerns, though the ton of biographical information, in my opinion, is still not there - and what has been added all comes from one source, which seems to suggest the information is actually not that prevalent. (Connolly15 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Actually, a quick look at the references suggest that the biographical information comes from about 3 pages of one book. Quite a bit of basic information about him, in my opinion, is still missing. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I agree that the legitimate BLP concerns must be addressed.LedRush (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, happy days, we are now citing stories from The Sun about him without even mentioning that our source is a tabloid! Definitely presenting a legitimate neutral point of view... (Connolly15 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per SlimVirgin and LedRush's persuasive arguments concerning this notable individual who has been discussed in reliable soruces. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On the basis that he had a fairly significant role in a couple notable events. There is certainly more than routine coverage here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fundamentally disagree with the approach that this Wiki article is taking (especially now) - I can guarantee that anyone in the future who is found not guilty where Mignini is the prosecutor will feel sympathy for Amanda Knox and express it, try to write a book and try to sue for damages - and the tabloids will pick it up. Are we going to include everyone? What about all the successful convictions he's brought since 1979? Oh wait, we can't include those, because funny enough the media doesn't report them... most definitely not presenting a neutral case. (Connolly15 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
That view doesn't make any sense. Mignini isn't notable because he sometimes unsuccessfully prosecutes defendants. He has played an important role in two of the biggest murder cases in the last 100 years in Italy. That's what makes him notable. And the media was reporting on Mignini far before Knox and Sollecito were found innocent on appeal. Like when they were found guilty at the lower level. He had just as much media attention then. Let's not make this into something it isn't.LedRush (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So, why are we including content about the unrelated prosecution of Bulgari? (Connolly15 (talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
If it's picked up by reliable sources, it may be included, but we'd have to be careful of putting undue weight on not-very notable subjects. I took your comment above as an argument against an article and responded to it as such. If that is not your view, and you are merely discussig the inclusion of Bulgari, wouldn't the article space be better for this?LedRush (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just went to the page. It seems that Bulgari is notable enough to have her own WP article, and that reliable sources covered this case (like CBS news). Seems fine for inclusion to me. And, of course, it strengthens the case for this article to survive deletion. Still, the best place for the argument seems to be the article's talk page.LedRush (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the CBS News source all it does is cite a British tabloid (The Sun). (Connolly15 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep: The obvious notability of this chap as established by English-language sources alone is indisputable. Nevard (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now has the appropriate amount of biographical information for a subject such as this and a long list of WP:RS. It also meets the WP:BLP criteria for notability, which is the only thing that should be the topic of discussion here. Disclosure: I am the article's creator. Dougbremner (talk) 13:52, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An "appropriate amount of biographical information" that seems to be limited to the first two lines of the introduction and the one-and-a-half-line paragraph that makes up the section ambitiously titled "Education and career". The rest is pretty much just a rehash of sections of Monster of Florence, Murder of Meredith Kercher and Brigitta Bulgari. Fifteen out of the 27 "RSs" (apparently, something that was originally reported in The Sun now passes the test for reliability) include the name "Knox" in the title, which is rather suggestive (at least to me) of what this "BLP" is really about. SuperMarioMan 15:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mignini has made desperate efforts to silence all opponents and critics through legal channels. He even succeeded in having Google close down Frank Sfarzo's excellent blog, for a short time. Wikipedia is a grass-roots organisation and should not fall victim to such bullying tactics by Mignini and his supporters. If the information is factually accurate, then this page should be allowed to stay Susandeoliveira (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets the WP:BLP criteria for notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think she ment this one - WP:Notability_(people) Dougbremner (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever was meant, it was just was WP:VAGUEWAVE "vote" to be dismissed. Nothing at all of substance. Tarc (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 major events, both very widely reported and of national or international importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "2 major events" are actually related: There was almost zero media coverage of Mignini's involvement in the MOF case until the Kercher case came along and some people sought to draw a parallel. I checked the article again today and it looks like a stub that has been drawn out by repeating similar information in different ways. Despite the encyclopedic tone, there is an unmistakeable sense that the page is devoted to airing Mignini's dirty laundry. Brmull (talk) 07:39, 31 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 sources added after the relisting were clearly convincing, for almost all the subsequent comments after they were added were keep. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network[edit]

International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP in that there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. —Biosketch (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( Please note immediately-following reply was added per wp:indent after most or all of the comments from other !voters shown below had already been posted. )
@Biosketch: The WP:NONPROFIT subsection of WP:CORP is the applicable governing policy in this AfD; just mentioning WP:CORP in its entirety is too broad. Saying the same thing another way, WP:CORP comprises Alternate Criteria for Specific Types of Organizations which itself comprises WP:NONPROFIT, which states:
( non-commercial ) Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
(1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
(2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple third-party, independent, reliable sources.
Non-commercial orgainizations have a much lower bar to clear to establish notability than wp:corporations do, in other words.  – OhioStandard (talk)
  • Keep I found a number of news references and at least one article here written specifically about the organization. Mangoe (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. While appearing in a generally reliable source, The Register-Guard, this editorial is not independent of the subject, as the author is affiliated with IJAN.  --Lambiam 14:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A misinterpretation, Lambian? It's a subtle distinction, but if it's notability of the orgaization we're considering, not the reliability of any assertions made by the guest writer, then it seems to me that it's the independence of the publisher that's most relevant. Here we have an independent print newspaper with a circulation of 75,000, The Register-Guard, that has judged this organization and its message as being significant, timely, and relevant enough to merit the attention of its readership, and on the prime real-estate of its A7 editorial page, too. Of course, if the text had been self-published (e.g. if it only appeared in the newspaper only via a paid advert) then that would be a different matter; that wouldn't say anything at all the notability of the org. But as I see it, a guest editorial does.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
( note timestamp ) Similarly, I just found a ten-minute video interview/debate with IJAN spokesperson/co-founder Mich Levy, published under the title | Not all Jews support the Israeli government by RT News. I include it here just to keep like with like: The RT interview is pretty general I/P slugfest stuff, but a similar argument applies as with the guest editorial, as I see it. RT News considers IJAN important enough ( or however you want to say that ) to use their representative as a principal in a debate/interview.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Off-hand mentions in newspaper articles and opinion columns don't make an organization notable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Much improved article, with quality sources. Plus sources have been identified on this page that aren't in the article yet. Still, it's troubling when a source describes the article's subject as a "small radical fringe group". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A small radical group can still be notable. That's not the problem. The problem is that the sources that establish this organization's notability aren't independent third-party reliable sources – and the independent third-party reliable sources that do mention the organization don't establish its notability. What I find most perplexing, though, is that you've not seen fit to make any comment in relation to FrontPage Magazine, which currently seems to be the number-one source being invoked for arguing that IJAN meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. After all the energy you invested in this dicussion, one would think you'd at least have something nasty to say about them in this context. Not to mention that you were personally brought here by an editor yesterday to reconsider your vote.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, Biosketch, you're making this terribly personal. There was nothing even remotely improper in this notification. I bet many more of the early "delete" !votes here would also change if the editors who registered them revisited this re the sources that have now been added. Don't you want !voters to give their best judgments based on the fullest and most current information available?
And no, I wasn't aware that FrontPage Magazine had previously been disqualified at RSN. But so what? We still have 15 or 20 other WP:RS articles that establish notability just fine, thank you.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep WP:I don't like it (because I would rather not see a nuclear war killing millions of people which is what will probably happen if Arabs do not learn to live with [the imperfect as well] Israel) but a Google search of recent news gave 10 stories about its recent activities. Clearly considered an important group, even if there is not an in-depth article online. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I.E. news coverage shows the group's importance and the article written by a member and possibly its own site gives details. This is what is normal for most political activist groups here. No reason to treat this one differently. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since noteworthy and update including newer news articles. CarolMooreDC 11:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE I am an inclusionist on many things, but this is anti-semetic, should not be kept. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I appologize, I prejudged the name of the article without analyzing at its content, This article has proper citations, and gives a short but detailed description of the movment, just because I dont like it doesnt mean it should be censored, so keep. If anyone would like to tag this for rescue, place this template {{rescue}} on the article itself. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is "antisemitic"? If you think the article is antisemitic, then change it. But if you think the group is itself antisemitic, then that is certainly not a valid reason for deletion. RolandR (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Right now I'm seeing [26] as the only source mentioned here that from an independent third party source (there are some sources behind paywalls I can't get to). I agree that the issues being promoted by the group are notable (and covered in Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism). I'm not seeing the group as notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relister's comment: I have undone an inappropriate non-admin closure of this discussion, following a request on my talk page to review the closure, and after considering a related ANI discussion. I am relisting this discussion for further consideration.  Sandstein  19:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only causal mentions in newspaper articles and opinion columns don't make a notable organization. --Cox wasan (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The mentions do seem trivial, but ther also appear to be a lot of them Also there are these Sources that we can discus. [27][28] There is also this [29], but I can't read German. We also have this [30] "specially with the “International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network” a highly visible co-sponsor". This is all very borderline.Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a service to people who do not read German, on the page of the German-language source that is accessible via Google, the organization is the subject of the two sentences at the top of the page, apparently in the context of a general discussion of the concepts of antizionism and antisemitism. The two sentences, of which the first is incomplete, translate as: "... 2008 the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network [was] founded. It was initiated by a Jew living in Canada."  Sandstein  19:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only a single source in the article (or presented in this discussion) is both more than a passing mention and is independent of its subject is the link which Stuart Yeates brought up--and its notability is somewhat questionable, as it is simply a declaration of support for the group from a group of British MPs which was included in a list of possible debate topics. It was never discussed, and it's not unlike a late-night speech in an empty House of Representatives (for benefit of the C-SPAN cameras) or adding something into the Congressional Record (which is not an indicator of reliability or notability). The others are passing mentions, except for the mini-article about the six arrested activists in the Jewish Journal, or links to not-independent sources, such as their own website. as a side note to Slatersteven, lots of trivial mentions don't add up to notability. Horologium (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you note I haved not voted.Slatersteven (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I broke it out as a side note. Horologium (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it interesting that many of the mentions revolve around Dr Meyer. [31] seesm to regard them as rahter more then a trivial organisation.Slatersteven (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all this discussion it is becoming clear that this organization did not receive substantial coverage in independent secondary sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a bit more then just a trivial mention, but still not a lot [32] This also seesm to be non-tivial coverage [33] and this [34], refering to this [35].Slatersteven (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have found a few articles that seem to indicate the group, whilst small, is receiving attention. That along with the acceptance (even by the deletists) that there are a couple of good sources is moving me in the direction of keep, but its still a moderately weak case. This [36] has a couple of paragraphs about them. Also more then just a trivial mention [37]Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you look into this group, there is really nothing encyclopedic about them. --Need to reconfirm me (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Need to reconfirm me (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So instead of deleting it, you'll replace the article with a redirect? Virtually the same thing. Is there more than a sentence or two at most that would actually be "merged"? Dream Focus 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. Ample places cover them. [38] talks about a meeting they had. Their protests get coverage as well. [39] 79 results to go through, but those two I believe are enough. Its a real thing, and it gets coverage. Dream Focus 21:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article doesn't make any real claim of notability. Mentioned is not the same thing as notable. --Kylfingers (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An artciel does not have to claim notability, we just need soourcs that discuse them in a couple of paragraphs. We have sources that do this.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what doesn't qualify as significant coverage: " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."—Biosketch (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does, the full sentance says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is excatly what has been done. This clearly meets the notabilty criteria, but thank you for drawing my attention to the fact. Two paragraphs discussing the organisations activities [40] . This [41] says “International Jewish Anti-Zionist … have important roles in creating policy and setting anti-Israel agendas but do not organize a significant number of events.” So the ADL think they are important, this also from the ADL [42].Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment at the Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies). There's a problem, in my opinion, with the way WP:CORPDEPTH is formulated. It starts out saying that depth of coverage is the crucial consideration, only to undermine its own claim by next saying that unsubstantial coverage is fine as long as it spans multiple sources. It then concludes by reinforcing its first claim and contradicting the second one.—Biosketch (talk) 13:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered", not that it is crucial. Indeed I see no contradiction, it says that either one very in-depth source or multiple non-in-depth sources are needed to establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The modal must communicates obligation, i.e. we're obligated to consider depth of coverage, which is also the spirit that issues from "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient."—Biosketch (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What defines Trivial or incidental coverage"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Stuartyeates. While there is some coverage in reliable sources it does not appear to be "significant coverage" in my opinion. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kylfingers. Broccolo (talk) 19:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any independent sources which discuss the organization's aims or goals? It's rather obvious that the only sources in the article (or which have been referenced in this discussion) that cite the goals of the group (beyond mentioning that they organized a specific seminar or were amongst a score of groups invited to speak at a handful of symposia) are sources from the group's own website. Even the sources which are critical (from the ADL) don't mention the group, only specific incidents without any context at all. If the group is notable, then somebody must have discussed them in a depth greater than what is presented here. I don't see that for this group. Horologium (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have already cited in the article the book by Irish academic David Landy, Jewish Identity and Palestimnian Rights: Disapora Jewish Opposition to Israel, which refers several times to IJAN. This is clearly an independent and reliable source. RolandR (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please quote the three relevant pages of the book (pg 118 and pp 213-214) to demonstrate that they are more than a cursory discussion of the book? Again, I am not contesting the reliability of the sources; I am stating that they are not the substantial independent coverage. But now that you've brought it up, a publication from the former chair of the "Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign" might have some issues with weight and balance. Horologium (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most substantial reference is on page 118: "This is far from the case and it may well be that Americans are more aware of this problem; it is suggestive that the transnational organisation IJAN is by origin a US enterprise. While still a very small network, IJAN, established in 2007, has attracted considerable interest due to its uncompromisingly anti-Zionist pole of Jewish resistance to Israel. In terms of activism, IJAN is primarily involved in the boycott campaign, but has ambitions to set itself up as a transnational anti-Zionist pole of Jewish resistance to Israel. While it has small groups in Canada, India, Argentina and several European countries, its main organisational base is in the USA. Nevertheless it can legitimately be called a transnational network since it consciously tries to coordinate activities across continents --- one example of this is its campaign against the Jewish National Fund (JNF) for its involvement in ethnic cleansing in Israel/Palestine, and more broadly for its rôle in furthering what is seen as a racist vision of an ethnically pure Israeli state." There are also less substantial references to IJAN on pages 92, 100, 108, 152, 164, 195, 213 and 215. Please note that Landy, who discusses in the introduction to the book his possible conflict of interest as a Jew and a former chair of Irish PSC, is a lecturer on race, ethnicity and conflict in the department of sociology at Trinity College Dublin, and thus an acknowledged expert on the subject. RolandR (talk) 10:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that David Landy's name appears at this IJAN petition (number 243 on the list). He openly endorses the group and therefore might not qualify as an independent source.—Biosketch (talk) 12:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signing a petition hosted on the IJAN website is not the same as "openly endorsing" the group, which Landy has not done. IJAN is merely one of the 30 groups and individuals sponsoring the petition. Landy's book, based on his PhD dissertation, is a peer-reviewed academic study of the subject; and one of the first to study this issue. As I note above, in the introduction Landy explicitly addresses the implications of his own activism. The section is too long to copy, but I recommend reading what he has to say in this before dismissing the book as necessarily biased. RolandR (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Multiple additional sources found
This organization's Never Again for Anyone on-campus event at Douglass College of Rutgers University on 29 January 2011 gained considerable coverage. It was met with very emphatic and well-organized opposition from Zionist groups. There were accusations and counter-accusations between opposing groups and this organization that generated significant coverage from multiple media sources:
  • The Jewish Week published a guest editorial about the organization, the Never Again for Anyone tour, and the controversy at Rutgers. It should be noted that this opinion piece was written by one a young man affiliated with the group that was most prominent in organizing opposition to the Rutgers event, a young man named Sam Weiner, "a junior at Rutgers studying Jewish Studies and Political Science. He is a member of Rutgers Hillel and is a member of the board of directors of Hillel International" according to his byline. See here re the Hillel group's involvement.
I haven't checked other locations where the Never Again for Anyone events were also held. But it'd probably be worth looking into that more closely... Oh, wait; there was evidently also some controversy around the tour's event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee:
I also saw some criticism of the Never Again for Anyone events held in Canada and California, but only in obscure, possibly non-RS sources. Also, the org's own description of the Rutger's controversy can currently be found on the its subsidiary website, NeveragainForAnyone.com, while Rutger's official statement about the controbversy may also be of interest.
Please note that I haven't added any of the above to the article myself. I'm not spending as much time here as I have in the past, and find that I'm enjoying research more than composition lately, anyway. I hope other editors will feel free to use the sources I've documented here to contribute content to the article itself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are excellent sources for Anti-Zionism#Jewish_anti-Zionism but don't actually discuss the organisation in a great deal of detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Policy does not require indepth coverage, just non trivial coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given that I never actually voted, I'm formally logging my vote as a strong delete. Per User:Ohiostandard's latest additions at the top of the page:
Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
  1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
  2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,<ref name=Multiple /> third-party, independent, reliable sources.
Note that it is necessary for the organization to meet both criteria. Is the scope of IJAN's activities national or international? It hasn't been established that IJAN's activities are either national or international in scale. Can information about the organization and its activities be verified by independent reliable third-party sources? Presumably "information" in this context means, Who founded the organization?; When was it founded?; Where are its offices located?; How many members does it have?; Who currently leads the organization? etc. Outside of the organization's own publications and the writings of individuals variously affiliated with it, there's little or no information about the organization and its activities in reliable sources.—Biosketch (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Edited per request.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC) Debolded per request.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well apart from organsing speaking tours and demos in the USA, attending gatherings in Ireland, and suppriting tours in Scotland no. An organisation is RS for information about itself.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an independent RS as required, though.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RS do not have to be independant, as long as the information is not unduly self serving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IRS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. So for information like who set them up or When it ws founded they would be RS for.Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just so, Slatersteven: policy says self-published sources are fine in this case for basic, non-controversial organizational information. And anyway, half the questions Biosketch says can't be answered from independent sources are actually independently documented in the very first source I listed : "The IJAZN (sic) was created in 2008 when Professor Moshe Machover and Selma James announced the adoption of the organization’s charter at a press conference in London." Different sources also verify this, along with related organizational information.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re national/international objection Biosketch raised, perhaps I gave him the wrong impression in a comment I made above about the organization's recent Never Again for Anyone tour. It didn't just take place at Rutgers; those tour/events were all across the U.S., in 15 major cites, and also included Toronto, Canada, as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only in the US and Canada. In 2010, the tour visited Paris, Lyon, Strasbourg, Vienna, Geneva, Berlin, Glasgow, Dundee, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester, London, Belfast and Dublin.[43] RolandR (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still, as User:Nableezy was honest enough to point out, FrontPage Magazine isn't considered a WP:RS as far as Wikipedia goes. The Admin considering this AfD needs to note carefully that per WP:NONPROFIT two criteria need to be met. Assuming good faith vis-a-vis User:RolandR's argument for international scope (I don't know where the sources are for all those cities, but supposing there are sources), we're still left without independent third-party reliable sources that give details about the organization and its activities.—Biosketch (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re WP:NONPROFIT criterion one: No one here, including Biosketch, genuinely disputes that "the scope of their activities is national or international in scale". If he doesn't like their web site claims, or the press clippings there, well, we've already cited five separate WP:RS articles documenting one of its recent tour events in New Jersey, one WP:RS article for its event in Wisconson, and here's an as-yet-unmentioned source documenting the Toronto events and the ensuing controversy there. The org's recent U.K. events were also documented in WP:RS articles, e.g. this London RS article does so. Even tha Anti-Defamation League's own press-releases mention, in the past tense, about all the different places around the world this org has made these presentations.
Re WP:NONPROFIT criterion two: Can "information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources"? Information about its activities sure can, easily: We have an abundance of reliable source articles about its activities. I'd also like to see e.g. a "history of" article about the org that user Biosketch keeps insisting is necessary to meet this part of the standard, of course, but I'm not willing to say it isn't notable because we haven't found one. That just seems pretty far fetched when its activities get so much coverage and generate so much controversy. Organizations always get much more coverage for what they do than what they are, anyway; than for their structure & history. Besides, it would seem absurd to admit, as we can't avoid doing based on the press coverage, that their international presentations comparing the Holocaust with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians are notable, but the organization making them isn't.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—Biosketch (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not done. Your "done" edit still says "I'm formally logging my vote as a strong delete" with "strong delete" in boldface, no less. Thanks for your response, but you missed the point: As nominator, you have no separate vote; it's implicit in your nomination.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OhioStandard and RolandR. The sources brought by OhioStandard are sufficient to establish notability for a nonprofit organization (though not the first one listed). nableezy - 12:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough coverage in reliable sourceshas been presented for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Keep it is very notable with a thorough coverage in | Google News Archive. One may politically have sympathy for them or not, but WP cannot censor their existence which is well reported by numerous third-party sources GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lay of the personal comments people.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:NONPROFIT states ( non-commercial ) "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:
(1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
(2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple 3rd-party, independent, RS."
This org clearly meets criterion (1), and re criterion number (2), it gets so much press ( 15+ articles ) for its activities that I don't much care that no WP:RS journalist appears to have done a "history" article on the organization yet. Further, I don't think this really needs the nudge, but I'll also go ahead and mention that a bit lower in the text for WP:NONPROFIT, the policy suggests that "Factors that have attracted widespread attention" ( which would appear to include generating emphatic controversy documented in national and international media ) are also relevant to notability.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My opinion of this organization is irrelevant to whether the article should be kept. For me, the references are sufficient, with much of the detail coming from opponents of this organization. Controversial organizations should be covered by Wikipedia. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:34, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bambu Cocoa[edit]

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

The article reads like an advertisement, contains no references except an external link to the company that produces the product and makes various claims that go beyond what is claimed on the one external link. Autarch (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Forgot to mention - no indication of notability.Autarch (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of clear notability. This could easily change if proper sources were found, but I've had no luck in doing so. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N spectacularly. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:48, 31 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. Tone 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Paragliding Association[edit]

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

Created by Joe Faust about own organization, this article does not meet our general notability requirements, not does it meet WP:GROUP. In particular, a Google News, Scholar and Book search for "World Paragliding Organization" yield zero hits, while a Google web search reveals no coverage by independent reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I started the article. I am a regular contributor to WP. I will step aside of this discussion while staying an observers, except when asked direct specific questions. There are RS in Popular Science, the 60-70s book of associations, Ground Skimmer, and the publications mentioned. Paper copies of Low & Slow went to 23 nations and are in some libraries today. Hang Gliding Museum has a full set of Hang Glider Weekly, Low & Slow, Hang Glider Magazine (218 editons together). USHPA publishes as said in the article. Joefaust (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - google identifies less than a dozen links to the website.GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The World Paragliding Association by definition should be a world-wide association. Of whom, I ask? This "association" is the creation of Mr Faust to promote his minority POV and nothing more. If you wish to see how true paragliding associations organise themselves and operate, check out the FAI, the USHPA, the BHPA or the PMA (and that's just 4 English language sites off the top of my head). WPA. Laughable. And then some. 88xxxx (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam article by the founder. JMcC (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a bit of self promotion with no real sign of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 10:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam article. In addition, dishonest. Mentions FAI to give credibility but I believe is not formally recognised by same, refers to itself as the successor to USHGA but this body still exists having merely changed its name to USHPA. Jontyla (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this really matters, but while trying to understand his topic ban, JoeFaust mentioned that the article isn't dishonest; speaking as Joe Faust (the actual human being who registered the organization), apparently the history is a bit more complicated than that (and has to do with name changes on several sides). I'm not going to go into the details because it doesn't really have any bearing on the deletion discussion (because the exact ownership/recognition doesn't specifically say anything about notability) but we should be careful when we use words like "dishonest"; it's much better just to state that something is incorrect (with reasons). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I withdraw 'dishonest' and put 'misleading' in it's place. Sorry Joe. Jontyla (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad to see this. Whatever problems Mr. Faust may be having with complying with our guidelines, he's remained polite and respectful in the face of some pretty heated pushback, and we should acknowledge that, I think. Google reveals that he has played his own role in the history of hang gliding and we need to appreciate that; even if he may be having trouble complying with our editing policies, there's a real world person out there. So kudos for retraction and apology. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 27 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 C data types. This is a close one, but the "Keep" votes are not very convincing - and one of them waffles into merge/redirect. Also, I'd like to adddress something: the OP's statement that it was just redirected to - the same as deleting it but without a afd. Specifically, that this is untrue. Redirecting has the page history present for accessibiity for merging or reverting; deleting makes content go bye-bye. The Bushranger One ping only 00:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Limits.h[edit]

Limits.h (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • keep: I think the page does not violate WP:NOTMANUAL and another user think it does and keeps making it a redirect. He do not want to AFD it, but here it goes. The article was marked with merge, but was not merged, it was just redirected to - the same as deleting it but without a afd. Christian75 (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. The article has been merged to C data types by rewriting the material. Also, the current consensus (see Talk:C standard library#Pages for each function and WP:NOTMANUAL is to remove such pages, since it either fails WP:GNG and/or WP:NOTMANUAL. 1exec1 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Please take a look at google books - I think its quite obiously that its doesnt fails GNG? The article isnt in the best shape, but how does it fails WP:NOTMANUAL? Its a description of an header file with no examples at all. Christian75 (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show specific examples. As far as I can see, most of these books are programming manuals/teaching books which fail significant coverage criteria of WP:GNG, because if we remove the how-to part of the content, only very limited mention of limits.h is left. That notable material is already at C data types, no need for a separate page. 1exec1 (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this material in C data types. I see brief mention of some of the data types and one single mention of limits.h, but zero details. The coverage of this material simply does not fit into what WP:NOTMANUAL covers. This material does not explain "how to" do something. This material gives an overview and is precisely the type of thing our readers come to Wikipedia to get a brief overview of. Our notability guidelines also state: "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content [...]" so the idea of "That notable material is already at C data types, no need for a separate page." has no place at all in this discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show what specific material is not included and I'll show where to read at C data types. 1exec1 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't want to AFD it. The place for discussions like this is in the talk page, not here, since replacing the content with a redirect doesn't need attention of an administrator. 1exec1 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, bringing this to AfD was indeed the correct thing to do in this case, for the very reasons Christian75 brought it to AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, deletion of many other similar C programming-related articles (including among others, inttypes.h [44] and tgmath.h [45]) by way of redirection is highly inappropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to C data types. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a programming language reference. Those belong on Wikibooks. —Ruud 23:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already in Wikibooks at b:C Programming/C Reference/limits.h. 1exec1 (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this allows us to do is to add {{Wikibooks|C Programming/C Reference/limits.h}} to the external links. Any material which explains in detail how to apply limits.h to a software program can be included on Wikibooks (such material is not present in this article). --Tothwolf (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe this passes WP:GNG for the reasons you mentioned, I also believe this fits the exact and intended purpose of WP:NOTMANUAL. I.e it belongs on Wikibooks (b:C Programming/C Reference/limits.h) instead of Wikipedia. Could you argue why you think this does not fit WP:NOTMANUAL instead of merely asserting it? —Ruud 09:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone has transwikied material which they believe fits in well with other material on another wiki does not mean it should exist in only one location. Could you argue why you think this fits WP:NOTMANUAL instead of merely asserting it? I've already stated my reasons, but the main argument that it is an "instruction manual" does not make sense as this material is an overview and does not explain "how to" actually do something. It also isn't a "travel guide", a "video game guide", an "internet guide", a "FAQ", a "textbook", a "scientific journal" or "research paper", "academic language" (it uses common usage), or "case study". I've begun to witness people again and again attempt to misapply WP:NOTMANUAL to more and more encyclopedic material seemingly for the purposes of creating "busy work" so that they can look active and this is not a good trend. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the specific phrases "how-to" and "owner's manual" don't adequately describe Limits.h, it belongs in a reference manual, not in an encyclopedia. I think #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL is the one which is relevant. As I read more carefully, I see that #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY also applies: "Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Emphasis mine of course: knowledge includes facts but it's not just a list of all available facts. #3 in WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Wikipedia articles should not be excessive listings of statistics." While it's written to discourage, say, publishing a list of the median income of every U.S. census-tract, its intent is relevant here. --Pnm (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There exist many different kinds of reference works. There exist reference works listing the names and parameters of all functions of the standard libraries of hundreds of different programming languages (often called "language references", "programmer's guides" or simply "manuals", although these differ from the kind of "manual" that describe how to operate your microwave). An encyclopedia does not happen to be such a kind of reference work. An encyclopedia will give you summary of what the C standard library is, historical and other background information. A language reference gives you an in-depth description of each functions that makes up the C standard library. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikibooks hosts other kinds of reference works such as language references. —Ruud 23:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NOTMANUAL per #1 in WP:NOTMANUAL, #8 in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and the spirit of #3 in WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Added summary of my response above) The specialty encyclopedic content is easily handled in C data types, and the rest belongs in Wikibooks. If there were secondary sources which addressed this topic more broadly than how-to I could see keeping it, but that's not the case. --Pnm (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the closing administrator decides to make it a redirect (but the I would prefer a merge), he should consider the article to inttypes.h. Christian75 (talk)
The article is already merged to C data types, that is, the content is rewritten so that it fits into the layout of the target article. Please specify what exactly is in limits.h but not C data types and does not fail WP:NOTMANUAL. 1exec1 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite those arguments, the material has not been "merged to C data types" and it absolutely does not "fail WP:NOTMANUAL". --Tothwolf (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to elaborate sentence by sentence which material has been included? Or will you read and compare the articles again more carefully? Please show specific material that has not been merged before asserting that. 1exec1 (talk) 19:55, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpiderBabe[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No reliable links come up on a Google search. Cleanliness (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to pass WP:MOVIE with reviews and criticism such as [46][47][48] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Film Threat does not review hardcore porn, their review of the softcore parody is quite decent for commentary outside the hardcore genre. And to the nominator, and as these and other suitable coverage DID come up with a search,[49] Film Threat, and Cincinnati Enquirer, and a whole slew of books,[50] ARE suitable for sourcing the article. And Digitally Obsessed (time for a new article) has editorial oversite and offers independent reviews used to source many articles within the project.[51] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:59, 24 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Bulldog III[edit]

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

I know due to the date of the training (1955) the number of hits on internet is not very reliable, but 192 hits is seriously low. No books mentioned and a tag that casts doubts about neutrality and notability (due to COI):This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - While the article's tone is rather unencyclopedic, the article itself seems to cover a reasonably notable event, that is obscure on the Internet but for which offline sources undoubtably exist. As for the tone and the {{essay}} tag, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - article may benefit from more sources, but is a valid article. Someone needs to talk to the Canadian Rangers HQ, which would have pamphlets / books / whatever that cover their history and could be added as sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a notable event. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:48, 30 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 Wellow, Hampshire. Black Kite (t) 14:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wellow School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. First reference is just a link to the school itself. Second doesn't really discuss the school, only the head teacher. Third reference does discuss school, but one reference in a local paper is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I prodded, but it was removed soon after; note that simply existing is not sufficient to have a WP article--the school must meet our notability rules (see WP:GNG). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a source

I added a source to identify the school, it is just as noteworthy as any other primary school in the UK. I can edit it so it meets Wikipedia's notability rules WP:GNG), and therefore it should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrAmberGold (talk • contribs) 16:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets all the qualifications for a stub article as I can see. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wellow, Hampshire. Fails to satisfy WP:ORG. Elementary schools , per common outcomes of AFD, get merged to their community's or school district's or sponsoring organization's article. Directory listings or run of the mill coverage in local papers do not satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wellow, Hampshire. Unfortunately, the argument "it is just as noteworthy as any other primary school" doesn't matter because the established practice is that primary schools are not normally notable unless there is a good reason to be an exception. It shouldn't be too hard to put all the encyclopaedic information into the Wellow article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify that merging/redirecting is the appropriate result per standard AfD outcomes. I just knew that this would have to go through AfD (i.e., that if I simply redirected myself it would have been reverted), so the discussion to verify non-notability was necessary. Also, Chris Neville-Smith's point is very important: most primary schools are not notable, and any articles on other primary schools without independent notability should receive the same treatment. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "it is just as noteworthy as any other primary school in the UK". Quite, and articles on primary schools are almost invariably deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stats may show that primary school articles are in fact almost invariably redirected. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessarily so, since the chances of anyone searching for them are pretty low! -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it should now be more notewothy as an extra reference has been added, to identify the school a bit more SuperRepublic (talk)SuperRepublicSuperRepublic (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but what makes it more notable than other primary schools? Nothing, as far as I can see. It's just a bog standard village school like any other. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why should other bog standard village schools be included on Wikipedia and not this one, it's an information site after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperRepublic (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to get the community to change their opinion on primary schools then. Currently, the consensus is that, just like any other organization except for high schools and universities, must meet our notability requirements. Also, please note that SuperRepublic is almost certainly the same editor as User:MrAmberGold; an SPI is being opened right now. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify, the added source is still a primary source, so it still doesn't establish notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, they are not. Primary schools do not generally have articles. Where have you seen articles on village primary schools on Wikipedia? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the sock (MrAmberGold blocked indef, SuperRepublic blocked a week) has a good point. Take a look at Category:Primary schools in Hampshire. For that matter, take a look at Category:Primary schools in England. OMG. Some of them are single line stubs; I've so far found only 1 with a reference. I'm going to start looking at these over the next few days. I'll probably just redirect every one that doesn't have good references, then XfD each one that gets undone. I guess I know what I'll be doing with my WP cleanup time for the next few days/weeks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Either these articles should be deleted or they are exceptions for specific reasons of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have cleaned it up and added some sources; and there is more that can be added to meet WP:GNG. Most primary schools are nn but there are exceptions and I see no reason why this should not be one; it is a historic school with the Florence Nightingale connection and I think that the Project is better off with this article than without it. TerriersFan (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be an exception if those sources established notability, but they do not. [www.thisishampshire.net/news/8736400.Schools_march_up_the_league_tables/ This is Hampshire article] only lists the school in a list of 5 other schools, with no specific information about Wellow. The Romsey Advertiser article only mentions that the school is getting a new name on the library. The Diocese of Winchester article doesn't even mention the school by name, and all it says is that they have a plaque given by the Nightingale family. None of these sources actually talk about the school. In other words, the first source just mentions it as one of a number of schools with no special notability, and the latter two don't talk about it so much as a school as they do a place that happens to have some historical artifacts/connection to a historical subject (and, of course, notability is not inherited). Trivial mentions in a variety of local papers are not sufficient to meet GNG or any other test of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at least merge and redirect to the locality. I agree with TerriersFan, but notability is not inherited. Nevertheless, the important backlink to Nightingale provides historical significance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Wellow, Hampshire as above. I fail to see any proof that this does or can satisfy WP:ORG. The fact that Florence Nightingale's family donated the original school building does not automatically grant notability. Trusilver 00:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have now added a book about the school. Not a big book; in fact a very little book but, nonetheless, a book that addresses the school directly and in detail. TerriersFan (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, I just happened to accidently click on this site and In my opinion I think it should be kept because it looks like it has some historical significance, being that it was founded by Florence nightingale and also there are other Primary schools on Wikipedia that have less significance than this, some are even just stubs being described by 1 simple sentence like this one [52] and the next one only includes 2 paragraphs of information with little significance [53]. I think it now meets WP:ORG as it it clearly states that if it's noteworthy and has references that are fully verifiable then it should be on Wikipedia (like it says on the policy), It is noteworthy and it has been cleaned up by TerriersFan. Supersilver10 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Supersiver34Supersilver10 (talk) 11:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC) Obvious sock is obvious (look at user's contribution history, including blanking of the talk pages of the previous socks. SPI already opened. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:23, 28 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Korean players' victories on LPGA Tour[edit]

Korean players' victories on LPGA Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is WP:OVERCAT. It is not realistic to have a list for every country that has had winners on the LPGA and a list of each winner, tournament and date of win. There is no reason to do this for Korea and not for USA, England, Sweden, etc. Instead I propose that a new article be created: Winners of LPGA Tour Event by Nation. This would include a list of countries that have had winners on the LPGA, the number of winners, and the winning year span. --Crunch (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per my nom. Example of WP:OVERCAT. --Crunch (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The success of Korean woman golfers is certainly notable, and probably deserves an article. (Is there one on African-American sports success?) However this list is really just raw data. It belongs on the sports page, not an encyclopedia. BigJim707 (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OVERCAT is for categories only, it doesn't qualify for lists, but this is a perfect example of WP:NOT#STATS Secret account 19:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 23 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. Tone 21:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Distillers of alcohol in India[edit]

Distillers of alcohol in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A personal essay full of original research and lacking any sources so unverifiable. Appears to be a copy of a previously deleted article under this or another name - note the tag dates which predate the creation of this article. Prod was removed by the author without explanation. Sparthorse (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On top of the faults listed above the writing is so bad I really cannot make out what the point is. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 01:09, 26 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. Tone 21:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DataTune[edit]

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

Unremarkable computer program. Previously deleted as advertising. No indications or claims of notability. No references. Google search on DataTune "Data Cleansing" shows only 24 unique results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly ask you NOT to delete this article. We will provide additional references as needed. Thanks --212.29.234.47 (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)— 212.29.234.47 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment The previously-deleted article from yesterday was a far more substantial article than this iteration, which barely rises above a screen-shot. It - and the arguments by its creator(s) on its Talk page - contained at least the beginning of an arguable notability. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Web searches turn up references to other IT products of the same name (from Hitachi and a CRM vendor of that name) but nothing substantial and independent relating to this data conversion/cleansing product from Target Data. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 23 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. There seems to be no reason to redirect this page to only one of the several pages that use the term fully qualified, and creating a dab page in this case makes no sense. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 11:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully qualified[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF; WP:SYNT. I am fully qualified to nominate it for deletion, should I be mentioned in the article as well? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to fully qualified name. —Ruud 16:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not too sure that such a general phrase should redirect to such an esoteric technical article. Would this really be the most likely article that general readers would be looking for under the title "fully qualified"? My immediate reaction to seeing the title was that that this must be about accountancy, in which field, in the UK, job adverts typically specify whether applicants should be fully or partially qualified. Surely it would be better to delete this so that anyone looking for this phrase will be presented with search results rather than be redirected to one specific use of the phrase. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page? —Ruud 20:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete—redundant to fully qualified name and its cousins. not necessary as a dab page, because all those fully qualified * pages are not actually distinct uses of the single search term "fully qualified".— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert into a disambiguation page - The article links to variations of "fully qualified". Second choice is redirect. →Στc. 02:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert into a disambiguation page, even though doing so is not strictly in accordance with WP:PTM. It's almost a dab page anyway. To avoid confusion it should start with "In computer science..."; other uses (accountancy was mentioned above) can be added later if deemed appropriate. Failing that, delete rather than redirect to just one of the possible articles, none of which is the primary topic. —SMALLJIM  10:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated, and despite which I think a dab page would be the best way to help our readers. —SMALLJIM  14:35, 31 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. I considered userfying but the page creator has been blocked. If anybody else wants to bang on this article just ask me. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assisted fishing[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Concern was "No evidence at all of notability". The article describes a film that has not yet been released. Consequently, reliable third-party sources are triflingly few and distantly far between. Article does not assert notability. Subject fails WP:NF and, currently, WP:NFF. ClaretAsh 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails notability guidelines, not to mention that the article smacks of WP:ADVERT and especially WP:COI since the article's creator is producing the movie. They also advertised on their website that they started a page for their own movie on their facebook page. [54], [55] I also noticed that someone removed the proposed deletion tag purely because they worked on the movie without actually improving the article. If/when the movie becomes notable it can be re-created, but at this point in time it isn't notable per the nomination reasons. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
As a pre-emptive strike against someone coming on here to vote stack, I want to emphasize ahead of time that AfD is not a vote. You can make your argument as to why the article should remain, but in the end an administrator goes over the arguments and decides based upon the strengths of what was said. I also want any potential visitors to visit WP:MOVIE, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources were provided and I am unable to find any. This could change in the future but that's not a rationale for keeping the article now. Rnb (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage needed to satisfy WP:N, let alone the arduous notability standard required for a film, Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Edison (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. As film is completed and slated for a release in 3 months,[56] I think we might politely return this to its author for cleanup per WP:NotJustYet. When it is released and receives coverage, a return to article space can be considered. Toward showing its author what article format is preferred, I just went through and gave it a cleanup to address its tone and style.[57] In userspace, I would hope he can continue based upon my work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:49, 24 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 Google Chrome#Release history and delete history per CSD G12. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Chrome complete version history[edit]

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

Besides the fact that all of this is directly copied from the sources and it is thus a copyright violation it is also a textbook example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, to be more precise, point 6
"Changelogs or release notes. An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy." Yoenit (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a release history table at Google_Chrome#Release_history, which contains more then enough information about the changes between version. Yoenit (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be on the safe side I stuck a {{copyvio}} on the article, the material is after all a copyright violation, rather than let deletion depend on copyright concerns however I would like to focus on the inherent unsuitability of the material. Yoenit (talk) 11:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:05, 23 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. And please assist to format the sources. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. George El Mozahem[edit]

St. George El Mozahem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is of an assumed person with no verifiable historical fact of existance, at least none shown in the sources listed. It appears to be solely based on a fabled story in church fliers which seems to be copied from each other, week in plot, and ficticious in character and detail. The article can remain if it is made clear that this person is not a historical person and that his existence is just a matter of belief. Ahmed Khalil (talk) 09:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is simply not an acceptable rationale to delete. The nominator's objection is purely a content issue. StAnselm (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a saint long revered in the Coptic church, with many sources attesting to the fact, and so satisfies WP:GNG. -- 202.124.73.117 (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If he's revered as a saint by a mainstream religion then he's notable. End of. Whether there's verifiable evidence he existed or not is irrelevant (if it was relevant then we would be deleting articles on a huge number of religious figures, starting with such minor figures as Jesus Christ and, er, God!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What you mentioned goes for Mohammed too! Like StAnselm told you, it is not an acceptable rationale to delete. Your religious views shouldn't be the motivation for your edits!--Beshoy El Epti (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/Snow Keep - Nominator's WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination is spurious. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the nominator is right and there is "no verifiable historical fact" of this person's existence, then the lead can be modified to read (like the Saint George article), "St. George El Mozahem (940 - June 26, 969) was, according to tradition, a Coptic Orthodox martyr and saint." StAnselm (talk) 06:19, 30 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. Davewild (talk) 08:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy with a Thorn in His Side[edit]

The Boy with a Thorn in His Side (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources available to indicate this film's notability. Mattg82 (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:23, 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) 00:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate article. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:45, 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, Davewild (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please don't relist this again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrow Group[edit]

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

Seems not to be notable. There are no reliable sources and I can find none myself. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The Barrow Group is a NYC theatre company that has been around for 25 years, has won a Drama-Desk award for off-Broadway Excellence[1], and plays that have been workshopped / produced there have been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize (i.e. Old Wicked Songs [2] ) and OBIE award (i.e. The Tricky Part [3]). The Barrow Group School has trained actors who have gone on to great success, Anne Hathaway for instance, and these actors have credited the school as the institution that taught them how to act (Anne Hathaway: "The Barrow Group was the acting institution that taught me how to act" [4].)

At one point, I had entered a much longer description-- noting the awards and the productions that have been done there. However this was deleted by another editor as they stated that it seemed like advertising. The article was changed (with the help of the editor I think) to how it appears now. I agree that there is not much information, but I have not updated the article as I've been afraid that adding any more would get it deleted again. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you!

  1. ^ http://www.nyc-arts.org/organizations/view/id/1930
  2. ^ http://www.playbill.com/news/article/90933-Barrow-Group-Presents-Hillary-Baacks-Autobiographical-Birth-Story-Feb-4-25-in-NYC
  3. ^ http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Acting-Workshops-New-York-City-Theatre-Group/1262176
  4. ^ http://www.angelfire.com/hi3/getreal/transcript4.html
  • Keep A Google Books and Google News Archive search shows extensive coverage of this theater company over many years. The New York Times called it a "consistently rewarding Off Broadway troupe" here. In 20 years of serious reviews, the Times has used phrases such as "the Barrow Group's inaugural production in its new 99-seat theater on West 36th Street couldn't be much more ambitious" and "the material has given been the best production imaginable by the Barrow Group" and "the kind of taut, quick development one has come to associate with the Barrow Group's productions" and "the kind of imaginative, tight ensemble discipline one has come to expect of this troupe" and "a prestigious New York theatre company" and "the Barrow Group, which won the 1995 Drama Desk Award for best Off Off Broadway theater ensemble". These repeated references in dozens of in-depth reviews of their work, makes it clear that this theater company is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:42, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies WP:GNG. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:42, 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, Davewild (talk) 08:28, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Commons[edit]

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

I had previously nominated this article for speedy after not being able to locate significant reliable source coverage. Speedy nomination was removed citing the advice to "First look for sources & if not found, only then nominate for deletion." Since I had already done that prior to the original nomination, I am now bringing it to AfD. Perhaps someone else will have better luck turning up significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies WP:GNG. SimpsonDG (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment SimpsonDG, I haven't had similar luck discovering reliable sources which I imagine you are basing your !vote on. Would you be kind enough to share some of those reliable sources so we can see them? I'm happy to change my !vote if there is significant reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I just haven't been able to locate it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:53, 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, Davewild (talk) 08:27, 23 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life[edit]

Guardian Angels for a Smarter Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed project. Shortlisted, but not yet selected. If selected, will only start years from now. Only independent coverage in reliable sources is in-passing coverage in FT. Does not meet WP:GNG (nor will it in the foreseeable future and - if not selected- might never do so either). Crusio (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page has ridiculous over the top promotional language about stuff that may never happen and bland PR blather:
    • "These devices will be intelligent, autonomous systems-of-systems featuring sensing beyond human capabilities, computation, and communication. "
    • "Many important European industry sectors such as health, energy, environment, transportation, and security will profit significantly from these technologies."
    • "The range of multidisciplinary research results will lead to the creation of new start-ups and hence of new jobs."
    • "The GA flagship project will show the feasibility and functionality of devices in three pre-defined generations of demonstrators. The applications are based on the concept of a smarter life, e.g. a lifestyle that benefits from the instant availability of relevant information, more interconnectedness between devices fitted with all sorts of sensors, and intuitive usability."
    • "Emotional GAs featuring high data security and enhanced personal control will certainly lead to novel societal paradigms that allow improved cognition, communication and prevention."
  • It has been clearly written by a PR person. Anybody asking this to be kept as-is is making a mockery of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia instead of a collection of press relases. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Postulated project with only prospectus-level deliverables at this point. Obviously an article can be recreated if and when it has proceeded into delivery and has clear 3rd party references of the benefits achieved (and by "benefits" I don't count the distribution of the EU funds around institutional supplicants). AllyD (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It might make sense to create a page for FET Flagship Pilots. That has more coverage: FT, but also Nature doi:10.1038/news.2011.143 (There's a list of press articles on the EU FP7 site [59]). GA probably deserves a mention in an article about all the FET-F stuff. Of course, the guys submitting these pages to Wikipedia don't seem to care much about encyclopedic value and simply use Wikipedia as another venue for promotion. See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FuturICT, another one of these FET-F proposals. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both promotional and lacking in notability . Even after the deletion of almost all of the related articles on these projects, more keep being submitted, written in exactly the same style, by contributors who have done nothing else here. For articles as promotional as this one, talking about vague future generalities, G11 is probably the best solution & I am likely to use it in the future when I encounter them. Perhaps someone can figure out who at the EC is responsible for this; it does not do them credit. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 31 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet either of the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Pascual[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer that does not play in a fully pro league and has yet to make a full international appearance. Banana Fingers (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 23 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. Now the copyvio is no longer in the article, consensus is that this is a valid article. Davewild (talk) 08:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive skin type[edit]

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

Appears to be a copy of "Cosmetic dermatology: principles and practice" by Leslie Baumann. All of the previous entries by the article creator all seem to be WP:COPYVIOTokyogirl79 (talk) 07:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Additional: The article would require a complete re-write from head to toe, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Keep I have made a complete rewrite from head to toe, reducing the article to a stub but providing links to substantial sources including a comprehensive review. Warden (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material in this Wikipedia submission is widely known in the dermatologic community and is the subject of multiple publications. This material was adapted with permission from publications including The Skin Type Solution (Bantam 2005) and Cosmetic Dermatology (McGraw Hill 2009) written by Dr. Leslie Baumann MD.. Metabeauty Inc, holds the copy right to these publications and agrees to permit Wikipedia to use this adapted content. Metabeauty will accept responsibility for the use of these content on Wikipedia. I can provide a letter of agreement from metabeauty if necessary. Please let me know how to proceed. This material is also excerpted with permission from US patent number US2006/0265244 A1 which was filed by Dr. Leslie Baumann and is owned by Metabeauty Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) 16:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above is an admission that the article is a copyvio and that the author has no authority to grant license for use of the text. See [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Baumann_skin_types]. Blanking page and re-tagging for speedy copyvio. EEng (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination was do to copyvio problems, which have been removed. You can click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD, and find proof easily enough that this is a real thing, and it does get coverage. Dream Focus 02:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Copyvio matters have been addressed, and per availability of reliable sources: [60]. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:03, 26 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. Already speedy deleted by Fastily as a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 08:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baumann skin types[edit]

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

Nominating for deletion per WP:COPYVIO. The page was blanked by a previous user, but it was listed that the entire entry is a light copy of a journal paper written by Leslie Baumann. [61] It should be noted that all of the user's entries appear to be violations in this manner. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

By 'user' I mean the article's creator, User:FirstPaigeInc. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Additional: The article would require a complete re-write from head to toe, unfortunately.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; There are so many ways this thing should be deleted it's hard to choose, but let's go with this one. It's a neologism created by Baumann to puff up his image. It appears twice in GScholar -- in papers written by Baumann. Web sources using the phrase all appear to be promotions of products. EEng (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material in this Wikipedia submission is widely known in the dermatologic community and is the subject of multiple publications. This material was adapted with permission from publications including The Skin Type Solution (Bantam 2005) and Cosmetic Dermatology (McGraw Hill 2009) written by Dr. Leslie Baumann MD. Metabeauty Inc, holds the copy right to these publications and agrees to permit Wikipedia to use this adapted content. Metabeauty will accept responsibility for the use of these content on Wikipedia. I can provide a letter of agreement from metabeauty if necessary. Please let me know how to proceed. This material is also excerpted with permission from US patent number US2006/0265244 A1 which was filed by Dr. Leslie Baumann and is owned by Metabeauty Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC) — Firstpaigeinc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Unless the copyright holder agrees to the terms of Wikipedia's license i.e. essentially free use, republication, and adaptation of the material by anyone, including for commercial gain, then Wikipedia can't use it. Since you imply that this license hasn't been supplied yet, then as it stands the article is a copyright violation. Therefore I'm blanking the page for now.
Also, from what you say the copyright holder is either Baumann, Bantam, or McGraw (not Metabeauty) so Metabeauty has no authority to license the text for use. "Accepting responsibility" is not enough.
Anyway, that the material is "widely known" isn't enough. It has to be the subject of multiple and substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. All I see is articles by Baumann and puff pieces.
Finally, even if it passes that test, there's no reason to use text that needs licensing. Do what other editors do, and write your own description.
Except you shouldn't do that, because you're connected with the subject and have a conflict of interest. If the Baumann skin types are indeed notable, someone else will write an article on them.
EEng (talk) 19:00, 24 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entrapped Book[edit]

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

Unremarkable book from an author with no article. No indications or claims of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK. If at some point it becomes more notable it can be re-added, but at this point in time there is nothing to suggest that it's notable or will soon be notable at this time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete no evidence at all of notability. Sourced only to its publisher's website and blogspot. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 23 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. appears to be the consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rick_Hayes-Roth[edit]

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

The notability of the subject was called into question with a notability tag and topic on on the entry's discussion page on October 19. As of October 22, no support for removing the notability tag had emerged. The tag was initially added as there was a total absence of substantial references; all references in the biographical entry were papers bylined by the subject of the biography itself. Further, the subject of the biography has been linking to this Wikipedia vanity biography in paid advertisements he's been taking out for his company. CentralError (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total references provided by entry: 5. Of these, 3 are authored by the subject of the entry himself, 1 is an articles published in an online magazine that makes tangential and passing reference to the subject of the entry, the fifth is an interview of the subject of the entry himself published in aforementioned and same online magazine. CentralError (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the AAAI citation. But more brqadly, keep in mind WP:BEFORE no.2: it isn't just what is in the article, it is what can be found to verify notability. Hence the importance of the Google Scholar search, for example, AllyD (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at this a bit further, I'm baffled by the proposer's suggestion of "a total absence of substantial references" in the article as its exists. This is contradicted by the article's explicit referenced citation of the subject's 1992 election as an AAAI fellow. Because of that alone, I will be removing the Notability tag (whose addition was, I note, the proposer's first contribution to Wikipedia). AllyD (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hell you are. I have just restored it. Do not make unilateral removals of tags without attempting to build consensus. CentralError (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of the citations you googled up? The first page consists almost entirely of articles written by the subject of the article (similar to the so-called "references" used in the entry itself). If I write a letter-to-the-editor to ComputerWorld I don't get a Wikipedia entry. CentralError (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep. Search on GS for "Frederick Hayes-Roth" gives h-index of 30+. Enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1 in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Something odd here. A biography of a living person started about five years ago by a single purpose account with an apparent conflict of interest and with almost all the substantial editing since done from IP addresses or by other SPAs. Then a few days ago, another SPA slaps a notability tag onto the article in their first ever Wikipedia edit and puts it up for AfD just three days later. So, leaving the history aside, is the AfD justified? Well, the article is written in a rather over-promotional style and depends almost entirely on primary sources, which is scarcely surprising in an article with its history. But one of the facts in the article, the fellowship of the AAAI, seems to meet WP:PROF#3 - it's sourced from the awarding organisation, but we generally allow that. And deletion is meant to be decided on the notability of the subject, not the state of the article. And Googling on the subject's full name, Frederick Hayes-Roth, (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) rather suggests that the subject is indeed notable - and probably passes WP:PROF#1 rather handily, for work from about thirty years ago that scarcely gets a mention in the article. His work on commercial AI and expert systems in the 1980s and 1990s might also be notable, though if so the evidence must mostly be off-line. His more recent concerns might yet prove notable, but the evidence doesn't seem to be in yet. So on the basis of his early work, keep - but the article needs a rewrite to make this clear. PWilkinson (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable, but of course the article needs a total rewrite from a promotional resumé into an encyclopedia article. My preference would be to use more chronological order, as noted above spend time on the early work that was pioneering rather than the latest as a resumé does. W Nowicki (talk) 22:23, 30 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 speedily deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs) per A10, a duplicate of AC power plugs and sockets. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard)[edit]

AC power plugs and sockets (organization by US Dept of Commerce standard) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork of AC power plugs and sockets. Violation of WP:POVFORK -- was created in response to a debate at Talk:AC power plugs and sockets#Type A, B, C, ... Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for keep. (Do you even know why?)
Looking through your edit history Zzyzx11, it appears you have not even participated in the article discussion at all and so your delete nomination is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the apparent "fork policy violation", and based on no other reasoning.
It appears you have no involvement in the improvement of this or the alternate version article. Do you even know why this article fork is needed, or doesn't it matter, only the "violation" matters? DMahalko (talk) 05:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment moved from article talk:] There is justification for having different organizational methods for content as global and all-encompassing as articles that attempt to unify widely varying standards which themselves make no attempt at trying to align with any particular standard.

Forking of article content is already wildly different across different language versions of the same content. I don't see people going on a delete rampage of other language wikis because the content differs from what is on the English wiki, or vice-versa.

Also the wikipedia policies are guidelines only, and exceptions may occur (WP:IAR). DMahalko (talk) 04:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Other language versions generally operate differently, with different users, and thus generate different consensus. A content fork is one of the items listed on WP:DEL#REASON. Your content fork currently duplicates word-for-word, almost 2/3rds of the original article, including the lead section, most of the history section, the content about unusual types, and so forth. This material is totally irrelevant to the AC organization issues. How can you guarantee that both articles will remain in sync? It's one thing to split such content into more detailed pages and use the summary style method; quite another to do a content fork that merely just reorganizes all the sections without changing a majority of the content. Also, WP:IAR only works in the long term if there is a sufficient number of users commenting to generate agreeable consensus, which is why I opened it here on AFD to generate a wider discussion, instead of just the two of us argue back and forth. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than 2/3rds, it is a near exact duplicate of an older revision. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article's creation is a possibly bad faith act by a disgruntled editor who disagrees with the consensus changes happening at the original article. Roger (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the article contains duplication, and I WAS planning to trim it down to just the types section, but need time to think about how to do the trimming. Of course you're so damn triggerhappy with the delete button that there is no time allowed for such copyediting to occur. Sorry but I have to sleep sometime, and I have more to do in my life than sitting on here responding to other editors.
It appears the delete procedures have been violated by yourselves, as a week is supposed to be allowed if there is argument on the subject. Also how is anyone else supposed to participate in improving the fork, if it is removed so hastily without time for it to develop?
I will likely re-create the article as a user-page so there is time to shorten the article to the specific sections in question. DMahalko (talk) 02:14, 24 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 squeezed. The Bushranger One ping only 04:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Squeeze[edit]

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

Because it was PROD'd already and it's still here. WP:NEO Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—There is a 1998 book called Global Squeeze about the dangers of globalization. I think this term is used in a lot of ways, too many too often to say that it primarily is a nickname for the current economic crisis. This makes this article misleading to readers. Also, we already have an article about that subject: Late-2000s financial crisis; we probably don't need this other article about the same thing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is the 1998 book and, not surprisingly, many sources over the years have used the word "global" immediately before the word "squeeze". However, there is no significant coverage of these words as a specific topic. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:15, 24 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 04:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Rural Management Pakistan[edit]

Institute of Rural Management Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is written like an advertisement and would need a very big rewrite to get away from that. Eeekster (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can see by the nomination as to what's "wrong" and needs to be corrected within the next few days. You assume you have read WP:FIRSTARTICLE already, as well as WP:5P. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language of the article has been changed as required by the wikipedia user. Kindly review the article again and indicate what else needs to be done to make it acceptable. There is a similar page Institute of Rural Management Anand on wikipedia which shares similar nature of content but it has been accepted without any objection. Should I follow it as a guideline?? Samar Saeed Akhtar —Preceding undated comment added 07:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete Majority of references are to its own website, others are only minor references that don't fully meet WP:RS. Article reads even more like a publicity brochure now than it did before it was nominated. Suspect massive WP:COI, and unfortunate that primary editor has refused any form of assistance or advice that has been provided or offered. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no assistance has been refused. Kindly go through all the revisions thoroughly before making any comment. On a friendly note, do view other pages Harvard Business School which shares similar content and language but are available without any objection. links such as [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] [[69]] are some of the third party links available on the web. ( Please note that [[70]] is a separate and independent organization.) Rest are the audited reports and web pages for reference. Still if there is any objection, it would be appreciated if the user specifically indicate a particular line or sub topic to be modified or reference be removed. Please rest assured that all the suggestions are taken very seriously by the primary editor. Repeatedly making vague comments can be disheartening for the new editors. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many times to you intend to !vote? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the very first time. Samar Saeed Akhtar (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The content may need to be revised but the nominator has not suggested how the topic itself is not notable. Mar4d (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see that this article meets the criteria WP:RS Roomihayat (talk) 06:07, 21 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new citations support WP:IS and WP:V Symcos (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep fully meets WP:GNG, WP:VER, WP:IS and WP:RS, this legnthy and informative article, offers ample coverage of the topic and is fully encyclopedic in every aspect I can see. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close bad nomination. If it reads like an ad, then apply the appropriate mantainance tag for that. That isn't a valid reason to delete it. Deletion is only for articles that can not be fixed. Dream Focus 01:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fully complies WP:RS WP:VER. No need for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.47.232.40 (talk) 18:10, 28 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 prejudice against recreation upon charting. The Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:enactment[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, specifically WP:NBAND Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 19:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was going to say keep because according to the article they had a track on national radio. However references 10 and 11 do not actually support the claim. Notability has not been established. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've added a few refs, expanded a few more. Notability now established via national radio and national tour(s) with at least one support slot for an international artist.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 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 04:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. They are a working band and have gotten a little notice in the blogosphere/fanzine space, but not enough to be called notable. They don't appear to have charted in Australia. No allmusic, metacritic, or pitchfork entries. No albums or songs available from amazon, cduniverse, itunes, or Aussie retail site thenile.com.au. They do have a page on last.fm; however, it shows only 123 listeners ever. Delete for now, but it's possible article could be justified in future. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:03, 23 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, withdrawn by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 00:23, 25 October 2011‎

Electron bubble[edit]

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

Fringey coatrack is ill-sourced at best. talk page shows concern over notability from way back. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search for "electron bubble" on ADSABS reveals plenty of publications on this topic], from very respectable journals (PR, PRL, RMP, PSS&T, JPSJ, ...) from a variety of authors. One section read like a plug for someone's pet theory, which I removed, but other than that the article didn't raise any red flags. Any remaining problems of sourcing can be cleaned up, but deletion on grounds of notability seems like a mistake to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perhaps there is concern over current quality of the article, but I agree with Headbomb that the concept seems notable. E.g., even if a theory is mostly wrong it can be notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A very notable topic of encyclopedic value, this needs citations but a quick bing search reveals endless potential sources, here is a promising one[71] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix B 1of3 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 23 October 2011
  • Withdrawn by nominator. Thanks for checking this out. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 19:09, 24 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 04:46, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan national under-17 football team[edit]

Afghanistan national under-17 football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It just says "is controlled by Afghanistan Football Federation and represents Afghanistan in international under-17 football competitions", which is pretty common as a national afghan side will be controlled by the afghan federation only and a "national under-17 football team" will represent the nation in international under-17 football competitions only. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Keep as we have a slew of Under 17 national football teams (categorised by continental governing body) and it would be reinforcing WP:BIAS to delete this article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 15:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The precedent on Wikipedia does seem to be to keep national youth football teams. However, we need to be wary of falling into the Pokemon test trap. I'm stuck between the two places at the moment... I found this source, but I have serious doubts about its reliability, and one source wouldn't be enough anyway. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am the creator of this article. It is just a start and i will provide you full details of the team and information. Please do not delete this article and let me complete the task. Thanks--Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan national under-17 football team. I copied it and pasted it directly onto this page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "other stuff exists" argument is obviously not a valid Keep rationale. This sounds more like a kiddie sports competition, and not like Olympic level international sports. We routinely delete articles about high school athletes and teams, and this sounds like more of the same. Edison (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is international football under the FIFA governing body, not high-school athletics. And when it comes to sports, it's common that teams of a certain level are presumed notable - that's a WP:CONSENSUS argument, not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. As [Category:Under-17 association football] is full of articles, it seems reasonable to assume that international teams at this level is considered notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to support this view, actually. The general consensus on Wikipedia does seem to be that an international U-17 football team is notable, by merit of being at an international level. I therefore change my vote to weak keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • After reading all comments and posts above about deleting of this article, I can now surely say that is now almost meet requirements and guidelines of Wikipedia. SO it should not be deleted, Because it is national team and is notable. I am the creator of this article, come to my talk and let me know your views. --Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the article looks even worse now, having just one reference that too a blog. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to response that this is a national team of a country and instead of deletion it should be expanded. And this national team is under governing body of Fifa. And the reference is from the official blog of Israfeel Kohistani National senior player and current captain of Afghanistan national football team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk • contribs) 09:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - yes, other stuff exists, but for a reason - this is a FIFA-affilated national youth team which competes at an international level. The article needs improving, not deleting, and I'd ask someone with more time than me to search here and here for possible sources. GiantSnowman 19:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per general rationale of Giant. Its a rational additional to a logically-organized encyclopedia, and deletion would not improve the project. In any event, instead of nominating 9 minutes after creation, giving it six months would certainly cause no harm.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No guidelines violated, passes WP:GNG, and in agreance with User:Milowent too soon to nominate for deletion. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per GiantSnowman, Milowent, and Phoenix B 1of3. AfD is about concept, not quality. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 19:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recognized by the group that handles official teams, so its fine, just like the hordes of other under-17 teams we have articles for. Category:Under-17 association football Dream Focus 03:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Giantsnowman. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GiantSnowman and others. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:39, 28 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. - ten vote comments for keep - Since the nomination the article and citations have been largely improved. No delete comments for the last four days. As far as notability goes, comments seem to assert, if he fails WP:PROF after the article improvement he passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Segalstad[edit]

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


This article is a four-year-old stub for an academic with no current evidence that he passes notability under WP:PROF. His main claim to notability, as far as I can tell, is that he has chosen to challenge the conventional thinking on climate change. I'm of mixed feelings about whether being an associate professor who promotes unorthodox views is by itself enough of a reason to give someone an article in Wikipedia. I'm launching this AFD to see what other people think on the issue, and perhaps see if other people can expand the article to give a clearer sense of his notability if it exists. Dragons flight (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The essential facts about this person seem to check out and there seems to be adequate notability. Warden (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Adequate notability based on what exactly? From the ISI database I can only find twelve journal articles in a multi-decade career, much of which seems to have been spent as a museum curator rather than an academic per se. If we are basing it on Wikipedia:Notability (academics) he would seem to be a clear fail. If we are basing it on his climate change views, then the article should explain why his views are so notable. Dragons flight (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can Colonel Warden let us know which of Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria he sees Segalstad as meeting, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF is too narrow. The reason that he and you are here is because he is a climate change sceptic. It is therefore to the general notability guideline that we should look. Warden (talk) 21:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now the only sources for his skepticism are from his own website, which isn't usable for WP:GNG since it requires significant third party coverage. If he is notable for his skepticism, then the article needs to demonstrate that. Dragons flight (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was the head of a museum dedicated to his field of study for 12 years. From Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria
5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Q Science (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A museum head is definitely not the same as a named chair or distinguished professor. Per WP:PROF, criteria 6 is generally intended for university Presidents, Chancellors, and comparable positions, but does not usually include Provosts / Deans / Department Heads, etc. I would suggest that Museum Head is not a high enough level position to qualify. Dragons flight (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Head of a major independent national museum might count, I think, but in this case the museums he led seem to have been parts of a larger university, so I agree that that's not really what that criterion is aiming at. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Web of Science lists 10 publications that have been cited 158 times. Highest citation counts 47, 30, 24 (h-index=7), hence no evidence of major impact on his field. Does not meet any of the other criteria of WP:PROF. #5 certainly does not refer to a position as associate professor and #6 refers to presidents of universities and such. --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that he is currently an associate professor does not mean that that is the highest level reached. After all, he is about 62 years old. Q Science (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow you. Do you mean that he had a higher position but somehow was demoted? Or that he still might reach a higher position before he retires? --Crusio (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of passing any category of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete For the reasons mentioned above he fails to meet the notability requirements. Specially the reasons mentioned by Crusio and Xxanthippe. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I was contacted [72] to change my opinion based on changes to the article I still think the he fails to meet notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Warden and the WP:GNG. He has a published secondary cite [73] as a climate skeptic in the Financial Post, generally a RS. Also a number of public presentations such as this powerpoint talk, presented in 2009. Segastad was a convener for the International Geological Congress "Metallogeny of the Arctic Region" [74] symposium in 2008. a significant professional achievement. And many, many mentions (pro and con) in the blogosphere, for what they're worth. We don't generally set the bar for Wiki-notability very high, and Segalstad seems to me to meet our minimum notability guidelines, though perhaps not exceeding them by much. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Err - the symposium he was convener of was 1 (AAA-1) out of 200+ symposia held at the 33'rd IGC[75], you make it sound as rather more than it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kim. Per WP:N, notability is (to a degree) cumulative, and Segastad does have quite a number of (smallish) achievements. For geologists, the IGC is a pretty big deal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were 200+ wiki-notable geologists in attendance. Maybe S. was #199? Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Financial Post is a RS in general may be debatable. However, it has been well established that Solomon's series in particular is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephan, do you have a link to a RS discussion of this series? Or more details of your objection? I was confused by the FP masthead -- apparently this is part of Solomon's series that ran in the National Post, a sister newspaper. I recall something about a couple of scientists disputing their characterizations as "deniers," but the Solomon profiles I've read of scientists I'm familiar with seemed fair and reasonable. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been debated in several places over time. However, going to primary sources, [76], [77], [78], [79] should be plenty of evidence that this series does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Also note that the series originally was published as opinion pieces, not straight reporting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Colonel Warden: as WP:PROF itself says, if a person is notable per WP:GNG, then that trumps everything else. Having said this, even if accepting the "Solomon reference" about which others express doubts, then I still don't see enough coverage to satisfy GNG. --Crusio (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that WP:FAILN says: "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying it's unclear. At this point, things are clear enough: "I still don't see enough coverage to satisfy GNG" means: "not notable". --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: By virtue of being a wrong-headed climate change denier, it is somewhat inevitable that an otherwise non-distinguishable academic exceeds the WP:GNG bar.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of notability makes it impossible to write an appropriate WP:BLP of this person. There simply aren't enough sources and since this is a biography of a living person we should default to delete (WP:FAILN is not acceptable when it comes to living people). 76.119.90.74 (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being wrong is not sufficient to be notable. Fails WP:GNG, per others. 86.** IP (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. [See update below.] Having his work cited by other AGW skeptics does not push him over the bar of either of these guidelines. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at least two editors have argued for deletion based on WP:GNG. Please note the essay at Wikipedia:Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions, which argues that "This is an improper use of the guideline, since it is a guideline for presuming notability, not a guideline for presuming non-notability." -- Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "essay" referred to is a comparatively recent contribution by a sole editor. It itself is fallacious. Notability only exists if it can be demonstrated to exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It also contradicts WP:FAILN: "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, although there are alternatives." which is part of the GNG guideline. I've nominated that WP:wikilawyering essay for move to user space, by the way. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Pete Tillman (talk) 00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is mentioned as a notable scientists for his beliefs against global warming. Click the Google News Archive search link at the top of the AFD and you can see his name listed for that in places. Google book search has results as well, such as listing him in The deniers: the world renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud and those who are too fearful to do so by Lawrence Solomon. Dream Focus 02:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"He's notable because he's a climate change denier" is just as much rejected as a cause of notability as "She's notable because she's a woman" always has been. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
He is notable because he is prominent enough in his field to be mentioned by the media in many places. Dream Focus 03:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've gone ahead and reformatted the entire article, fixed the references, and also added a number of other references and information to the article from secondary news sources. It's quite clear that he is notable, as he is discussed, interviewed, and otherwise noted extensively in the media as being one of the prime skeptics of climate change. SilverserenC 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Good job Silver Seren. — CharlieEchoTango — 05:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per research by user:Silver seren, which qualifies topic notability per meeting WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He seems to be notable in Norway for his public opposition as evidenced by the multiple articles which talk about that. Some of the coverage of him in Norwegian papers is no more than a sentence or two, but there's an interview with him in e24.no; the way that article starts, it makes it look like the editorial line of that publication is in the skeptical camp. Still, I suppose he is somewhat notable in Norway in general because of the published reactions to his stance. (I'm still a little suspicious because he has no page in the nowiki(s).) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only 74,000 articles, I would think there's a number of important Norwegian people that don't yet have articles over there. SilverserenC 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has a list of good-quality sources, which I think is sufficient enough for a keep. Also, contradiction to the conventional thinking on climate change is notable in itself, as nearly all scientists agree on the matter, according to a book I've read. --Sp33dyphil © • © 01:11, 31 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 04:47, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaela Humphries[edit]

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

Fails even basic criteria of BIO, whole article just talk about that how she's related to other notable personalities, but notability is not inherited. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 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 List of political parties in Yukon. As always, anything worth keeping can be merged from the history. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United Citizens Party of Yukon[edit]

United Citizens Party of Yukon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very fringe territorial party that only lasted one year, and did not contest any elections. Has seen very little coverage in the media despite being started by a former premier. 117Avenue (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of leaving a redirect to Yukon general election, 2011, since it is the election the founder intended to contest. 117Avenue (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I'm using the various "List of characters in..." articles as a guide in that minor characters redirect to the main character list. Mentioning the party at Yukon general election, 2011 seems reasonable, though. This seems one of those situations where the subject lacks sufficient notability to have a separate article but has enough to be mentioned across a few other articles. ClaretAsh 10:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 23 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 speedily deleted (G7) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United concordia building[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted per G7, user-request. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 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 . The user has moved the article to User:Erl.ebz.thrpe/Sebastian Anstis, and blanked the page.

Sebastian Anstis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Possible hoax, inspired by John Hawkwood/Niccolò di Pitigliano. I failed to find any mention of "Sebastian Anstis" in the cited references (the ones that exist). utcursch | talk 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The creator says that the name "Sebastian Anstis" could have been spelled differently in Italian or other languages. I'd be happy if someone can find a verifiable name. utcursch | talk 03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 23 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Abiad[edit]

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

Subject does not fulfill WP:FILMMAKER or WP:GNG notability requirments. No second-party sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP violation with multiple unadressable issues. My WP:BEFORE shows this individual as not having sourcable notability and thus failing both WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG. With respects, she's barely verifiable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Relevant discussion with the editor who created this article can be found here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the linked discussion, I am not adverse to this be userfied... just so long as the author understands WP:COI and the requirement for WP:V and WP:RS, and that this is not simply stored in his userspace indefinitely. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just for the record, I agree with MQS's conditions regarding userfication, with the additional caveat that any copyright violation in the article be removed or cleared up via OTRS before userfication. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whiffs of COI.♦ Dr. Blofeld
    Whiffs? Reeks is more appropriate. However, in the linked discussions, the author has been most conciliatory. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's true. I think he's not lacking in good faith, it's just that until such time as there are reliable sources as to the notability of the film, director and producer, his aim -- to promote their interests, albeit in a manner that as low-key and non-POV as possible -- is fundamentally at odds with our aim, to make sure that our coverage extends only to notable subjects. I have little doubt that if they keep on making films, they will pass the notability line at some point, I'm just not sure it's going to happen in the near future with this particular film -- and they're certainly not there yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 24 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hak5[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hak5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no real notability shown for this "home-grown" video podcast. notability is not inhereted from notable contributors. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. most current sources are by Hak5. others are not significant coverage. nothing satisfying WP:WEB. last afd closed no consensus due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? Why? Simply linking to a policy, without explaining how it applies to this discussion, is not likely to be considered by an administrator in deciding how to close this discussion. Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY for further explanation. First Light (talk) 01:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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 01:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least this article is in desperate, dire need of being edited. I don't see where a complete season listing of each and every episode is absolutely required. Even lonelygirl15 doesn't have a listing of every episode and that series was far more noticed than this one is. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to have significant coverage sufficient to meet notability threshold. Neutralitytalk 08:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the definition of notability here is being a little too strict. I've certainly been aware of Hak5 for sometimes and it's a fairly well syndicated show. Sometimes I think people forget what the point of an Encyclopaedia is. Alex (talk) 10:23, 25 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 04:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime 2008 Eindhoven[edit]

AfDs for this article:
It's Showtime 2008 Eindhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

also nominating:

another sprawling series of fighting results that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. those wanting keep must provide evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not all articles appear to be appropriately tagged. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SPORTSEVENT, only routine coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in agreement with nom and Stuartyeates, after failing to find reliable third-party sources. ClaretAsh 05:02, 23 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 04:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus Prime ending speech[edit]

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

Endorsed PROD removed with no reason given. Original deletion rationale by 76.201.156.37 was "There is no indication that these in-universe speeches have been the subject of critical or scholarly interest of the sort required to establish this topic as notable under the general notability guideline." I agree with that. Reach Out to the Truth 01:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. OP gives a speech at the end of each film. So what? Even the sole category is bad. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom reasons. This isn't the Transformers Wiki and there's no reason why this should be here. Fails GNG. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of meeting GNG. ClaretAsh 05:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a retelling of the plot. This probably doesn't count since there is no "WP:Spoiler" but large parts of the plots are given away and I haven't gotten around to seeing the movies yet. BigJim707 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 23 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Charvet customers[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic listing of customers of one particular fancy shirtmaker with maximum snob appeal. Prior AfD closed as "no consensus"; has become no more encyclopedic in the meantime, and continues to provide no informational value except to stroke the egos of Charvet and its customers. If Charvet wants to brag about its customers, they can do so on their own website. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was prepared to dislike it too, until I actually looked at the list and was shocked to see how well sourced it is. And not to some self-serving Charvet press release, but in many cases to biographies, newspapers of record such as The New York Times and Le Figaro...plus annotations in many instances commenting on the subject's choice of Charvet clothing. Really this is better developed than most lists on Wikipedia. The fact is that multiple reliable sources have taken note of who has been a Charvet customer. So I don't see a reason to delete here. postdlf (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mentioning one or two notable customers at Charvet Place Vendôme or at their own articles is justifiable if they are demonstrably representative either of the organisation's clientele or of the type of people who wears such clothes, or if their wearing of Charvet is a notable feature of their personality. However, is it necessary to mention every Charvet customer who happens to have an article on WP? ClaretAsh 09:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator seems to think its ok to use Wikipedia to tell us that he likes wearing orange. Coverage of clothing and fashion in neglected on Wikipedia and it shouldn't just be a place for trainspotters and other geek stuff. The article has a good historical perspective and is well sourced. It seems to be a spinoff from the main article Charvet Place Vendôme#Notable Clients and so the worst case is that we just merge back into that article. Deletion is therefore inappropriate per our deletion and editing policies. Warden (talk) 10:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is an example of what happens when we follow an idea through to its logical conclusion. Yes, the article is a well-sourced spinoff with good historical perspective but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a mere list of customers. Am I the only one laughing at the ludicrousness of it all? I used to run a Subway store occasionally visited by local celebrities, and one of my co-workers went on to run a Subway once visited by Lady Gaga; should I create a List of Subway customers? I already know where to find reliable sources. Jokes aside, though, the fact that a reliable source exists is no reason for the content of that source to be added to WP. Notability is first asserted, then verified. This article appears to do the opposite, sources have been asserted regardless of whether there is any notable topic to which they can be attached. ClaretAsh 13:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notable topic is Charvet, and all of the customers listed are notable. So in my view, the only question remains whether this is trivia or valuable information about Charvet at a minimum, or about Charvet and its customers. If article size were not an issue, for example, would we want this list in the Charvet article? If so, then its split-off is merely a formatting decision, and we don't gain anything by insisting upon the independent notability of this list, whatever that would mean (though there apparently are multiple reliable sources giving significant coverage to who wears Charvet judging from the list's sources). It's quite a bit more selective than a list of Subway customers given that any schmoe with $5 can buy a sub, and they have over 35,000 locations worldwide, so that's not an apt comparison. Nor do I think you'll find sources stating that certain notable people only eat at Subway in the same way that you'll find notable people who only wear Charvet shirts, but you're welcome to surprise me. postdlf (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and even with something as ubiquitous as a fast food chain, we do sometimes even note in a highly notable subject's article that they eat there. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Spinoff focusing on 4 groups of notable customers meaningful to the article on Charvet and specifically treated by reliable sources, either on the persons or on the company.Racconish Tk 06:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per RS coverage, amply reflected in article. I personally don't care about this, but we follow the RSs, and not subjective views as to what they (and, in turn, we) should view as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Last time around I said to delete, but I've rethought this. In the case of famous purveyors such as these, the list of famous clients is sufficiently important and interesting to be encyclopedic contents. If we go by the GNG, the article is supported. I think similar lists for a few fashion houses might be acceptable also, but I continue to be a little concerned about how far this could be carried. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 30 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PornstarGlobal[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Its references are trivial and any coverage fails WP:CORP because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation. Article was also created by an SPA, likely an employee of a company that has a history of spamming wikipedia.[80][81] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable company. Source are nil, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Adult entity is very well known, reputable, and many references are available to anyone online, I simply didn't have the time to complete the entire Article. I'm not sure why Morbidthoughts insists that I am an Employee? I'm fairly sure an Actual Wikipedia Admin advised him to stop singling out this particular issue some months ago. I know music, and I know porn, that's all I can tell you. A couple random editors don't like the PornStarGlobal site from some things that made them mad in the past, but I can't help that, nor does it change the facts [82]. I didn't even post the link to the site itself, and this article has been thriving for months. Morbidthoughts is making my contributions feel unwelcomed, and I advise that his obvious obsession with this particular issue be looked into. Solidcontrib (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation has been suspended pending the outcome of this AfD. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) (MedCab coordinator) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as those that propose this deletion are acting with bias that does not run parallel with Wikipedia Guidelines. No thought of merging, expansion, clean-up, or use of appropriate mechanisms rather than deletion were considered before AFD[85]. The Article in question does in fact have some useful content and at the very least should have gone through a standard cleanup, disputed, or expert-subject chain of consideration, opposed to it's instant Nomination for Deletion. I encourage Morbidthoughts to justify his acceptance of many other AVN and XBIZ references in numerous Articles including the Awards Section of [86] which clearly has both [87] and [88] listed as Notable Articles / References, but then states that "references are trivial and any coverage fails because AVN and XBIZ are of limited interest and circulation" above when pertaining to PornstarGlobal [89]. As stated on the Mediation Page, there are bountiful References Online in regard to PornStarGlobal some of which are / were listed within the Article, but not evident at all on Articles such as: [90] for example. I would also like to encourage Morbidthoughts to validate his accusation above referring to my being an SPA. My validation of less than honest intentions lies within the visible * Delete votes - an example would be Carrite making the uninvestigated assumption that the Article is a "non-notable company, sources are nil, and it fails GNG", when in reality it carries twice the citation, reference, and notability weight as his own Company Wikipedia page Mutant Pop Records. Do I personally know Mark Hanford[91], one of the actual staples of the Mutant Pop vision, and Mutant Pop Radio Show DJ from Boise ID. in the 80's, yes. Would I propose Mutant Pop Records be deleted because of the lack of some obviously overlooked pertinent information, no, I would follow procedure and give it the benefit of the doubt without allowing personal opinion and favoritism to cloud my judgment. Solidcontrib (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • First WP:CORP clearly states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". This guideline is not in WP:BIO which may explain why the biographical articles like Ms. Karter can rely on coverage from these sources as indications of notability. As for the accusation that you are an SPA, the first substantive edits you made (starting June 1, 2011) were to promote pornstarglobal by adding their awards to multiple performer pages. When they were consistently removed from the biographies by other editors for being non-notable, you decided to create a page on pornstarglobal itself. It was only long after you were first accused of being an SPA that you began to diversify your edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I cant see any justification in the paragraph above as it only defines the exact concerns I was referring to. I was searching for this page as well: accused of being an SPA, but could not find it so I thank you for posting because it once again displays evidence of your bias in thinking that Article creation = promotion of Article subject, which it most certainly does not. One could dig deeper and assume there is technically no way to avoid promotion completely when creating a public Article. I don't feel I need to explain why I chose this particular subject / site to write an Article about nor do I understand your reasoning in that active participants in the Wikipedia Community should not diversify their edits. It seems to me as if you simply jumped the gun and didn't have time to scan over my contributions before hastily nominating this Article for Deletion and making unwarranted accusations because of your past issues with these people. Aside from the improper course / chain of deletion you displayed, I would say you hadn't done any research at all, because if you had you would know that there have only been 2 award winners, not multiple. I felt that going back and trying to make the Article better the 2nd time around would be beneficial, and again, their URL has never been posted anywhere on the Article nor the 2 award winners pages. I get the impression that no matter what happens, you made a choice to dislike these individuals 3 years ago and will never have an open mind to anything related to their name. Solidcontrib (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB without substantial reliable source coverage. The article's references from porn industry press (AVN, XBiz, etc.) are regurgitated press releases. My search for independent coverage yielded just passing mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That prlog.org link is a press release, not coverage by an independent RS. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 31 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. This AfD has to end some time; successive relistings have yielded no additional comments. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Deans List[edit]

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

Non-notable music group. Creator even said they are "up and coming", which is a red flag to me. No references. Fails WP:Notability (music). EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative delete. We have one reliable source in the article, but I'm unable to find a second one that would nail the band's notability. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The article had been tagged for speedy deletion before this AfD, but it was under criterion A3, which clearly no longer applies. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails all aspects of WP:NBAND. Safiel (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin This AfD Nomination appears to have never been properly listed in the AfD Log, please consider giving it a full week of discussion from the time of listing before closing. Monty845 19:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:40, 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, Rcsprinter (rap) 10:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_October_23&oldid=1142636716"