Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 December	5 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qoph (band)[edit]

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

claims of notability ("pioneers") are not supported by references provided. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Not clear how this might meet WP:BAND RadioFan (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two of the band's albums were on labels that appear significant to pass WP:BAND (Transubstans/Record Heaven) and despite issues around searching for non-English sources, I found coverage from Allmusic ([1], [2]), Zero magazine ([3]), and Svenska Dagbladet ([4]). I would be amazed if there wasn't further coverage in Swedish newspapers and magazines. --Michig (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while bands signed to independent labels can meet WP:BAND but the guidelines insist on "important indie labels" . None of the labels mentioned have Wikipedia articles and mentions of them generally describe them as boutique labels, rather than the roster of notable performers mentioned in WP:BAND Also finding it a bit odd to have so many labels listed for so few albums. Why is this? --RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band is well known in progressive rock and psychedelic rock communities. For example the band is listed in the Jerry Lucky's encyclopedias: "The Progressive Rock files" ([5]) and The Psychedelic Rock Files ([6]).

The label Disk Union ([7]), ([8]) is a major Japanese record company.

Comment Bickerstaff1 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there something other than links to the company's website to demonstrate these are notable labels?--RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disk Union have released acts like Bigelf [9] and [10] (both included in Wikipedia) on their sublabel Archangelo, for example http://rateyourmusic.com/label/arcangelo/ ([11]). Transubstans Records have released in Sweden very well known band Abramis Brama ([12]) among others. [13]). I can't see no point why Qoph shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. They have released three full length albums in Germany, Japan and Sweden and have a worldwide distribution, have performed at international festivals etc. Bickerstaff1 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's sources. There's also a write-up at MusicMight [14]. 86.44.25.145 (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. There is no such thing as "delete and merge", people. Our copyright licences do not permit it. Merger is a form of keep. Read our Project:Guide to deletion. Vic49, stop renominating this article when the outcome that you want is not deletion and doesn't involve administrators using the deletion tool in any way. If you want an editorial action enacted after your previous nomination, use your own edit tools yourself, and use the article's talk page. AFD is not a club to beat other people with into doing something that you are perfectly capable of doing but unwilling to actually do yourself. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lubrano[edit]

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

Lubrano is not a notable criminal and does not pass WP:CRIME. Lubrano should not be the subject of his own article. Information about Lubrano and his crimes could be added to the List of Lucchese crime family mobsters article. Vic49 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this actually be some sort of merge discussion? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its going to be discussed here if the article should be deleted, merged or kept. I suggest that article be deleted and the information about Lubrano be merged into the above article.--Vic49 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:KEEP #1: all contributions including the proposer have argued for a merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty borderline though; I can see another AFD in this article's future if it isn't improved. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Bunny[edit]

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

Possibly not notable largely unreferenced article about a amateur singer which we don't really need on wikipedia. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs work, but Punk Bunny have been mentioned in several publications: the article has a mix of references, some reliable sources, some not. I'm not sure why the proposer claims he's "amateur" since the evidence of Punk Bunny performing for money is plentiful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although I'd have loved to have not seen the infobox's image (cropping it about an inch higher would be great), looking online and at the references in the article I do think it meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, although not by any flying colors. - Sudo Ghost 17:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I discovered the page is a direct copypaste from the guy's website, so it looks like this is going to be delete anyway. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to remove the text that violated copyright. We have more work to do to build the article up now but it's still a keep. --Michig (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icon of Sin[edit]

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

This metalcore band fails WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Google Books is not providing any coverage, and Google News archive searches are only providing passing mentions in Metalhead.ro, which is a Wikipedia blacklisted site. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any coverage that would show that the guidleines for inclusion are met. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Brien (comedian)[edit]

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

Not notable, mentioned only in youtube, blogs, and articles written for site or other parts of site. Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: O'Brien is a major contributor at the notable Cracked.com. A cursory search reveals significant coverage at Forbes, The Huffington Post and ESPN. Faustus37 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to look at the sources, you would notice that HP was an interview of Michael Swaim and the ESPN source was a short two-question interview for Page 2 with Swaim (with Swaim answering one of the questions). The only one that would qualify as significant coverage would be Forbes, if you stipped out the non-notable coverage you wouldn't have an article. He's famous at Cracked.com, but has little in the way of notable coverage. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the HP article is indeed an interview of Swaim, O'Brien is mentioned repeatedly and in a non-trivial way. The ESPN article reveals O'Brien is a Streamy Award recipient, which gives him claim to WP:CREATIVE#4 Faustus37 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage of him at Forbes [15]. He clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 and #2, as his episodes and other work are seen by millions. Also WP:CREATIVE #4 since his work has "won significant critical attention". Dream Focus 10:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Streamy represents significant critical coverage? I would be willing to admit #2 for WP:ENTERTAINER (though whether that qualifies for an article is another debate), but #1 (Obsessive Pop Culture Disorder, After Hours, and Agents of Cracked are hardly notable productions) and especially #4 are stretching it. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you admit we have a case for WP:ENTERTAINER#2, then notability is sufficiently established. Faustus37 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative 4, his work does get significant attention and mention from the critics. Entertainment 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He has in fact had a significant role in these shows, which are notable because of the coverage they get. Dream Focus 13:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ample coverage across multiple different noteworthy secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single Forbes piece and a two question interview shared with Swaim by ESPN Page two qualify as multiple noteworthy secondary sources? Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. I understand that the coverage is minimal, but that plus the award is (barely!) sufficient in my book. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not the most notable individual, and without the Forbes piece I'd say delete, but with that I'd say he falls just on the other side of significant coverage, although not by any great leaps and bounds. - Sudo Ghost 17:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there was consensus enough that this could have remained closed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Go Phightins! 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Wong (writer)[edit]

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

Known only by movie and book, suggest merging this article into John Dies at the End Soxwon (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ not notable. David Wong is not even this person's name. The book is not notable, and the "movie" is an online web-serial. This person is an admin/mod on two websites, and that is the limit of notability. Wikipedia is not a Fanzine. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. The movie will be released in theaters on January 25, 2013 See:Magnet buys 'John Dies at the End' -- Esemono (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Ample coverage of him on multiple reliable sources. He clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 and #2, as his episodes and other work are seen by millions. Also WP:CREATIVE #4 since his work has "won significant critical attention". -- Esemono (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it helps to actually read the secondary sources you are talking about his book. The rest are blogs, youtube vids, cracked articles etc. Again, as with DOB, WP:CREATIVE and #1 for WP:ENTERTAINER fail, you need to come up with better arguments. Soxwon (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject surely passes WP:AUTHOR #3 and #4 as his work "has been the subject of a... feature-length film", received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and "has won significant critical attention". The same references of the article include many secondary reliable sources. I don't see where is the problem here, and the same nominator fails to give a valid reason for deletion (as "known only by movie and book" surely is not). Cavarrone (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? WP:AUTHOR #4? Are you high? #4 is for works in famous galleries or famous anthologies, Wong's book fails MISERABLY. #3 is iffy, and right on the borderline. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wong's latest book is currently on the New York Times best seller list? How is that a fail? -- Esemono (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP:AUTHOR criterium was intended just for "famous galleries or famous anthologies", it was written so. About the "tiffy" argument, recently there was an attempt to tighten up the third criterium and clearly failed to raise consensus from the community. Finally, please be civil and edit with your username, as everyone has understood who you are. Cavarrone (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is it? I hope you don't think the IP editor is me just because I'm the only other person who wants to delete. Besides I have to admit that some of these arguments are swaying me over. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Wong's book was not anywhere close to being in the category of book being described. It is not a lauded, notable book to the point where it would be considered a part of anthologies or of that level of notability. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW there is no guideline for best seller status, it should not be used to judge notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.His book was on the New York Times Best seller list (Book Review Desk, 21 October 2012, The New York Times p 26)

Also article from the Chicago Daily Herald ( "David Wong returns in intriguing 'This Book is Full of Spiders'" Associated Press, 12 October 2012 Chicago Daily Herald)Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: George Sand is not a real name, either. In any event, Wong has written two well-reviewed books (the other being This Book Is Full of Spiders: Seriously, Dude, Don't Touch It). A clear pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. Faustus37 (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't need to be high to point out his anthology for Cracked.com is a New York Times Bestseller. [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketsteam100 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Having a book on the NYtimes list is notable enough. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There is no rule for best seller status. There was an attempt to add it into the guidelines and it did not get consensus. Best seller status should not be used when judging notability of books/authors. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wong wrote a book which is being adapted to a movie, a sequel to that book, manages a very popular website and forums, and writes numerous articles read by thousands. How is this man not notable? Because he's on the internet and uses a pseudonym? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.161.188 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rocketsteam100's proposal to rewrite the article and incorporate the sources raised here is a sensible one; if after that the article still seems lacking, another AFD nomination can be made. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (humorist)[edit]

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

Not notable, most links are from blogs, youtube, and articles/shows written by subject or from website subject writes for. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable internet poster, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is notable per WP:Entertainer #3, has a cult following of 15 thousand followers on twitter [17]. Also has been featured on the Digg Reel, NPR, and the Huffington Post.[18][19][20]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If notability is determined by 15,000 Twitter followers, Wikipedia would need to create thousands more articles. The Huffington Post link you provided is hardly being "featured," it's merely a link to one of his articles- and it doesn't even mention Gladstone by name. The Zulkey interview is better coverage but is still not enough to claim notability. The YouTube clip is also not nearly enough to assert notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Much like his contemporary Seanbaby -- who I see you failed to nominate for an AfD -- Gladstone is featured on multiple popular sites (Comedy Central in addition to Cracked). You have WP:ENTERTAINER#2 right there. Faustus37 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to post some independent coverage, and not links to sites he has contributed to. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. There's this from Daily Kos [21], and this from AOL [22], and this from WBEZ in Chicago [23]. Not to mention what should be the self-evident cult following based on hits on Cracked and other places. Such is the paradox of many creative professionals: They're notable because notable media outlets make them so, but said media outlets don't prove notability ... *sigh* We really must fix that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above that the WBEZ article is the closest thing to significant coverage. Nonetheless, the other articles are just links to his videos/posts, not significant coverage. Nothing on Wikipedia is "self-evident"; notability and a cult following must be verified by reliable sources. The sum of links provided does not sufficiently establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Those links posted above are independant coverage. Zulkey is an NPR run blog, in addition to WBEZ, he's been featured on WNFZ many times and he was also a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo. [24][25] He's also been featured on Holy Taco. I'm also curious as to what satisfies a "cult" gathering at wikipedia. I say this because in regards to his twitter, I found 4 different people with less followers all of whom have wiki articles (Michael Mosley, Anna Camp, David Wong, Claire Zulkey) This establishes precedent, unless you want those people to be removed as well. On a side note, a cursory glance reveals that the poster that initiates this AFD has started ones on two other editors for Cracked.com in the past few days. I'm sensing a vendetta here, but that's not relevant. Rocketsteam

Zulkey is affiliated with NPR? Why, so she is! Twitter notwithstanding, why do we blithely dismiss significant content producers associated with uncontroversially notable media sources ... just because? Say someone like Bob Costas or Tom Brokaw had no significant coverage outside of NBC. By current rules they'd be non-notable. There's something profoundly wrong with that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 04:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Costas and Brokaw- that's a completely hypothetical argument because they do have significant coverage in reliable sources. AfD is a place to enforce Wikipedia policy, not challenge it. Take that discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ENTERTAINER #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He has ample things on cracked that get from 300 thousand to up to one and a half million views. So yeah, that's a large fan base already. Dream Focus 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the main determination for notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this writer does not have. Anyway, the "cult following" line in WP:ENTERTAINER does not refer to page views. By that logic, thousands and thousands of clearly non-notable web content producers would be notable including people who post kitten videos and get millions of hits. There needs to be more significant coverage than one interview on an NPR-affiliated blog. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - A large fan base OR a significant "cult" following. You don't need both. A fan base means people go to see your work, not just one thing, but a series of things you created. Someone who has dozens of things created which get a large number of fans to keep going to them, is clearly a notable entertainer. Dream Focus 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would point out that while that's true, the fan base/cult following criteria do not prove nor prove against notability, as WP:ENTERTAINER is part of the Notability page's additional criteria. The main criteria is independent significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been established. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - No, that's not how it works. WP:NOTABILITY clearly explains at the top, it is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines by getting coverage in reliable sources, OR if it passes any of the subject specific guidelines. It doesn't have to do both, otherwise the subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist. Dream Focus 13:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and it also says people meeting the subject-specific guidelines are not automatically notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability I have already quoted. If they meet any of those guidelines, that are presumed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you may be mis-interpreting Wikipedia:Notability, or there is a contradiction in the rules. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Rules_contradiction to clarify. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every article absolutely needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A large Twitter following or large page views does not alone satisfy notability requirements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What source is used to arrive at the 300,000 to 1 million page views? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided to his stuff on cracked. [26] Primary sources are fine for things like this if no legitimate reason to doubt them. Dream Focus 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course in his best interest to appear popular, self-reported popularity is thus not reliable and essentially a form of marketing - we have no way to verify if those numbers are real. Further, web hits as a metric are almost meaningless as they include bots and could include page views vs. unique-user views, or could include repeat visitor views. It's really not a reliable source, nor a reliable metric of popularity. I'm sure there have been conversations about this in the past on Wikipedia, and reason why page views are not included in the Notability guidelines. There is Alexa.com for ranking websites, it includes cracked.com but nothing specific for Gladstone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:42 (a summary of the rule): multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Many people above are confusing things by Gladstone with things about Gladstone. The only source that really passes is the WBEZ interview, and that isn't particularly strong on its own. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a personal essay which is mislabeled to look official. The guideline page of WP:Notability is what we go by. Dream Focus 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made it clear it is a summary of the rule, and what the rule is. 42 is not "mislabeled" to be "official". The reason I used 42 here is because so many people in this discussion seem to be confused about the core principal of notability which 42 is particularly effective at communicating in a short and easy to understand way. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is labeled as an "information page" instead of an essay. And it has incorrect and very misleading information. Use the guideline page as well. Its very clear, GNG or one of the SSG, is fine, you not needing both. Dream Focus 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, you do need both. If the additional criteria is challenged, you need the GNG to show notability. The very same guideline that contains WP:ENT also says that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So as far as I can tell, you do need the GNG as well. Bjelleklang - talk 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have never needed both. The WP:NOTABILITY guideline is quite clear. And they say "presumed" there, and likely at other places, and whatnot. They don't like to be definite on anything since guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law like policies are. Dream Focus 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The additional criteria in WP:BIO, including WP:ENT doesn't replace the GNG, but are an addition to it. As others have pointed out, the number of page views or twitter followers doesn't qualify for WP:ENT#2; they can both be faked, and as said above it's in the subjects own interest to appear to be popular. We don't know what the number of views include, and we have no way of verifying it, so it more or less counts as a "self-published" source, or at least one that isn't independent of the subject. #3 is quite broad, but I really don't see what he's done that is so unique or innovative from any of the links here, or in the article. (In addition there are at least four dead sources in the article.) And then we're really only left with the GNG, which also seem to fail, at least as far as I can tell. Bjelleklang - talk 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that Gladstone would manipulate page views to make himeself look better is absolutely asinine. If that's the case, why not increase it to a million? 2 million? Articles on that site have sometimes generated 10 million views. It's also unfair to dismiss his fan base on twitter purely because its twitter. As was mentioned before, how else do you judge a fan base? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is notability requires reliable sources independent of the subject. If the subject is employed by Cracked, one cannot simply cite Cracked as a source for popularity. Establishing that someone has a large fan base can actually be done pretty simply on Wikipedia- by citing independent reliable sources that make the claim. Citing a Twitter following as a large fan base – making an original claim – is not sufficient nor appropriate. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you do a quick search for it on places like Google, you'll find several sites who allow you to buy Twitter followers. And this is the primary reason for why the number of Twitter followers don't count. As for jacking up the number of views; who knows. But we can't verify it through other means, so therefore it can't count for notability. Bjelleklang - talk 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay then. Here are four independant, reliable places that he has been featured at. Daily Kos [27], WBEZ/NPR [28], WNFZ Boston [29], and WHRW Binghamton[30]. He was also a guest speaker at the Edmonton Exposition (as noted earlier). [31] Those are 5 places that have covered him. How's that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, the only significant coverage in reliable sources of those five is the WBEZ/NPR article, which I grant is an interview on a news site. However, the other four are at best mere mentions of Gladstone or links to his content, not speaking to his fan base in the slightest. You cannot establish someone's notability on Wikipedia by linking to someone's content or mentioning their upcoming speaking engagements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. Of the five places, 4 invited him to discuss and talk about something he has created, whether it be an article or video. To dismiss all of them without even clicking the links and listening is just shoddy. For those of you watching at home, click the links. Other than Daily Kos, all of those radio programmes invited Gladstone to an interview. And the Edmonton Expo (which already fucking happened) invited him not to "merely mention him" but as a guest speaker BECAUSE of his work with Cracked/Comedy Central/Funny or Die/ Collegehumor.

Let's stay civil. I did listen to the podcasts- Gladstone is on the line making jokes about various subjects like sexting. Gladstone is not the subject. On Wikipedia one cannot make the logical leap that he was invited as a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo because he is notable without citing a source. I hope you understand that that statement is an original claim. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His work gets coverage, that adding to his notability as an entertainer. Dream Focus 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguing for WP:ENTERTAINER but it will still need to pass WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable sources about the subject so that we can write an article with. Those podcasts aren't usable in writing an encyclopedia article. See WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." The podcasts are not significant coverage because there is nothing we can say about Gladstone using them as a source. Besides the WBEZ source. One source is not enough to pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a loud mouth doesn't mean you are culturally significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.161.188 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, the entertainer does not need to be culturally significant to be notable. He needs significant coverage in other reliable news organizations. He clearly has that, 3 radio programs, 1 NPR run site, and a panel at a comic convention. Even if you ignore the last one, that's still enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk • contribs)

Again, you are confusing coverage by the subject with coverage about the subject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're interviewing him about something he wrote, is that not coverage about the subject? "coverage by the subject" would mean HE is creating it and/or taking credit. That's not the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the WBEZ one, these interviews are not sufficient significant coverage. One doesn't claim notability by being a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But why is wbez the only one that works? Is it that WBEZ is inherently better than WNFZ or WHRW? Or because WBEZ only focuses on gladstone generally, and not specifically on something he made? if its the latter, that's not fair. there are dozens of authors or comedians who have only been interviewed because of their book or movie, hell, that's what all of late night talk show is. The fact stands, and no one has refuted it, Gladstone has been "covered" in four different, independent, and reliable places. The links have been posted a few times by a few different people, so its all here. Arguing about semantics is getting us nowhere. SO lets discuss specifically why the other 2 interviews don't work. --Rocketsteam100 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is significant coverage of Gladstone in the WBEZ article because he is the subject of that article. The other links either embed one of his videos or have him on to make jokes. They can be considered promotional or content, not coverage. Moreover, on Wikipedia one is not notable for merely appearing on a late night talk show (or a podcast or Edmonton Expo or having 15,000 Twitter followers). Unless you can find another reliable source to claim notability (the podcasts are questionable anyway), this isn't really a discussion but an enforcement of policy. If Gladstone were so notable, finding another reliable source should not be so difficult. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If Gladstone were so notable, finding another reliable source should not be so difficult." Holy Taco [32]. Look, I'm not saying Gladstone is the next Jay Leno, I'm just saying he meets the bare requirements of notability. I would argue that the other shows do constitute significant coverage. WNFX[33] has[34] had[35] him[36] on a[37] lot of[38] times,[39] just like in general.[40]. So, there's that. And none of these interviews are them bringing him on just "to make jokes". They're specifically asking him about the subject content on his articles. And anyway, you can't accuse a comedian for making jokes when on air. Surely, the butt-load of links I just dumped is enough to constitute bare coverage, or is it not because its the same place? Rocketsteam100 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal That this page be re-written with all the relevant sources that have no come up but are no where present in its current writing. If, after a full re-write by either the original author or another poster (who would presumably volunteer here), he is still seen as non-notable, we can hold another discussion. I understand why Wikipedia deletes pages, especially for non-notable people. Normally, pages that are deleted of people have absolutely no coverage at all. However in this case, its abundantly clear that while there are independent places covering him, their significance is in question. As such, I think we should re-write the page instead of deleting it. Personally, I always viewed deletion at Wikipedia as a last resort, I've seen the ARS do whole re-writes or merges or whatever to try and save a page before. So why not now? Rocketsteam100 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sepandar Kamvar. Consensus is to Merge/Redirect. I will go ahead and redirect for now, leaving the history intact; that way, anyone who wants to bring over info can do so easily. Also, should the subject become notable in the future (passing the WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns of the commentors here), it can be unredirected, but only if those concerns can be solidly met. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog (programming language)[edit]

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

This is an article about a future product. From WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Msnicki (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Sepandar Kamvar. Interestingly, there are news articles on the language, for instance, new-programming-language-makes-coding-social-apps-easier, but the ones I found seem more like press releases. Nonetheless, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; there are no sources I could find that describe the language in any detail. The main website http://www.dog-lang.org has an email sign up for future announcements and nothing else. When the language is released and multiple reliable sources can be found, I have no problems with this article being recreated. In the meantime, merge and redirect to the language creator's page is a reasonable course of action. It may be useful to note that there is already a DOG programming language, described at http://esolangs.org/wiki/DOG, which is also an attempt at a natural language approach to programming. Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet real, research project, no external users, etc. Rwessel (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sepandar Kamvar. Looks promising, but WP:TOOSOON as it's not even been released yet. Altered Walter (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merger and redirect to Sepandar Kamvar. There's potential to expand the current description with academic papers like this and commentary from the authors (see this and this) that describe the language, though those are primary sources. It seems that the Jabberwocky stack would be a better topic for the article, and it can be re-created by someone interested in writing about it. Diego (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument for merge and redirect. I've changed my recommendation. Mark viking (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging, too. It's one of the suggested options in what I quoted from WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't seem to be an issue and per the Wired UK ref, " is already in use at the Skissernas Museum in Lund, Sweden" so I don't see why TOOSOON or CRYSTAL should apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was AfD'ed within 12 hours of article creation. Big WP:BITEY trout to the nominator 8-( There was no excuse for this. Crap gets speedied, not AfDed. For anything that a nominator thinks might be AfD fodder, the least they could do, merely out of deference to a new (under a month) editor, would be to wait a few days and see how an article under active development turned out. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be less of a future product if the article were older? The problem I have with the article is that it's a WP:CRYSTALBALL article about a software product that the article claims will exist in the future but does not exist today. I take the claim that it doesn't exist as true, in which case it doesn't matter how long the authors of this article have been working on it. I also don't see how it's helpful to make this personal here and on my talk page, especially coming from the minority of one. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you know better than Wired that it isn't (as they claim) already in use?

The trout isn't about the AfD, it's about biting new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that AFD was now considered biting if it was a new editor. Would you kindly link me to that guideline and I'll happily apologize to the creator. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it to the software project..but this new editor leeway crap is exactly that crap. If we set a lower standard simply because they are new we set a lower standard for the entire wikipedia. If it isn't up to snuff with the standards or guidelines why should we allow them to put more work into a product that shouldn't be here anyways, it's like the governemnt watching you build something and when you're done tell you "well we knew it wasn't to code but you were new here so didn't want to discourage you." It's like doing math when multiplying things by zero you always get zero...so whether the author is new or old if it shouldn't be here it should be deleted...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad, the Bad & the Dangerous[edit]

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

Non-notable music video of a concert. No references to show notability. Stowonthewolder (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have suggested redirecting but, considering there isn't any evidence to support this article, it wouldn't be appropriate. A Google News search provided nothing relevant and a main Google search provided primary sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos where it is logical to inform readers by sending them to where they might learn about the group, even if the video itself lacks coverage for an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability needed to justify a separate WP article. Already listed in The Hampsters article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN. Found Chinese Wikipedia articles that indicate that this person is real and sufficiently significant. --Nlu (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jiahang[edit]

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

Appears to be hoax. The roles referred to are not supported by the Chinese Wikipedia articles linked (or by the links cited in those articles). Unless confirmed to be true, delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out, only one of the alleged Chinese Wikipedia articles linked actually exists. That's more the reason to believe that this is a hoax. --Nlu (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodents Rock the Reich![edit]

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

Non-notable music video of a concert. No references to show notability. Stowonthewolder (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERNOMINATOR before you make any more contributions like that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable music video. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos. Couldn't find enough coverage to pass WP:NALBUMS. Likeable band btw. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza de Mayo (Buenos Aires Metro)[edit]

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

We have the article Line A (Buenos Aires Metro), we don't really need articles about each specific station. There's very little to say about them, besides trivial information (such as which building are near it, or the decoration). After all, they are just places where the train stops and people get in or out. Notability is not inherited. Any actually meaningful information can be detailed at the main article Cambalachero (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I suspect that this is simply the case of a user trying to boost their page creation count. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What a BS. You should be banned from Wikipedia. BrasiliaBrasilia (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies, sincerely, if you took that personally or badly. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your counts. The question comes to how loosey-goosey one goes about it. It wasn't a personal attack. Sometimes the written word doesn't translate so well, if you were offended, I'll take responsibility. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for, mate. Speaking of banning, as your !vote here was only your sixth edit to Wikipedia and your first was a well-executed Wiki-formatting [41], might you be a sock of a banned user? --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - Metro station in a metro city area of over 12 million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built, completed and refurbished without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. That a vast majority of these stations opened in 1913 or 1914, I find it impossible that there is no historical coverage of them. Such a deletion proposal would never be made to any London Underground station article. This might have aspects of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all- There is a long-standing precedent of notability of metro stations. Multiple templates for creating such pages exist. Metro station articles for most major cities are rampant. I know that "because something else exists" is not a reason, but in this case, it highlights the accepted notability of metro station articles.jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - what are you talking about, does that mean that stations in 78 cities throughout the world are going to be eliminated, see: Railway stations by city, and that stations in countries throughout the world will also be eliminated, see Railway stations by country, this really sounds like absolute nonsence — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep alll BrasiliaBrasilia (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)— BrasiliaBrasilia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Moebiusuibeom-en, plus nomination is really seeking a merge, not deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other major cities (London, New York, Paris, etc) have dedicated articles for each subway station. No need to single out this one city for second-class treatment. --Noleander (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are certainly train station entries for places like Sydney in Australia, so no reason why Buenos Aires shouldn't have theirs.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the sake of consensus I will switch my vote. I am smart enough to know when I might be seeing things the wrong way, and adult enough to admit it. I don't fully agree with the reasoning that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I will go with the flow on this one. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...good going dude — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no delete !votes are presented herein other than the nomination. Also, thanks to User:Michig who worked to establish the notability for this topic. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay (band)[edit]

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

This indie rock band from London appears to fail WP:N. This topic passes point #5 of WP:BAND, having released albums on at least two notable independent record labels (Fortuna Pop!, Truck Records), but this alone may not be enough to qualify topic notability due to a lack of independent reliable sources about the band. Per WP:BAND, a topic "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", but this does not guarantee notability. Sources in the article do not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (LastFM, which has a conflict of interest in selling their tracks and albums, Myspace and Indieworkshop). Several searches in GNews archives and GBooks have not yielded coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per nom's own words --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two albums on Fortuna Pop, coverage from Allmusic, Lancashire Telegraph. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 16:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Artist (Season:1)[edit]

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

This article is about a single season of what I am assuming is a tv show, there are also separate pages for seasons 2 and 3. However there is no page for the show itself, all three pages only contain a list of contestants with no context or references. I cannot find any information about the contest with Google and it is not on imdb. It doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Likely hoax, fails WP:V. Odd that the Wikia version of this apparent hoax has entirely different cast. [42] --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three seasons. Fails WP:GNG. — ^Wylie_Coyote 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Brothers[edit]

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

Originally speedy deleted, re-created and I feel uncomfortable about speedying it again. Essentially, this band's only claim to fame is that some of the members helped to write a song which appeared as a filler on an album of another, notable artist. As notability is not inherited, I feel this band doesn't meet the notability guideline. There is one interview (from a weak source) referenced in the article, but aside from that the only sources I can find are entries on websites that review bands for weddings (which, I feel, speaks in itself about the significance of this band). Ultimately, fails WP:GNG, and notability is not inherited. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and insufficient explanation provided by the creator. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my article on "The Young Brothers" Thank you so, very much to whomever it was, for helping me clean up, or propperly construct my The Young Brothers article. The Young Brothers' career achievements, are remarkably & extraordinarily noteworthy, considering their direct association with Kid Rock & the Cinderella type story, behind their co-write with Kid Rock called, "Redneck Paradise". It's hardly an album filler. I have heard the song, which can be found on youtube, and it is likely to be Kid Rock's hit song off the "Rebel Soul" album. It's not everyday, that a song written by two struggling, economically challenged brothers, gets used by a major label artist, to re-names a Bahama island destination, for a company such as Norwegian Cruise Lines [43][44]. If you have any other advice, that you may offer, to help me get my article approved, I would greatly appreciate any help you might care to offer! Thank you again, so very much! Tybllc (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there. As I pointed out above, the problem with your argument is that notability is not inherited from other subjects (in this case, Kids Rock). In order to warrant an article of their own, The Young Brothers have to establish their own notability independent of Kids Rock, or anything else. In order to do that, we need to find good, independent, reliable sources to verify the information. One of the links you've provided above is the one decent source in the article that I mentioned in the nomination, but aside from that I can't find anything else, and one is not enough according to the general notability guideline. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must "CONTEST" your deleting my The Young Brothers article, based on the fact that my The Young Brothers article does unquestionably meet Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" Requirements, following criteria for both A. "musicians & ensembles", as well as B."composers and lyricists".
1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.Wikipedia:MUSIC
  - Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "As co-writers, will have a single "Redeck Paradise" off Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album on America's national music charts", soon after it's scheduled release by Kid Rock, as a single come Spring of 2013.
  - Criteria for composers and lyricists: "By having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition".) Wikipedia:MUSIC) by their "CLEAR MENTION "AS A BAND", & CREDIT" for co-writing (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, in Billboard Magazine's November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco." (New Releases - Kid Rock - Rebel Soul - Track By Track Review | Billboard Magazine | billboard.com) As well as having co-writing credits for "Redneck Paradise" on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album.
    This composition, is clearly, extraordinarily "NOTABLE", (of which I have already provided & referrenced the truthful fact) that it has had a Norwegian Cruise Lines, Bahama Island destination & resort, named after it. <- "THIS" I must insist, is an extraordinary achievement of "NOTABILITY", that is NOT "inherrited" as you say, but rather, a "DIRECT" achievement of "NOTABILITY" achieved by The Young Brothers, & deems my The Young Brothers article, worthy of being approved, based on wikipedia's own requirements!! The Young Brothers were mentioned, & creditted for the composition, as a band, in Billboard Magazine, under Track 6 "Redneck Paradise" [45]
Again, I do "Thank you" kindly, for your consideration. Tybllc (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't relevant either. Firstly, I don't think it's at all well-established that the recording is notable - it hasn't even been released as a single as far as I can tell. In addition, contrary to your claim to have proved the song's notability, the only source you have provided is one interview with the band (not independent) which doesn't analyse it in a critical way, and only exists as a commentary on the novel fact that a nothing band wrote a song for a something album. The fact still remains that they are a nothing band.
  Even if all the above wasn't true, your argument still doesn't stack up, because you're deceptively trying to use WP:COMPOSER as the standard for inclusion, when the guideline that should actually be applied is WP:BAND (this is a band after all). WP:BAND is extremely inclusive; there are 12 criteria which confer notability, but this band doesn't tick any of them. In fact, the guideline specifically states that bands which are famous only for a contribution to a notable larger piece of work, a stand-alone article is not appropriate.
  So, to summarise:
  1. The song isn't notable anyway and has never been released as a single.
  2. Even if it were, the band still wouldn't warrant their own article as this is their only claim to fame.
  3. You're trying to guideline-defraud contributors to this discussion by quoting the wrong inclusion guideline. The correct guideline is WP:BAND; all the criteria of which the subject fails. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respectfully...
    May I draw your attention to the Steely Dan article, which (all significant accomplishments aside) states,
    "Steely Dan" is an "American rock band" consisting of core members Donald Fagen and Walter Becker.
    The band's music is characterized by complex jazz-influenced structures and harmonies played by Becker and Fagen along with a "revolving cast of rock and pop studio musicians".
    I bring this to your attention, because The Young Brothers is also an "American rock band" consisting of core members Eric Young and Jason Young, &
    The band's music is characterized by Rock structures and harmonies played by Young and Young along with a "revolving cast of rock studio musicians", (which at the moment, Gary Gilbert (former session player for the rock band Kansas, is their sessioning bassist).
    It seems to me, that your going out of your way, to downplay The Young Brothers significance as both musicians & composers. And I don't appreciate your hostile mud sling'n, in referring to them as a "Nothing Band" lumped in with "Wedding Bands" who wrote a common "Filler Song"!
    This song, "Redneck Paradise" penned originally by these composers, has just had a Bahama island named after it. So, you're telling me, that such is a common occurance, deserving of no "Notability" much less, your respect???
    Tybllc (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - "...our sessioning bassist"? Are you a member of the band or connected with them? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am their manager! Tybllc (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this says everything that needs to be said. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "THE" The Young Brothers article...
I have corrected the article, to exemplify that (as comparable to the Steely Dan article regarding band vs composer structuring) it clearly credits the individual composers, or as the Steely Dan article calls it, "CORE MEMBERS", so that it now justifyably meets the Requirements, following criteria for both (A). "musicians & ensembles", & (B)."composers and lyricists". Wikipedia:MUSIC
1. Criteria for musicians and ensembles: (2) "As co-writers, will have a single "Redeck Paradise" off Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album on America's national music charts", soon after it's scheduled release by Kid Rock, as a single come Spring of 2013.
2. Criteria for composers and lyricists: (1) "By having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition".) Wikipedia:MUSIC) by their "CLEAR MENTION "AS A BAND", & CREDIT" for co-writing (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, in Billboard Magazine's November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco."(New Releases - Kid Rock - Rebel Soul - Track By Track Review | Billboard Magazine | billboard.com) As well as having co-writing credits for "Redneck Paradise" on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album.
  Please re-evaluate "THE" article, & tell me if it now qualifies based on the merits of the individual composers, or core members.
  Thank you kindly again, for your patience & help! Tybllc (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing the wording of the article to try and make it conform to your view of reality does not change the fact that this is a band, and the notability governing bands is WP:BAND, and that this band fails that guideline. Also, please note that comparing this article to other examples of poor practice is not a particularly compelling argument.Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment feel free to trout-slap me for asking, but does Tybllc stand for "The Young Brothers, LLC"? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haa.. That is actually an honest question Sue, & I could fib & say "NO", but the truth is it does. I am their manager, as I have already admitted such to Basalisk above. I am aware of the C.O.I. guidelines, & I am doing my dambdest to be completely objective. But if such, is that much of a risk, I can easily pick up the phone & find or hire someone else to author the article. If we may please put the "C.O.I." topic aside for just one moment? And if you will please, kindly observe the corrections I have "Objectively" & "Accurately" made to the page, I am sure that you will find, that it does meet the requirements of "NOTABILITY" that Wiki's guidelines demand. Please, go & "OBJECTIVELY" take a look at the page now?.
  Thank you kindly.
  Ps. @ "Basalisk" Please answer one question... (All notable accomplishments aside) How is it not bias, or favoratism on the part of Wikipedia, to let composers Donald Fagan & Walter Becker get away with qualifying by Wikipedia as (Steely Dan) a band, when they are actually "NOT" really a band, but rather, composers, yet if I cite their already set precident, I get told, "comparing this article to other examples of poor practice is not a particularly compelling argument"??? Maybe someone should "Nominate the Steely Dan article for deletion", being that you've just called it "poorly written"??? I really don't believe that I am the biased one in this discussion.
  Tybllc (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a vanity page of nonnotable band. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tybllc, read User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. This is an encyclopaedia, not a band database. Things get in here by being already documented parts of human knowledge. Wikipedia:Notability explains that quite clearly.
Steely Dan#References shows just some of the published independent documentation for Steely Dan. There's even a book in there. At The Young Brothers#References, in stark contrast, you have an empty page with a Flash box, an advertisment, a press release, a band interview, a news article about another band, and a blank page with another Everywhere Girl on it. We are encyclopaedists. We don't care that you think that you're as good as Steely Dan. We're not in the business of rating bands. This is an enyclopaedia. We care about the existence of proper, published, independent, reliable, in-depth documentation of subjects. So where are the independent, reliable, published books, articles, and so forth that document this particular band? You'll get exactly nowhere repeatedly going on about how other musicians are "not a band", because that is completely irrelevant here. Cite sources and show that this is a properly documented subject that can be written about and checked against published sources.
Oh, and go to Wikipedia:Changing username and get your account name changed, too. It's a fairly easy process. Corporate and promotional account names are not allowed, here. Someone spotting this is likely to disable the account if you don't.
Sources! Sources! Sources!
Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of points made above

Regarding the article in question, "The Young Brothers" that I have created.

Please understand, that I am a "newby" to Wikipedia, meaning that this is my 1st. article, & it has been a valueable learning experience for me. The biggest mistake I had made when I begun the article, was that (not realizing that I had to) I did not make a clear enough destinction to point out that "The Young Brothers" article, is about 2 brothers & "composers" who are only "Regarded" as a "band" by choice, because they perform as such with the accompanyment of hired performing musicians, for which I unintentionally made the error, of leading you to believe that this article was about a band & not about 2 composers. I do appologise for my mistake, & I thank you kindly for your critiques in pointing this out to me.

You may, or may not choose to delete "The Young Brothers" article, but I just wanted to say, that I have been trying my best to clean up the article, & clearly draw the distinction, that it is in fact, an article about 2 brothers & "composers", Eric Young & Jason Young who are uniquely regarded as a band because of their choice to perform with the accompanyment of hired performing musicians. I do contest it's deletion because I strongly feel, that it meets Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" Requirements, following criteria for "composers and lyricists".

It seems clear to me, that The Young Brothers meet Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" Requirements following the criteria for "composers and lyricists", for having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition", by having co-writen (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, for which they are not only clearly listed on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album as co-writers, but they are also accredited in Billboard Magazine's November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco." [[46]] I also believe, that this composition, is also clearly, and extraordinarily "NOTABLE", for being the 1st & only song, to ever have a Norwegian Cruise Lines, Bahama Island destination re-named after it.[[47]] <- "THIS" I must insist, is an extraordinary achievement of "NOTABILITY", for a composer, that is NOT "inherrited" & in my oppinion, worthy of the article's inclusion, based on wikipedia's own requirements! Please see -> [[48]]! :)

Thank you kindly for your consideration. Tybllc (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per GNG or any other criteria I can see. --No unique names 22:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have gotten brief side mentions for having a song on the Kid Rock album, and that's about it. If and when they achieve significant coverage from reliable sources, then we should have an encyclopedia article about them, not the bio from the back of their 8x10 glossy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hobbes Goodyear! I understand now, what it is you are seeking to meet the criteria, if you should decide to delete, I will try again at a later date with reliably sourced criteria verification in hand! For the record. This article is not derived from the band's glossy picture bio. On the contrary, The band just took it's Bio, from the wiki article's draft that you are voting down here!...lol Once again, I do thank you all kindly for your time & consideration. This has been a valuable experience for me, as a "NEWBIE" to Wiki! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.99.136 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may be a cse of it being too soon for an article. Co-writing a song included on an album of a significant music artist is quite an accomplishment. However, that is not sufficient to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. At this point, any success is speculative. Nop prejudice to recreation in the future is they recieve significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand Whpq. Thank you for your kind acknowledgement regarding the possibility, of the article's future Wiki potential! If I had not tried creating the article now, I would not had learned of Wiki's procedures. Please forgive me for my ignorance in contesting you all so strongly. It has really taught me alot, & I owe you all a great big "Thank You"! Tybllc (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)tybllc :)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpiss[edit]

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

This punk rock band appears likely to fail WP:N. The band released one album on a subsidiary label, so it's possible that the band just meets criteria #5 of WP:BAND, but this may not be enough to confer topic notability for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are only providing passing mentions from Google Books. Haven't found any coverage in Google News archive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom's own words --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi Sue. Thing is, though, is that WP:BAND, part of the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline page, states that a topic "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", rather than that the topic is automatically notable if it meets at least one of the criteria. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And one album is not multiple albums so it doesn't meet #5. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot even find the books that Northamerica1000 alludes to. All that I can turn up are album listings on WWW sites. The article cites no sources, and I am unable to find any. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hello Uncle G. Here are the book sources I found from customized Google Books searches: [49], [50], [51]. They're all passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other two are just one line album listings, but the one in Maximum RockNRoll looks like a CD review. I presume that you have read it. Is it mainly reviewer opinion and short on facts? Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a two sentence review in Melody Maker (by Trevor Baker, 15 May 1999 in Volume 76, Issue 19; ISSN: 0025-9012). Nothing that adds up to significant coverage in multiple independent references. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable, wikipedia doesn't care about oft garage bands. –BuickCentury Driver 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight (band)[edit]

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

This band from Dudley, England appears to fail WP:N. While this band may meet criteria #5 of WP:BAND, having released an EP on an independent label (Fat Wreck Chords) and an album on another label (Repossession Records; status as independent or "important" per WP:BAND is unknown), this may not be enough to confer overall topic notability for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets criteria --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Enough releases that they're at least close to being notable. There is a review at Allmusic. Most of the other coverage I found relates to the stabbing of Jack Turley, but it at least confirms some details: [52][53][54][55]. A bit thin unless anyone can dig something else up. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some more (relatively weak) refs to the article. With those, Michig's above and those presented by Michig in the last AFD there is enough coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the nominator's withdrawal and no outstanding !votes for deletion. It is felt that the topic has suitable sourcing in the Japanese language even if not in English. My recommendation is that we encourage editors better able to translate and provide such sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Koshinaka[edit]

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

Delete, artist is not notable by himself. Sources include IMDB, MTV beta and doesn't indicate that the artist passes notability guidelines. Has been multiple times recreated, if general consensus comes back as not notable can we please salt? It is possible there may be sources in Japanese that may show notability so japanese speaking editors are encouraged to help shed light on anything we are missing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs, the article was deleted because of "copyright violations". Although it didn't DIRECTLY CITE or COPY anything from another cite, it was too similar to another page. So I took the time and effort to edit it, to make it completely independent, and also to create the most complete and documented page on the specific artist. I am sure you won't consider a 10 years career as "not notable". And, as I already indicated, you already have TWO PAGES on Wikipedia English, to which I directly link through this article. Is is definitely not minor, not undocumented and not isolated. It is part of a bigger subject which you are already touching. And, if you wish, I can continue to post on matters related to the subject, enriching even further the encyclopedia. It was my fault in the beginning, for maybe not understanding correctly the guidelines, but I made sure that everything is in order. NB: if you do not personally know an artist, it doesn't men the artist isn't relevant. I'm sure you never read Mihai Eminescu. But he is the national poet of my country, Romania. - which also explains why I am creating this page in English - is it required and necessary, since this is not a local artist I am referring to - I deeply regret the troubles cause and I think you for keeping an open mind and a positive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixuca (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources: http://www.mimu-net.net/news.php?newsid=1142 http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/japanese-actor-makoto-koshinaka-arrives-for-the-red-carpet-news-photo/83020662?esource=life_license http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,4418147,00.html http://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000077740 http://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000081731 http://natalie.mu/music/news/79889 http://www.bsnnews.com/news/index.php?NewsID=15494 http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ichVUkXitDm/Bangkok+International+Film+Festival+2008+Day/VVj55dJPlHf http://www.realtec.jp/ http://mastermind.seesaa.net/ http://www.thaiticketmajor.com/concert/concert-detail.php?sid=1608&la=en http://fcmen.jp/ http://www.club-zy.com/freepaper.php

I will find others until tomorrow. Just let me know if you see those. We are doing our best. And thank you very, very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixuca (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am inclined to keep having watched this video - anyone getting that reaction from a chatshow appearance in what to him is a foreign country can safely be regarded as 'notable' I think. I would say that it is very likely that there are sources in Japanese that show notability. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Found an article about him specifically in The Nation "Makato" The Nation (Thailand), 22 September 2010. I found another 10 articles referring to him playing, and mention him in some way at festivals. He seems to be somewhat important....I'm sure there would be more Japo language sources covering him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry Hell (a reference to the name Hell in a Bucket in this scenario) but I am not that profecient in Jap, although I do can comprehend a certain level of Simple Jap, since it incorporates some Chinese. Anyway, I'm sure there are many editors here that understand Jap. Let's ask them. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear sources are available in Japanese and the video link from Michig does show some notability, I'm prepared to withdraw the nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do a search and see what I can find. I can only read a few Japanese characters, but I had a fairly good translation program on my browser.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I can see on her page on the Japanese Wikipedia, it looks like she's either appeared on several shows and/or did the theme songs for several dramas. Also, if all else fails then she could be redirected to Lucifer (band). I'm trying to search, but it's a little difficult since there are so many "junk" hits and the Google news archive is being difficult.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The artist actually starred as an ACTOR in everything listed on this page :) I couldn't use as reference YouTube, as you can imagine. But I saw I can post here materials, for your personal consideration. So, if you need further documentation, watch this video, this video and this video (There are a lot more, for your reference). Redirecting to Lucifer (band) is not really relevant, since it covers only 4 years of the artist's activity (of 13 years). This page is meant to document, aiming to be the most complete information page. In a personal note, if you want the best criteria for notability... I am Romanian. I am just starting to learn Japanese. And I KNOW about this artist, as do many other persons from other countries. If this doesn't count for something... :) Let me know how I can help further. Felixuca (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special thanks to everyone who I see took time to help and improve the layout of this page!Felixuca (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination. I found some sources from the Gnews archive search below, including [56] and [57]. I will be revising my search criteria for sources to include using the Find sources template – some searches directly at Google News archives and searches from this template are sometimes yielding different results. This topic at least meets WP:N. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbs[edit]

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

~~A band that appears to fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Several source searches, including customized ones such as [58] and [59] have not provided any coverage in reliable sources.~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry's fourth studio album[edit]

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

Unsourced + most of the data are invented + it's too early. WP:CRYSTAL ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL: there's no release date and no track listing and the article is largely made up of uninformative quotes rather than facts or critical comment. Any encyclopedic content could be merged to Katy Perry but there's precious little of that. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, but I'm not sure it's needed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's no title for the album yet, no release date yet, just 100% news material and Wikipedia is not a news site. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all comments above, plus clearly violates WP:CRYSTALBALL Ar re 05:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Ersland[edit]

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

Subject of this article is non-notable and was brought briefly into the media spotlight nearly four years ago for shooting an unarmed robber. Apart from this single event, the subject has no other reason to be on Wikipedia and fails the Notability requirement. The article itself has mostly been written by a single user and contains heavy POV issues and Original Research pertaining to the causes and motivations of the crime. Recommend Deletion. OberRanks (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not noteworthy enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, widely cited in firearm/carry permit training. Jakiah (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was as follows:

Keep Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror although there may be a renomination later. During the discussion the nomination withdrew his support for deletion of the two games, and that leaves two delete votes, one citing that the games are "lacking in depth coverage" without further analysis and a "per nom", later the nom as we saw, has withdrawn the nomination statement. My role here is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion (there is not) or if there is any policy violation in the article that mandates deletion (given that some possible sources have been proposed in this discussion, the problems may be surmountable). As such, I find that any consensus that might be here is closer to keeping than it is to deleting.
No consensus on GFI Russia and Game Factory Interactive. Both Odie5533 and Hellknowz have both advocated merging these together, although Alex Spade has objected to that. I am at this point unable to assess the pros and cons of merging them, so I leave that up to regular editorial practices. If someone thinks they can be merged neatly, they may be bold and do so.

The debate is slightly confusing because there is a bundle of nominations here, and in hindsight the bundling may not have been the best idea. (But this is very much in hindsight, where we have the added benefit of seeing how the debate actually developed.)

I note that the sourcing currently cited in the articles is still imperfect in some of the areas that provoked this AFD, for example many of the sources are not independent of the subject and others are iffy on reliability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Factory Interactive[edit]

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

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

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

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

Tagged for notability since Feb 2009. Cursory search did not turn up any RS. There may possibly be some Russian language sources, hence bringing it here. Also nominating its subsidiary articles. Spinning Spark 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are GFI, GFI Russia, ALFA, Paradise (in English) and further by links.
Paradise and ALFA (in Russian) in Igromania magazine. Alex Spade (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason to suppose that any of those are WP:RS? Moby Games is a wiki and appears to allow anyone to edit. There is no evidence of any editorial review process: no chief editor, no editorial board, no staff jounalists, no named journalist on article bylines. The Russian site seems to be much the same, although I do not read Russian, this page seems to be inviting submission of articles. All the links you provided are to one of those two sites. Spinning Spark 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, MG is allowing outside editing, but it gives you links to other sources. You can analyze them.
Igromania is one of lead Russian video game magazine (printed, not just electronic). It has chief editor, editorial board and staff. But it (and most of other journals/magazines/newspapers) invites free-lancers as well.
ru:Cnews.ru - is one of lead Russian electronic news site about computers, IT and high-techs. Mist-land (lattely GFI Russia) on Cnews.ru: [60], [61], [62]; GFI (parent company) on Cnews.ru: [63], [64]. Alex Spade (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because MG links to reliable sources in no way makes MG a reliable source. In any case I am not seeing those links and where they should be, if really reliable, is in the articles. Igromania and Cnews, though, sound more convincing. I'll shut up now and see what others think. Spinning Spark 18:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, those links don't make MG a reliable source. Those links may demonstrate notability in themselves. I just don't want to copy-paste them.
For examples, ru:Game.EXE (in article about Paradise) was another of lead Russian video game magazine (currently closed); GameStar (in article about Alfa) and PC Games (in article about Paradise) are ones of lead German video game magazines. Alex Spade (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All and merge GFI Russia into Game Factory Interactive if another editor supports the merge. Otherwise both should probably be kept. Original comment: These probably should have been nominated individually. Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror appear notable; I added a bunch of references to their articles. I am not sure how reliable itc.ua or ag.ru are (perhaps Alex Spade could check?) but they seem reliable, and the other sources are certainly reliable. I will have to check on the other game and companies. (edit 1) GFI Russia should probably be merged into Game Factory Interactive just so that we can present the company in the greater context of GFI. GFI Russia does appear notable on its own though. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GFI and GFI Russia merging is not a good idea. Historically first one is publisher and localizator primary, second one is developer. Their main historic lines are different enough. The more appropriate solution is merging of Game Factory Interactive + Russobit-M and renaming new article into Belver (new name for Bestway group alliance), but this question must be discussed in new/another discussion. Alex Spade (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I still think that a single article could cover all three of these companies because we have so little content on them all. They are likely all notable in their own right, however, I think they can be best dealt with on a single article and have a section dedicated to GFI Russia. If at some point the article becomes too long, then they could be split off into individual articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two organisations as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ALL per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to reconsider looking at the sources provided on Alfa: Antiterror and Paradise Cracked. Each one has 10 reliable sources offering significant coverage of the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trouble with "per nom"s when nom alters their rationale. :P — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree that the two games pages would benefit from a separate debate and wish to withdraw them. I won't strike them because there are already votes on them, but request that only GFI and GFI Russia pages are considered by the closer. Anyone is free to make another nomination for Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror if they feel it is justified. Spinning Spark 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge Game Factory Interactive and GFI Russia. Here and here are interviews with GFI and here with MiST. Here and here are a dev inteviews on Warfare with mentions of company. Here's a news article. Here is another interview, but I doubt it's a reliable source. I'm sure I could dig out more, but I think that's enough for WP:GNG at this time. Keep Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror as having WP:GNG suitable WP:VG/RS. (P.S. Looking at searches above other games like Warfare (2008) are also most likely GNG notable) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Lungu[edit]

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

None of the sources provided does anything to substantiate this individual's claims to notability: passing mention that she once helped run a fundraiser; a dead link and a blog post. Promotional vanity page. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazov link is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.40.145 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We now have, in addition to the two links described above, a page from a travel promotion site mentioning her name among a list of administrators' names for a film festival; a mirror of that page; and a press release with passing mention of her name. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient evidence of in-depth coverage about this person herself to meet the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google News found two results from this month here and here and Google News archives found nearly all Romanian results with some irrelevant English ones. Her Romanian website and these results suggest she is primarily based in Romania. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- She is indeed based in Romania; still not notable, though. It's a common name; this refers to a financial protection officer in Slatina, while this refers to a lawyer from Botoşani. The Google News hits are about those two rather than this one. Still waiting for significant coverage of the television producer. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Lexis search turns up nothing in English sources. Unless Romanian RSs can be procured, my vote is delete. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bailey (CEO)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Reads like a cv. Some of the writing style is not in keeping with WP but that is a separate issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear notable per our guidelines, article is promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, because he is working in radio (and has been a presenter) he seems to have the knack of 'putting himself out there' rather than a back room CEO, for example the news source already in the article and this one too. I'm willing to believe he may have some sort of public profile. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that editors have a predilection towards creating biographical articles would you change your !vote to weak delete?

-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. It's okay to create biographical articles as long as they meet a minimum standard of notability. My 'vote' is 'Weak' because two in-depth sources (so far identified) are the very minimum number to be 'multiple'. Sionk (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is as I have stated. Also,we shoiuld look at the big picture. Should WP a Who's Who with a smattering of other articles, or should it be an encyclopaedia? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing this page and the page for Sun Broadcast Group, I am convinced they are using Wikipedia in violation of WP:PROMOTION. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --joeOnSunset (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Shorthate (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete (other than the nomination) were posted. (Non-administrator closure.). Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer (band)[edit]

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

Delete appears to fail WP:BAND

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found something that makes me conclude should not be deleted my apoligies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, in other words? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are split between delete and redirect. So, as a minimum, we have consensus that this shouldn't be an article, hence deletion. Anybody who wants to can editorially create a redirect, and then anybody else is free to take that to RfD if they strongly disagree. Sandstein 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-processing hell[edit]

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

Appears to be a violation of WP:NEO Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I was searching for a criteria to CSD this. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is a neologism or is made up. It is a term used by folk in the photography or video fields; the article's creator seems to be a professional photographer. A Google search yields hits for the term, e.g. Post-Processing Hell. If this was an article, I would probably recommend delete because I could not find any reliable sources. But I don't think references are needed for a simple disambiguation page. Mark viking (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - It was until you removed the disambiguation tag and associated links :-) Mark viking (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't even then. It was only a non-disambiguation page incorrectly tagged as a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk)
Redirect to Post-processing, which includes the same disambiguation. Or delete if you must. I spend too many days actually doing post-processing to argue that the term doesn't get said now and then, I just don't see coverage requiring a separate, but functionally identical disambiguation page. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I wasn't aware of the Post-processing disambiguation page. I agree redirect is the better option here. Mark viking (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The disambiguation page Post-processing doesn't explain what the word 'hell' stands for. Hence I think, it shouldn't be redirected. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A redirect to an article that doesn't cover the topic is just a redirect for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is not the Urban Dictionary --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. Replicating the post-processing dab page on the new page doesn't make it a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Post-processing; it's jargon in a certain field, but seems to lack the sources for notability. Additionally, you could argue it's an obvious combination of "post-processing"(in photography) and "hell"(=bad) so in real-world contexts you don't need an encyclopedia article to say what it means. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In real-world contexts you don't need that Wikipedia redirect either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - Actually, we do. It's the obvious preventative measure for stopping the create-nominate-discuss-delete cycle happening again, the next time that someone is so convinced that this is the name that xe starts a duplicate article at this title. We've long used prophylactic redirects at mis-spelled or slang names for exactly this when people have been so convinced of the bad names that they've started articles at them. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there's a need to prevent the article being created again, salting would be the appropriate way rather than redirect, atleast in this case. Redirect shouldn't be done unless the target article explains the redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wrong. Remember that we are writing to be read, and put some thought into the experience for the readers. They know the colloquial name "post-processing Hell"; they put it into Wikipedia; a redirect takes them to the right place. Salting is not for this sort of situation, and doesn't achieve this result. Now go and read Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects for when redirects should and should not actually be done. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, I have read it. 'Post processing hell' is not an alternative name or misspelling to be redirected. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Clearly you haven't read it, otherwise you wouldn't be espousing the incorrect statement above about what redirects are for; as there are plenty of examples there of prophylactic and other redirects that are not "explained by the target article". And clearly both you and JHunterJ also haven't read even the discussion so far on this page, where Mark viking showed pretty much at the start photographers other than Daryl L. Hunter using this colloquial name. It's fairly easy to turn up more by duplicating Mark viking's research, if one pulls one's finger out. Here's another photographer from a different continent confirming the colloquial name, for example. Again, neither of you have apparently read or researched any of this. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        It is an individual opinion, not a recognized and published alternative name. Suppose, I write a blog calling it as 'Post processing Heaven', can I create a redirect for it in Wikipedia? --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        See below. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Post-processing per compelling arguments made by users ~~JHunterJ,~~ j⚛e decker, Colapeninsula and Uncle G. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may intend to strike my handle there -- my compelling arguments are for deletion. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So stricken... but your responses to arguments further convinced me of the merits of a simple and cheap redirect that serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a redirect to Post-processing as it is a possible search term. Cavarrone (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible search terms are often best dealt with through search results. Google suggests completing a search on "post-processing" with post-processing scripts folder, post-processing photography, post-processing scripts sabnzbd, post-processing effects, post-processing scripts folder sickbeard, post-processing photography techniques, post-processing of the factorybean object failed, post-processing ir photography, and post-processing failed xml publisher. Those are therefore possible search terms. Shall we create redirects for each of them too? Of should we instead delete post-processing hell and allow it to go naturally to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post-processing+hell&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 ? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post-processing+hell&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 just returns a bunch of false positives and no sensible result, so redirecting readers to the only relevant page sounds reasonable. Cavarrone (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am seriously thinking of writing a blog on Post processing heaven and marketing it to see if someone else creates a redirect for it in wikipedia ;-) --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - You aren't thinking, seriously or otherwise. Daryl L. Hunter is a photographer, not some random person with a pseudonym on Wikipedia. So is this person. This is not you making up stuff from thin air. This is colloquial terminology clearly used by practitioners in the field, to the extent that one person was motivated to write an article under the title. Again: We have for many years employed prophylactic redirects in such cases because experience teaches that where one writes an article at a poor title, others will follow. This is simple good sense and forward planning on our parts. We want readers and writers, who only know the colloquial names for things, to be directed to the right places in the encyclopaedia: the latter so that they can read about the subject and learn the proper name, and the former so that they don't end up creating a slew of duplicate articles at poor titles again and again. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that "post-processing" is also not a sensible result, and there is no relevant page, so the redirect should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Which has been refuted above by Colapeninsula. And if you want to fix post-processing so that readers can find about digital image processing, digital image editing, and digital post-processing in still photography rather than video, you have an edit tool. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you and Colapeninsula agree doesn't mean that my disagreement has been refuted. You've also made the logical fallacy that any problems that result from the application of my view must be fixed by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and probably NEO. --No unique names 01:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Alternative top 10 singles in 2012[edit]

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

Do we need these for third-level subcharts as well as the primary chart such as the Billboard Hot 100 (List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2012) and UK Singles Chart (List of UK top 10 singles in 2012), which already contains such indiscriminant info such as when songs debuted and how many weeks it spent in the top 10 and when it reached its peak, but we should now do this for every chart imaginable? That seems a bit much. Sure it's nice that these songs reach the top 10 in its particular genre but that's info best provided in the article of those songs but not another inadequately sourced summary chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd be fine with listing #1 singles, but we have to draw a reasonable line somewhere, and it's true that this can be adequately covered within individual articles on songs, artist discography, etc. Kansan (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally I don't like these kinds of lists, but there are fewer than 50 songs that cracked the top 10 in 2012. I think that is a reasonable number for a page. I can see myself Googling "Top 10 alternative singles 2012" and it would be nice to have a page with that data. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kansan. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Noise Records. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machinery Records[edit]

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

This record label based in Berlin has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a hard one - if the claims made on that article are true (and this is pre-web) then the label is obviously notable enough. But I can't find a single source that supports them claims. §FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this is notable, but finding online coverage for a label from the 80s and 90s is quite difficult, especially a with such a generic name and the fact that it was a German label. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have recollected several sources in english and other languages: [65] [66] [67] — Ṟ Ṉ™ 22:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the article is accurate, then if feels like there should be more references out there, but they're not in evidence. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Noise Records. It appears Machinery Records only lasted two years before being taken over by Noise. Sionk (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This label went by the wayside in 2001, so internet sources are hard to find. I did a fairly in-depth Lexis search going back to 1994 and I only found one article that mentions Machinery Records: ‘‘Sealing it with a kiss’’, Hobart Mercury (Australia) October 8, 2008

Though the trio were into vastly different forms of music, Snog began recording together in 1990. Unable to generate any interest from Australian record labels, the group travelled to Germany and signed to Machinery Records.

Even the German page lacks secondary sources [68]. This page should be merged with the company that acquired it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Noise Records. I'd say this doesn't quite pass WP:GNG as it stands, but it's a possible search term and there is a chance more RSes could be found somewhere down the line. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short Discharge Time[edit]

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

Delete as a violation of WP:NOR as primary source provided is by the author and user. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is original research, as the article refers to and is based on a primary source. The main problem with the article is that "Short Discharge time" doesn't seem to be a notable topic, in that there are no sources I could find that are independent of the primary source. There are no secondary sources that I could find. Also, it appears that the author of the article may also the author of the primary source, which is a conflict of interest; see WP:COI for details. Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition that constitutes original research 8) but it is definitely a coi too. Hell In A Bucket (talk)

Delete per WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. As I understand it, the creator is not a recognized expert on the topic and the only source is a self-published work written by the creator. If the creator were an expert, it would not be OR (though there would be COI issues which should not be cause for deletion). Joja lozzo 05:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - pure OR, per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR PianoDan (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G3) by NawlinWiki. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gartrice[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NEO can not find any reference to the term online so basically things made up someday

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence/argument of meeting general or applicable specific notability guideline j⚛e decker ^talk 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Tuah Iskandar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an example of an individual who fails the WP:GNG and has not played a professional football match. Cloudz 679 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PROD. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Horribly written and even more horribly outdated. ~~Nevertheless, it appears he's played with Johor FC in the top-level Malaysia Super League for two seasons now, which would pass WP:NFOOTY. Faustus37 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Comment - looks like it, until you check and see the club he played for is not Johor FC but Johor United, who have only played in the non-professional Malaysia Premier League. Although he's signed for the "other" Johor, he is yet to play in the Super League. Cloudz 679 08:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Faustus37 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hoffman[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO - non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has a substantial bio at Allmusic [69] which notes, in part, that her first "album was released to stellar reviews and Virgin Records France put a lot of energy into promoting it, turning Hoffmann into a cult hit in France." Some digging through French Google turns up substantial coverage in sources such as this about her debut album/tour in Libération[70] and this about her second album in Les Inrockuptibles.[71] Also some coverage in English: Billboard[72][73], CMJ New Music Monthly[74], a page in a book about rock music from Virginia[75]. Passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Let's stipulate that second Billboard URL is to an upcoming tour announcement giving very passing mention. That link in particular is not particularly useful. The Virginia music book is likewise passing mention and is of very limited use for demonstrating notability, though it could provide some supporting information surrounding Hoffman's notability. I've templated all but the second Billboard at the article talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable enough --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. As well as the copious coverage at Allmusic, these were easily found: CMJ New Music Report, CMJ New Music Monthly, Les Inrockuptibles, Les Inrockuptibles. Hardly surprising that the PROD was disputed. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I think several of the sources above demonstrate this subject is just notable enough. I'd rather not hang notability on allmusic.com, and I'm glad there's more than that to source decent biographical information. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oscillating fractals[edit]

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

The reference to Mandelbrot's book (which is attached to the term "oscillating fractal") does not contain any discussion of so-called "oscillating fractals". Indeed, I am unable to find any evidence that this term is used in the literature, except possibly in an ancillary way as the juxtaposition of the English words "oscillating" and "fractal". The subject of the article thus seems to be original research. There is, moreover, no useful information contained in the article: it is just a gallery of images. Well, WP:NOTGALLERY. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have to agree with the Nom on all counts. I couldn't find anything about this topic, either. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, indeed apparently non-existent: nothing in ZMATH. Deltahedron (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons.TheRingess (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non delete. Obviously It is original research. I can explain better the theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josep m batlle2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research" is considered grounds for deletion. See WP:OR. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I like all the pretty pictures and appreciate the effort taken to create the article, but agree that the term "Oscillating fractal" does not seem to be notable by Wikipedia standards. I found one reference to oscillating fractals in "Simulating physics with cellular automata", Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, Volume 10, Issues 1–2, January 1984, Pages 96–116, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0167278984902537#, but it doesn't seem to be used in the same sense as used here. For the article to be kept, it needs multiple reliable sources to show notability. Also, original research is not allowed on Wikipedia; see WP:NOR for details. Sorry. Mark viking (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the creator admitting its OR. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No question about it being OR. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I Agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.25.15 (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete Poster has admitted OR.PianoDan (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "iteration of two or more different functions alternatively" any different from iteration of one function, which is the composite? And is there any function that cannot be realized as a composite? If the answer to both questions is "no", then there's nothing here that isn't already in the concept of a fractal arising from such iteration of a function. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in order to clarify this issue, please see the pseudo-code in visual basic in the page, as example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josep m batlle2 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rascals Have Returned[edit]

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

EP from Trevor Hall (singer) that lacks independent notability. EP lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced by discogs and an allmusic listing (no review). I found a extremely short review in American Cheerleader (1 April 2008 by Brittany Geragotelis) starting "You can tell that this 20-year-old cutie ". Nothing significant. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any significant coverage; fails WP:NALBUMS. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Gamma Phi[edit]

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

This article receives massive edits for the past month and have been tagged for many issues but have always been reverted by a user User:Lionsystems and frequently deleting the tags of other editors Lionsystemss (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 11:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will someone familiar with the topic please adequately reference it, thus defusing the whole issue? It appears outwardly notable, but obviously we still need supporting references to demonstrate this.

Then block that grossly bad faith username created just to AfD this whilst impersonating another user. As it's very likely a sockpuppet, checkuser and further blocking would be appropriate too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reported the username to WP:ANI. First response was add uw-username to their talk. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst I acknowledge the mess that this nomination is, the article is even more so. It appears heavily promotional, it is poorly referenced, and it is written in a very un-Wikipedia manner (for want of an actual term). Someone needs to do some serious work on this if it is notable, and there is already a history of multiple usernames that are very similar - User:TgpLionsystems, for example. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; regardless of the background of the source for this AfD, the article lacks citations to independent third-party reliable sources, as required by the verifiability policy. -- The Anome (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after cleanup. It is notable, as probably one of the 5 or 6 most significant Fraternity(/Sorority) in the Philippines, but getting secondary sources on these sorts of Philippine groups can be a *real* pain. It isn't helped by the fact that the number of Philippine sources in news.google.com is minimal *and* the ones that are have lousy retention policies. I've also invited User:Wakowako to comment.Naraht (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have tagged this article *in good faith* before that it needs additional resources as it has only 1 reference which links to the fraternity's own blog. This article only needs reliable resources and needs cleanup. Yes, it is notable and one of the most significant fraternity in the Philippines.--Wakowako (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI've also found the history edit page that it has really receives massive edits which i think has vandalized the article that's why it has been reverted back by User:Lionsystems.--Wakowako (talk) 18:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offence, but you may want to look properly. That user is a COI/SPA account and is either part of a co-ordinated COI/SPA effort, or a major sockpuppeter. Look at the redlinked users without userpages for a start, and look at their contributions - almost every single one is a SPA. Lionsystems & co/socks all keep re-adding biased, unreferenced information. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no offence taken, and I agree that the edits of Lionsystems are biased and self-promoting. But for me, Keep the article as it is notable, only needs sources and cleanup to be more of an "encyclopediac" article.--Wakowako (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as one of the most significant fraternities/sororities in the Philippines, it's notable. Too bad most of Philippine media isn't in GNews for some reason. Article needs a lot of work, though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Gamma Sigma References[edit]

Oddly enough the Tau Gamma Sigma article looks at least on the surface well referenced. This the strongly connected Sorority to Tau Gamma Phi. I'm not sure if a stronger check would help with bringing Tau Gamma Phi to acceptable levels or would make Tau Gamma Sigma appropriate for an AFD though...

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep arguments directly or indirectly invoked WP:NMMA (there's a long explanation I'll omit here about why I was willing in this case to treat the MMANOT essay arguments as more or less equivalent to NMMA guideline arguments), as well as one that argued that GNG was met and which provided sources to back that claim. The delete arguments focused on WP:GNG and didn't address NMMA. The nomination did not provide an explicit rationale nor evidence for for their view. I find a sufficient consensus exists for keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caio Magalhaes[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it passes WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT (2 bouts for Shooto and 1 for UFC) and he's still signed with the UFC, having at least one fight remaining in the contract. Poison Whiskey 18:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NMMA "Have fought at least three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC" and WP:MMANOT "Fought at least three (3) fights for top tier MMA organizations". WP:MMANOT lists Shooto, and Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) as top tier organizations. he fought in Shooto twice and the UFC once. Kevlar (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the strongest of resumes, but he appears to meet the requirements at WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep Technically yes - and he did win the Shooto matches.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:MMANOT. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per PRehse - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Maybe some day, but not today. --No unique names 00:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:MMANOT, and is an active UFC fighter, so he'll almost certainly do more than pass the bare minimum requirements at that. Also I added a reference from SporTV.com/Globo Esporte to help with referencing (MMAjunkie is a subsidiary of USA Today and SporTV.com is a subsidiary of Organizações Globo and both are quite reliable by the way). Beansy (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2014[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, far too soon, no sources, fails WP:GNG Mediran ^{talk to me!} 08:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not only WP:CRYSTAL but not very useful either. Eeekster (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too early for this article, plus WP:CRYSTAL concerns noted above. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - without enough reliable sources, it's just too soon to have an article about this one. Should probably be recreated in 2014 or 2013 at the earliest, but not now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete with no prejudice against recreation should the guidelines be met, but at this time he does not meet them. No prejudice for WP:REFUND either. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Clarke[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two fights in the UFC (yes losses, but fights nonetheless). If he gets cut, then delete. Luchuslu (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 08:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With 2 losses for his 2 fights and no information about a third I think his rise to notability is in question.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I always agree with everything Peter says. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: He has 2 fights in the UFC, which makes him notable. Why is this JonyBonesJones is coming on here trying to delete all of these articles. We have had an issue with him vandalising pages and now he wants to delete somebody else's work. I don't understand this. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was I trying to vandalize any pages? lol. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Comment He has two fights with the UFC and is still signed to them by all indications (he is still listed on their website as being on the Lightweight roster). A third fight is almost assured at which point he'd technically meet WP:MMANOT standards. I probably wouldn't object to the deletion if he gets cut from the UFC after going 0-3, but I think we should wait to see if that actually happens. Chris Lytle lost his first two fights in the UFC and ended up fighting for them a total of 20 times before he retired from the sport. Regardless, for the nominator, do you have any idea how much harder it is to recreate a page that's already been deleted once than it is to make a completely new one? You're not helping WP:MMA one bit by deleting marginal cases like this when the fighter is still active at the elite level. I would suggest you have more patience. Beansy (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Option Or one could userfy the page and resubmit.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment — I'm pretty sure that it will meet the criteria later, so i stored it on my sandbox. Poison Whiskey 19:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that The version in your sandbox has had it's history trashed, making it breach of the attribution clause of the Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. The way to do this is ask for a WP:REFUND after deletion. The restored version comes complete with history and attribution of editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Besam Yousef[edit]

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

Notability has yet to be established. If he gets a fight against a bigger name opponent, then recreate the page. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure why but your AfD submissions are in error - please read the directions.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He fought Simeon Thoresen and is signed to th UFC, it was hes debut his notability will come, please do not delete the article yet. Greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.221.204.175 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So is that a vote to keep? If his notability will come then thats when this article should be recreated, right now he is not notable and there isnt much point in having an article about him. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to WP:ATHLETE, three UFC fights would secure a spot for any mixed martial artist on Wikipedia. Since this guy would have had two if not for an injury and doesn't seem to be in danger of getting cut, I don't see a reason to delete an article that would likely have to be remade. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually he is in danger of getting cut if he loses again, and he's only had 1 fight, and an almost fight doesnt count. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he lost his next fight he'd be in a similar situation as Tom DeBlass, who wasn't getting cut after going 0-2 in the UFC (but retired on his own choice). It seems inevitable Yousef will fight at least three times in the UFC. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tom DeBlass retired before he was cut - saw the writing on the wall. Only 2 fights with 2 losses take one out of the running for notability. Should be AfD'd too.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the third fight was going to happen in a a month or so I wouldn't push for a deletion but that is far from the case.Peter Rehse (talk)

Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has only 1 fight for a top tier organization so he doesn't meet WP:MMANOT, nor is he on the verge of meeting it. Papaursa (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. --LlamaAl (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep He is still signed to the UFC, in his first stint. If he washes out within, oh, two or three fights and doesn't do anything else notable in his career I wouldn't terribly object to his deletion, but as it is this is premature. Beansy (talk) 11:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Anybody who has fought for the UFC is a big enough figure to be considered notable. Willdawg111 (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring the consensus notability criteria at WP:MMANOT. Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MMANOT. He's had only 1 fight for a top organization so assuming he'll have 3 is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sirwan Kakai[edit]

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

Not notable as a fighter - very few fights, none top tier Peter Rehse (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete He has no fights for a first or second tier MMA organization. Fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Papaursa. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. If the article is substantially improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No fights in a first or second-tier organizations or anything else that makes him stand out from hundreds of indy prospects right now. With his 8-1 record it's not impossible he might become notable some day but he's in no way close to that point right now. Beansy (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 03:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland gubernatorial election, 1998[edit]

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

This article was created 4 months ago, and the only work done so far has been tagging for sources and category adding. It is entirely unsourced, so all of this information may not even be true. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The vote counts are accurate – see this table. No opinion on notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A state wide election is generally considered a clearly notable event. Basic description and DoctorKubla's ref added to article so it's not just an infobox. Improve the article, not delete it. -- KTC (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly good stub in a well-recognized as notable set of articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's part of a well-established series of articles and we don't delete stubs just for being stubs, anyway. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elections are almost always notable. This page is a perfectly good stub. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A state election is highly notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rightly or wrongly, "the article doesn't have sources in it" is generally not an argument for deletion, only "there are no sources for the article". For a state gubernatorial election, it's implausible to think that said sources don't exist. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP AND CLOSE This is about a gubernatorial election. What could be more noteworthy? I find it very difficult to believe that this is a good faith nomination, but just in case it was, I would strongly implore the nominator to read Wikipedia policies, and then request a withdrawal of this nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. thanks to Odie5533's despamming. JohnCD (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairway Solitaire[edit]

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

Advertising Codyrank (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is spammy as all get out, but it might be notable enough to keep. I'm finding reviews for it: here is one from a site that looks like an RS based on its about page. There may be more. But it might be advisable to delete and start from scratch. I don't have a strong opinion either way. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I copy edited the whole article. The subject is notable because it has received coverage in reliable sources. SlideToPlay, Pocket Gamer, and I think TouchArcade are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~STRONG Delete~~ This was a horrendous piece of advertising and puffery prior to the efforts of Odie (Thank you for your efforts), but I am afraid it still needs to be delted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds should this article be deleted? The nomination was for advertising, but I believe I have removed all the advertising from the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Odie5533 is quite right. Ordinary editing has already fixed my concerns is not a rationale with any basis in deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I am open to being convinced. I've changed opinions many times before as you all know. I am also human. But I just don't see the notability. Those review sites are not impressive. They are little more than blogs. I don't know that they would even be notable themselves. (Again maybe I'm wrong, it's very possible) I just don't see anything in the regular press or normal media. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my handy User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PocketGamer has been used as a referenced by EuroGamer 2.
SlideToPlay - Some of the founders worked for GameSpot. Has a full editorial policy. Referenced by ComputerAndVideoGames.com, 1UP.com, CultOfMac.com, PocketGamer.biz, CasualGaming.biz.
TouchArcade.com – Referenced by ComputerAndVideoGames, 1UP.com, EuroGamer 2, JoyStiq 2 3 4 5, Technorati, Time, CNET, Kotaku 2 3, PocketGamer.biz, International Business Times

Also, as it says at the top of my User:Odie5533/VG Source Reliability, "This page is for Reliability, not notability. Not all of these sites are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, but some may be reliable enough to be used as sources of information for other Wikipedia articles." --Odie5533 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

148apps.com is also reliable. I added more review links to the article, including CNET, Kotaku, and USA Today. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Ok! That was pretty good. I'm a believer! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those arguing keep assert notability, but no reliable independent sources have been produced. JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com[edit]

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

as mentioned in an earlier prod that was removed, "All content is clearly promoting Chess.com. This article does not mention why the subject is significant. This article is all about its membership, forums etc. This article does not cite any reliable sources." Also, the entire article on chess.com is sourced to chess.com. That can't be reliable. The subject furthermore does not even demonstrate a prima facie case of being notable. No independent sources either. OGBranniff (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator Forgot to put name (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the most significant sourcing that i could find was that it got the "top recommendation" for electronic chess training in Chess for Dummies but that is hardly a significant award and it gets a passing plug in a lot of other books (Computers for Seniors for Dummies (and the Laptops for Srs for Dummies update), How to Make Your Long Distance Relationship flourish Complete Idiot's Guide to Backdoor Adventures ) but those are all textbook examples of trivial in passing mentions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the talk page, the article has had problems for years and hasn't improved. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work but it is an important and notable company and website which has worked to provide education on line and organize real world tournaments et cetera. Phrage Frenta--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 00:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In response to "Tumadoireacht," the problem here (assuming for argument's sake your assertion is 100% true) is that there are no independent, reliable, and verifiable sources that say any of that. We just cannot assume that the website is notable. Therefore, Delete. OGBranniff (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post the links here which says that it has worked to provide education online and organize real world tournaments. Forgot to put name (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tumadoireacht. This site seems to be notable. A quick google search shows that the reliable sources do exist. I aalso saw some print coverage of this site in a magazine, I might have to go dig up now... This article needs work, but can and should be saved. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources exists either in Google web search nor news nor books. How can you say that reliable sources exist for Chess.com? If it exists please post the link here. Perhaps you haven't checked the reliable sources guideline. Forgot to put name (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also did another "quick google search" for chess.com, and the only things that came up was chess.com itself. No third party reliable sources came up at all. I think that Tazerdadog is just blowing smoke. OGBranniff (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of weddings on The Bold and the Beautiful[edit]

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

Recently "un"-redirected. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. To quote the user who made the redirect: WP:Important; WP:Fancruft: this article's subject lacks notability, has no sources and is purely unneeded on wikipedia. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. List of weddings on Days of our Lives was deleted a little while ago, and for the same reasons. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced list, no proof this is at all notable outside the context parent article. For homework, consider List of weddings on Eastenders and list of weddings on Neighbours. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. For additional homework, create a split called List of divorces on The Bold and the Beautiful. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Recently "un"-redirected" without an edit reason why (big Wiki no-no) and never worked on since. ^Wylie_Coyote 15:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That's because the "delete" opinions are notably weak in the light of policy. Yes, unverifiability is a valid deletion argument, but only part of the content is unsourced, so that problem can be addressed by editorial trimming. The "propaganda" assertion is at most a content disagreement, and it's entirely unclear how WP:NOTDIR could apply to this list. Sandstein 18:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Armenian churches in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

This AfD was previously set up without being listed on the logs; therefore, it did not get a proper view from the community. Relisting the AfD appropriately to enable it to have more views (and comments); the comments from the unlisted AfD have been copied below by me in sequential order. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked facts in the article, most of them don't have citation or reliable source. Konullu (talk) 10:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I read the article and most of the part of the article is Armenian propaganda. Therefore, I request deletion for the page. ~~Alismayilov(talk) 11:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC+1)
Comment Your statement that the article is Armenian propaganda is as unsourced as the material you object to. Can we have some reliable independent sources, please. (This applies to both sides, of course.) Peridon (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peridon, this article was created by Armenians, they claim that there are Armenian churches in Azerbaijan, therefore they need to provide references that they actually exist in Azerbaijan. It seems that you are asking Azerbaijanis to prove that they don't exist, is that reasonable to ask this? Sorry, but I don't see any logic here. Best, Konullu (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking that the claim that this is 'propaganda' be substantiated. Is that unreasonable? I'm asking for any evidence available from either side or from neutral parties. Three of the items are blue linked, and blame for the destruction is laid at the door of the Soviet Union, not as a part of the post-independence conflict. Is it claimed that this is 'propaganda'? Are those articles elaborate hoaxes? What I don't want to see in this discussion is statements that Armenian history is lies and similar remarks from single purpose accounts. Hence my comment below. If three exist, why not more? Has anyone actually looked for them? I can't read Armenian or Azeri or Russian. Can any of you? 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)Peridon (talk)

- I read the article and most of the part of the article is Armenian propaganda. i was born in garabagh/fuzuli. And Armenian's history its lie history.Therefore, I request deletion for the page — Precedingunsigned comment added by Garabaghman (talk •contribs) 18:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Here at Wikipedia we require proof. Not what you see - that cannot be proof under our policy of verificationWP:V. We need to be able to check it. Please see WP:RS. Please also note that single purpose accounts who post here without providing what we consider valid evidence will be ignored by the closing administrator. Peridon (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the criteria listed in WP:NOTDIR applies? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that, too... Peridon (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to something like "Christian heritage of Azerbaijan" as this is an encyclopedic topic. Admittedly it's a hard one to keep neutral, but that's not in itself a reason to get rid of the article. JASpencer (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per JASpencer. After such renaming, it can be very much NPOV and has a potential. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably renamed and repurposed) -- The Armenian people have historically been scattered across many countries of the Middle East. Azerbaijan was one of those countries. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, there was a significant Armenian minority in Azerbaijan. To be Armenian is to be Christian (at least by heritage); to be Azeri is to be Muslim, though there is a small number of Azeri converts to Christianity. Accordingly, the hisotry of Christianity in Azerbaijan is an encyclopaedic subject. The war over Ngorno-Karabakh led to the Azeri population leaving there and the Armenian population leaving Azeri ruled areas. It is thus inevitable that their churches have been deserted. Revenge for the wat may well have resulted in churches being destroyed; it may well be that some were Closed due to Soviet oppression of the Church, rather than post-Soviet Azeri actions. The nom complains of unverified facts. That is not a ground for deletion: it calls for improvement by finding reliable sources. V requires that facts should be verifiable, noit that everything should be verified. If information is false then it should be removed. Some of the content is perhaps too detailed to be appropriate for WP: we routinely delete articles on NN churches in UK & USA, but that is not the complaint. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dealmoon[edit]

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

Poorly cited article about a web based company with dubious notability. - Mr X 03:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7: Tagged it as such. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Delete This is when I wish i was an admin --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have declined the A7. It is only necessary to give some bona fide indicate or plausible significance or importance to pass A7. Saying a website has 5 million visitors a month and 618,524 followers passes this very low bar. whether it is actually notable must be decided here. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and very understandable. Can we get a Snow Close? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to pass WP:GNG and obviously promotional. GHits are painfully devoid of any substantial third-party reviews or mentions. §FreeRangeFrog 23:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete definitely not notable enough. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 23:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bitcoin. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namecoin[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic, notability not established. The best I can say is that this is a technology based on Bitcoin, which in and of itself does not confer notability. I removed most of the bare URL sources in the article, because they don't talk about the article topic at all, and most of the ELs violated the EL policy. Additional: I discovered that this was previously deleted and recreated, and I don't see any substantial changes to the quality of the article (solely based on the first AfD's arguments). MSJapan (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I was only able to find trivial mention in four newspaper articles, and all in the context of Bitcoin. The content could be merged with Bitcoin. - Mr X 01:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and merge to Bitcoin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as delete and merge. Merger is a variant of keeping, and involves not pressing the delete button. Deletion or merger. If you want to help the closing administrator decide whether to hit the delete button or not, you must pick one. Uncle G (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage at (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), at the very least, please merge and redirect to Bitcoin, and in that latter case there is then no need for deletion of the page history. Thanks! — Cirt (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably the most talked about DNS alternative technology. It might be a little awkward to shuffle into another article so it seems like it'll be best left alone in this article. --JBrown23 (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. JohnNBurke (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- The most talked about? Sources, please? Nageh (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; the very few sources (reliable or not) that even mention the subject does so in the context of Bitcoin, not as its own subject. If a mention of this does belong in the Bitcoin article, a single sentence mentioning it might be appropriate; merging the article would be WP:UNDUE. - SudoGhost 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean very few sources? It already has two references in the article. I think the qualification for notability is passed even with few sources. --JBrown23 (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has one reference discussing the subject, and another mentioning it in passing while discussing something else. That's not much for significant coverage. - Sudo Ghost 13:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N asks for significant coverage in reliable sources for a topic to be notable. Nageh (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bitcoin. The Namecoin project apparently maintains its own page for mentions and publications on Namecoin. There isn't much, and while the quality and extent of coverage in RS sources does not warrant a separate article on Namecoin a mention of it in the Bitcoin article is deserved. Nageh (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. If that's all there is to say about this technology, we should at most cover it in the appropriate context. The indiscriminate heap of perhaps-relevant references is headache-inducing. Sandstein 18:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bitcoin. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoinj[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic. Notability not established, no RS, no hope for expansion. Article created by SPA. MSJapan (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article needs life support, but two of the sources are reliable (1 and 3). The subject may not be significant, but may meet WP:WEBCRIT for possible inclusion. - Mr X 01:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bitcoin. Perhaps if this gains traction, it will warrant it's own page at some point. In the meantime, the fact that Google has introduced an open source version of Bitcoin is certainly worth a note. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. It doesn't have enough content (or established independent notability) for its own article right now. If it belongs on wikipedia, then it will fit perfectly in the parent article. It can always be split out later if needed. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable or expandable. --Scochran4 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Belongs in the main Bitcoin article until or unless this implementation of Bitcoin becomes notable in its own right. Circumspect (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bitcoin. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Foundation[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG, also NOTINHERITED, and "existence is not notability." This article was likely created to create false notability for Bitcoin (via bluelinks in its article), as this is just one of several articles (all AfDed) dealing with this topic area and created by the same (now blocked) SPA. There are a lot of GHits, but they all lead back to blogs and such that seem to draw on the same Forbes.com article on the creation of the Foundation on 9/26/2012. MSJapan (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC) MSJapan (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Bitcoin. Subject lacks notability of its own. - Mr X 02:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bitcoin, for lack of independent notability. -- The Anome (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bitcoin. Article has almost no independent content, and no demonstrated independent notability. If we have sources covering it, then it will fit nicely in the parent article. If we don't, then it doesn't belong anywhere. — Jess· Δ ♥ 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Your Lord and Master (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Spike Company[edit]

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

Delete, as speculation and WP:Crystal. Sources don't deal with the company merely the possibility of an announcement that could be to the moon and maybe not Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Every single time I write a new article about a company it gets nominated for deletion. One of these days somebody might actually pay attention and assume good faith just to let me have a chance to actually put in some bloody sources to get the damn thing written! This AfD nomination took a whole 20 minutes from the time I started the stub, and even tried to put notices on the article that it was still under construction. At least this whole AfD discussion will be moot by the time the clock runs out to close this discussion. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in essence you do agree that you are writing about a speculative event that happens in the future? If you notice a pattern of things being nominated for deletion you do have the option of doing it in user space until it is ready. Of course nothing says you have to but it might save you the frustration. I understand it's frustrating but it is a option and one that I'd reccomend until the event you are thinking will happen does happen...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a press conference that will happen in the future, but there are enough "reliable sources" that at least mention enough details that not only do I consider the business notable and that it certainly deserves a stub of an article. My mentioning that the press conference will happen is that this particular article seems to be very likely to be a hot bed of editing activity in a couple of days.

Sure, I could have "saved myself some frustration" by putting it into my user space. But really, where in Wikipedia guidelines does it say that you must start an article in the user space? If anything, the reason I start articles like this in the mainspace is in part because I feel that articles like this should start in the mainspace, and I think those who push new editors into the AfC process are simply mistaken deletionists. I should also note that every single one of my articles that I have started in this manner have survived the AfD process, often with a rebuke by the closing admin for having wasted everybody's time with the AfD. This is something that simply should not be happening, and these type of premature AfD nominations are one of the reasons why editors quit Wikipedia, and why editors are not coming into this project any more.

I hate defending my edit every time, and I wish that some time people like you would actually learn how to be cooperative rather than try to squash legitimate efforts to write useful information into Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're putting in effort writing the article but if an article is not within policy it should not be there. If it's about a future event without confirmation it's policy not to have it here. Is there a reason why we should be? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A future event without confirmation? WTF? Have you even looked at the sources I put into the article so far? I have three independent reliable sources, plus a couple of blog posts (that I will admit eventually need to go). The press conference is listed on the National Press Club website, which I consider to be as reliable as you can get for something like that shy of doing original research. This article is completely within policy, as is discussing that future press conference in and of itself if I were to be writing an article just about that particular event, which I'm not. This is no different than talking about the 2024 Summer Olympics in terms of perhaps a future event that has extensive press coverage. There are factual pieces of information about this company, even if they are scant and only deserves a stub. That is precisely what an article stub is all about. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will a Secret Private Manned Mission to the Moon Be Announced This Week? (This is a question no?)
Private moon mission rumour is glimpse of lunar future" (Rumor is unconfirmed or speculative no?)
4th source appears to be a tweet and hardly a reliable source
5th source is an announcement of a press conference with no details.
And your 6th source basically says they exist but they have very little info on the company.

Maybe since it so cut and dry you can explain where I'm wrong. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm asking is that you give me a bloody 24 hours to at least try to write the damn article before you nominate the thing for an AfD in the first place. Besides, did you read the articles or not? Yes, the articles are based upon rumor... but "rumors" that have been sourced by journalists that have inside sources that seem to indicate that the information is reliable. I dare you to name something, with perhaps the exception of the "investors" involved (that is still within Wikipedia guidelines BTW to mention rumors from reliable sources) what in this article is not verifiable and accurate?

Yes, this is something that seems like an April fool's joke if it weren't something serious. If you want to debate sources, take it to the talk page and we can discuss those sources there. I admit there isn't much about the company, but it is apparent that the purpose of the company is to send people to the Moon. I am trying to be careful and not add hype and trying to stick to the basic facts.... sort of why this article is just a stub. Regardless, you keep claiming that this is about a future event. It isn't. This is about a company which plans on having a press conference covering major details about itself in the very near future, and the factual and verifiable information that a press conference will happen has been verified by multiple sources, which also provides confirming information about what is said in the article. Nothing so far is rationale for why this article must be deleted. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hell In A Bucket is giving you good advice. Develop the article in your user space, flesh it out with reliable sources and then introduce it to the live mainspace. Better yet, have an experienced editor review the article before publishing it. If you insist on creating articles on speculative subjects on the fly, you risk having them deleted. It may seem cold, but we all have to play by the same rules. - Mr X 02:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Robert Horning's right, there are reliable sources. Yes, some need to be trimmed, but others are just fine. dci | TALK 01:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the sources are there, and it is a registered company. I say "weak" because this may be another project where somebody has a pipe dream but it never becomes reality. A perfect example is Clive Palmer's proposed Titanic II - well covered, notable, but yet to progress off the drawing board. Blue Riband► 01:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert Horning (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Conditional~~ Keep until December 6. Then, if the press does not report on how bowled over they were with the press conference, the list of confirmed investors and detailed plans, then delete the article. Presumably, this Afd will run until at least then, so I may be changing my !vote in a few days. - Mr X 03:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, simply Keep, the article is well-enough supported already to exist as a stub, permanently. And, I'll offer that I feel bad for Robert Horning, being beset by too-quick-on-the-trigger deletion-nominators too often. I get that a lot too. There oughta be some penalty applied to deletion-nominators, some cost imposed. They impose a cost on you and me and others. --do ncr am 22:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the assumption that Dec 6 announcement bears out what the rumors suggest. WP:TROUT to the creator for rushing to create something on limited and rumored sources that could have waited a few days or be done in user space, but no need to delete this now. Similarly WP:TROUT to the nominator for not giving a few days to develop even if it is CRYSTAL, we're in no deadline to remove material, particularly that which will be in better line within 7 days. (If the company instead had announced they would reveal what they were doing on a date in 2013/2014, then absolutely yes, deletion via CRYSTAL would be appropriate here). --MASEM (t) 22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this company is already notable enough to be getting press coverage in the UK. (sdsds - talk) 05:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to agree, 20 minutes? Really? Why did the nominator not ask the author "Hey, this might be premature, would you mind userfying this until Thursday when we know what is what?" Yes, it is a bit premature, but there's an argument for notability based on pre-existing press coverage (prior to this announcement thing), and that'd be sufficient for a weak keep. Common sense carries the other question - there's about to be a whole lot of press coverage in two days, and we know that to be the case, so deletion prior to that (and prior to the 7 days here) makes little sense. See also WP:TROUT. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally suggest reviewing What Wikipedia is not, specifically WP:CRYSTAL it we have a policy it's important to stick to it. I don't really care if it pisses someone off, they broke a policy and could've waited until this plethora of surfaces that you say might be here will be here and then there wouldn't be a issue at all. Since at this point this will be a snow close, I would suggest it be done now with the realization I'll see you at another AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I started this article was that I thought there were sufficient reliable sources from which to put in a few basic facts and to start a stub of an article. There certainly are a few details that are more than just rumors. It is those facts that I put into the article. As for if it could have been moved to my user space.... you didn't ask and instead became confrontational with me instead of assuming good faith. Perhaps this was premature to publish this article, but that is debatable. I certainly don't see this as a clear-cut policy violation. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I've read the policies, thank you - and I've acknowledged that the article was premature. But sending it to AFD solved nothing. We don't know what would have happened if you had talked to the editor before going to AFD, because you didn't. And now, if you want to come back later and attempt another AFD on this article, it'll be twice as hard because there will be a Keep consensus backing it. Had you asked nicely, the editor might have userfied. They might have backed off a bit. As they note, they get a lot of articles put up for deletion, so maybe dodging that process this time around would have been appealing. 5 minutes of discussion would have saved an enormous amount of headache. (And it seems they agree, as per above) See also WP:AGF. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you happened to read my first comments to the person did indeed politely reccomend userspace..."So in essence you do agree that you are writing about a speculative event that happens in the future? If you notice a pattern of things being nominated for deletion you do have the option of doing it in user space until it is ready. Of course nothing says you have to but it might save you the frustration. I understand it's frustrating but it is a option and one that I'd reccomend until the event you are thinking will happen does happen" ...Not sure how I didn't assume good faith, I was just giving you a counter suggestion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that one of the reasons why I tend to get a whole lot of AfD nominations is in part that I tend to write about what I think are interesting companies, particular for new articles. I'll admit that there is a tendency among people with the New Page Patrol that they have a knee jerk reaction that such articles simply aren't worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Also note that I have a pattern of having those kind of articles accepted and kept when those AfDs happen, so I'm not afraid of them happening... other than to note this is a consistent pattern happening on Wikipedia. I'm tired of fighting these AfDs because they revolve around an assumption of bad faith. I really don't think I did anything wrong here, although I admit that writing up this article may seem to many editors as perhaps a bit early. I would be willing to explain myself as to why I did this too, but I certainly was not given the chance before this AfD was slapped on and I think an AfD is the wrong forum to be debating that issue as well. I also spend more than my fair share of time in non-Wikipedia forums telling people to calm down and let the Wikipedia sausage mill work, particularly when topics get nominated for an AfD. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, endorsing almost completely Masem's comment. My only issue is that also the application of WP:CRYSTAL is misguided. The article is not about an event, it's about a company. The event may be in the future and we don't know if it will happen. The company however exists now, and sources discuss it as an existing entity. There is a difference between the articles Present Notable Company (which is rumoured to do future event X) and Future Event X (which will be done by a company). The second is WP:CRYSTAL, the first is not. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Conditional Keep until press conference on December 6. There are too many startups to allow all to be included on Wikipedia. Lets see what is announced in the December 6, 2012 press conference to make a decision. A list of qualified investors, venture capital funds, experienced involved entrepreneurs should be disclosed. The company does have a few press mentions over the past few days so it may be Wikipedia worthy. 900mill (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the company exists, there are multiple reliable sources, and the company is notable. While obviously more will be known "in the future", and (it would appear) much more will be after the scheduled press conference on 6 Dec, the company is already notable, and meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion. N2e (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to invalid rationaile by the nominator (who also assumed non-notability within 20 minutes of creation). WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to companies. The article is not about an event, it is about the company - which passes WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep due to significant notability of the company, its mission and its founders. Since this is a private company, a lot of information is not published and it is unlikely that a full list of investors will be published in the near future since this is not a publicly traded company (yet). Nonetheless, the company is reported to have already reserved the SpaceX Falcon Heavy at a cost of $120 million and the moon venture is reported to be budgeted at about 2 billion dollars. Parabolic Arc reports that Warren Buffet, Richard Branson and Guy Laliberte are claimed to be among the investors (we may possibly find out in the coming days and weeks). Whether true or not, such reports should be noted with a neutral point of view, including comments on veracity; it is not Wikipedia's role to censor such reports. Since many reputable media are reporting on this company, Wikipedia should not be seen to be censoring such a major enterprise, that would not make any sense, especially considering why Wikipedia was created:

"In 1962, Charles van Doren, who was later a senior editor at Britannica, said, "The ideal encyclopedia should be radical. It should stop being safe." But if you know the history of Britannica since 1962, it has been anything but radical. It's still very, very safe.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, comes from a very radical idea, and that radical idea is for us to all imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That is what we are doing at Wikipedia.
— Jimmy Wales, ... on the birth of Wikipedia, TED Talks

Ergo, Wikipedia should be radical, it should not be playing safe and sitting on the sidelines while this story unfolds. While some argue about the truth of this story, Wikipedia should respect the statements by numerous highly reputable individuals who have joined Golden Spike. Given that the company founders include several former senior NASA officials such the former Apollo Flight Director and NASA Johnson Space Center Director, Gerry Griffin, and planetary scientist and former NASA science chief, Alan Stern as the former head of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate and the former flight director for several of the Apollo missions; then this venture has to be taken seriously.

I support Robert Horning and feel that it is inappropriate that he has been criticized for taking the initiative to create this page on a company that is notable, whether it finally succeeds in establishing commercial travel to the moon, or not. I also feel that it is inappropriate to suggest that this article be developed in private user space, because that would defeat the purpose of collaborative editing on which the whole Wikipedia concept was built. Especially for a page such as this, we would likely end-up with multiple starter pages, all hidden in private sand boxes, which would inevitably lead to an almighty edit war. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a platform for massive collaboration, we can't do that if the subject matter is hidden from the masses, especially for a dynamic and rapidly evolving subject such as this.

Enquire (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the reports of their announcement Thursday. In particular, this detailed profile in Wired: "Golden Spike Company Unveils Plans to Fly Commercial Crews to the Moon", Washington Post piece:"Golden Spike space-tourism company: ‘To the moon!’", and AP Science write-up: "To the moon? Firm hopes to sell $1.5 billion trips". —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Don't Fall[edit]

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

A topic about an Australian pop punk band that appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:N. Several searches, including in GNews archives and GBooks, have not yielded any coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources and likely non-notable. - Mr X 01:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability or of the existence of reliable sources; current sourcing inappropriate. dci | TALK 02:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find brief mentions. No indication that WP:BAND is satsified. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotting (band)[edit]

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

A topic about a Canadian death metal band that likely fails WP:N and very likely WP:BAND. The article states that the band has been featured in international print magazines and indie zines, but not finding this coverage online, so it's difficult to verify if this is in fact the case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources for this group; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kemper Military School. MBisanz ^talk 16:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur M. Hitch[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much notice here, only local references other than crossing paths with Will Rogers. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With much better sourcing, someone like this could plausibly be notable, but in this case all I'm seeing is WP:INHERITED. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theo polisme 02:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've added one reliable source which I found. The subject also seems to have been noted in (SPS) genealogy research.[76][77] -- Trevj (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subject led the school and expanded the campus during a 20 year tenure. Seems to meet WP:Notability. Blue Riband► 01:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't meet the academics' notability guideline; if one does not consider him an academic, he really doesn't meet general guidelines either. See basic criterion 2; he has not, to the extent that sources prove, made a widely-covered or significant contribution to his field's history. I do not believe that serving as president of a military high school qualifies one's article for inclusion, and his tenure does not equate to significant contributions. dci | TALK 02:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Kemper Military School Most of the content of this biography is already in the school article, nearly word-for-word. I don't see any other notability for him and the few other biographical details could be summarized in the school article. Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree with Mangoe above. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mangoe. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Latin American Quality Institute[edit]

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

This page does not show the organization's notability and is written like an advertisement. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've done reference searches and still cannot find something to support the page's notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page was created in 2010 and abandoned. Clearly the creator is neither logging in nor keeping it up to date. Leng T'che (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Appears covered by a couple sources, meeting WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Though there does appear to be some coverage in reasonably reliable sources, I don't think there's significant enough to merit keeping it. dci | TALK 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a few sources through a Lexis search, but they don’t look like they pass WP:RS:

Personal Transformation Expert Francisco Yanez Hits Amazon.com Best Seller List M2 PressWIRE (United States) September 29, 2011 Thursday

Francisco has been awarded as the best Hispanic conference teller by the Hispanic Conference Teller Association and has received the distinction as the best conference teller in 2011 by Latin American Quality Institute.

The Organization of American States (OAS) holds an open session of the Permanent Council The Washington Daybook (United States) December 9, 2009

OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza; Permanent Council Chair Luis Alfonso Hoyos Aristizabal, permanent representative from Colombia; Armando Espinosa of the Latin American Quality Institute; Luis Emilio Velasquez of the Ibero-American Network for Management Excellence; and Gary Cort of the International Organization for Standardization

Dubai Quality Group seals partnership with Latin American Quality Institute MENA English (Middle East and North Africa Financial Network) December 14, 2008 Sunday

Dubai Quality Group (DQG) has announced that it has recently signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Latin American Quality Institute (LAQI) as DQG continues to reinforce its network of regional and international partnerships with various quality-oriented organisations.

Dubai Quality Group Seals Partnership with the Latin American Quality Institute Albawaba.com, (Dubai) December 13, 2008 Saturday

DQG in Latin American tieup TradeArabia (Bahrain) December 13, 2008 Saturday

The majority of the press coverage of this organization covers its merger with the Dubai Quality Group, which doesn't have a page. Unless additional sources can be found, this page does not meet WP:GNG AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to have a fair amount of hits in Spanish- and Portuguese-language media when searching Google News Archive. May be worth someone having a closer look. Hack (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient reliable sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petals Around the Rose[edit]

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

Expired PROD, recently undeleted. The notability issue which prompted the PROD has not been addressed. Nominating for deletion to start discussion on whether the article meets WP:GNG -- Patchy1 08:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:GNG John F. Lewis (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noted in at least one reliable source from 1977. I've not yet done a further search for other sources. -- Trevj (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People simply aren't looking very hard for sources; a Google book search gives plenty of hits. The problem seems to be that people editing the article are dancing around using good sources because if they did, the trick would be exposed. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've totally rewritten the article with better citations. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's more that people are spending so much time and effort for six years concentrating upon writing an unencyclopaedic encyclopaedia article, that they've not expended much on writing properly and providing references. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe's cited sources are not the only ones to be found that directly discuss this game. I found a range of things, from classroom guides for teachers explaining how to use the game as a teaching aid to computer programs from the 1980s in BASIC. There's not a lot to say about this game, it being a fairly simple one, but it does appear to be documented by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD A7). --Bongwarrior (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kuda Bux (band)[edit]

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

A topic about a rock band from Wickford, Essex, England that fails WP:N and very likely WP:BAND in entirety. Source searching has not provided any coverage in reliable sources whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm kind of surprised this article has managed to hang around for more than four years - it seems like A7 material to me. Regardless, I can not find significant coverage found for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 04:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 08:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. It's a band of five blokes that formed at school in some back town. Totally unsourced, no indication of any sources online anywhere, absolutely nothing hinting at any significance or notability whatsoever. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit would seem to suggest the major players in the article were all adolescents. They could have gone on support with Bringers Of Darkness. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7 - this never needed to come to AfD, I would say. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Massachusetts Route 106. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Street[edit]

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

This topic about a street in Kingston, Massachusetts appears to fail WP:N. Google Books and News archives only provide passing mentions and directory listings. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Massachusetts Route 106, which this happens to be. There's no real content to merge, and speaking from the standpoint of someone who grew up in the town next over, it's an undistinguished street in a small town. Ravenswing 23:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Ravenswing. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

This majority of the information of this article exists elsewhere on wikipedia. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 16:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sri Lankan Civil War. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka has broader origins than the civil war and remains a major case study in contemporary texts (e.g., Jesse and Williams 2011; Cordell and Wolff 2010).--Jsorens (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep This is a very important article talking about the ROOTS to all present day problems between Sinhalese and Tamils hence this article should NOT delete under any circumstances,Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.37.73 (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is proposed to delete ?

Ethnic_conflict_in_Sri_Lanka - Only a redirect. Proposed to delete. But finally redirected to Ethinic Conflict in Sri Lanka. Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka - Original wikipage - Proposed for deletion. But result was Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ethnic_Conflict_in_Sri_Lanka Even Ethnic_conflict_in_Sri_Lanka page is deleted, original page will remain as it was since this discussion only applied to page which only intended for redirection. Also someone has moved Ethnic_Conflict_in_Sri_Lanka to Ethnic_conflict_in_Sri_Lanka after the previous discussion Himesh84 04:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep This article contains early historical facts that opened the doors for a 30 years old massive ethnic conflict among the two ethnic groups in SL,deleting an article such as this is an imprudent act Shu-sai-chong (talk) 04:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet of Himesh84
Delete the page, Block Himesh and people asking to keep, promote who asking to delete as Administrators – Early threaten to the EElam propaganda. -Jimmy ( JimmyRajapaksha86 (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article depicting the Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is slated to be deleted :(......My question is "Why is such a important piece of history been deleted and to suit whom ? isn't history one for all and all of history for one ? history has never been known to side with anyone hence keep this important history so that generations will be aware of dark but historically important decades in Sri Lanka,this has shed light on the "root causes" pertaining to this conflict.Why the haste to remove and for whom ? MediaJet (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sri Lankan Civil War Because,Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka this article is violating first two of Wikipedia:Five pillars.Nishadhi (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sri Lankan Civil War which deals with the ethnic conflict. Origins of the Sri Lankan civil war deals with the causes of the ethnic conflict. This is yet another WP:POVFORK from an editor with a habit of creating POV forks (see 1 and 2). The result of the previous Afd four months ago was keep and improve but the editor has done little to improve the article. Indeed he has said he is happy about current content. This and his behaviour over the last week suggests he will not do anything to bring this article up to the minimum standards required by Wikipedia.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Already decided to Keep. Obi2canibe, You have misread it. It is just “keep and improve”. No mentioned about responsible authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.81 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC) Rotten regard 03:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GROMOS[edit]

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

Non-notable software. No independent refs, since all have van Gunsteren as an author (presumably they are involved with the software). No evidence of in depth independent coverage (as required by the WP:GNG) in google. Many people associated with the software appear to be from non-English-speaking countries, so there are possibly non-English refs, but I can't find them. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False information. Stuartyeates massively nominates articles for removal without cause.P99am (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's very close to the claims you made when you removed the notability tag from the article. I look forward to your explanation of exactly which parts of what I've said are false. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Google scholar shows articles mentioning GROMOS independent of the van Gunsteren, for instance, ^[1] and the review article ^[2]. Are these enough for notability? Possibly. If not, however, GROMACS, which is notable, is derived from GROMOS and it appears that researchers speak of GROMOS force fields even if they do not use the program. If this article fails notability, some subset could be merged into the GROMACS article history section. Failing that, a redirect to GROMACS would be appropriate. Mark viking (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a merge and redirect to GROMACS seems like a good option, especially since GROMACS has a New York Times article, which is a solid plank of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm going to go with keep here, because science. We have thousands of articles about barely or non-notable computer applications, people show up to their AfDs to defend them tooth and nail, and here we have a piece of scientific software that seems to be widely used as per the sources given there, and we want to nuke it? I'd say this is certainly notable and encyclopedic. §FreeRangeFrog 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Although a merge may also be acceptable, the content should be kept. While no expert myself, I read the article as not about "non-notable software" as stated in the Nom. Rather, it details a software simulation package in conjunction with details on the atomic force field phenomenon/technique the software simulates. Further, it would seem that this phenomenon/technique has been extensively discussed in academic journals including [Here]. Celtechm (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference you give appears to have 'van Gunsteren' as an author, like every other reference listed here. A matching name is found on the contact page for the software. These are not independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Details so after spending FAR more time that I cared to tracking down more details, it seems that van Gunsteren is an (almost certainly notable) academic per [his bio] and that the software described in this article actually is commercially licensed. Given the narrow scope of this S/W, the academic nature of the work, the fact that the S/W hasn't been released as a new revision in 16 years, and the small licensing fees listed on their site, I think it is disingenuous to consider [this academic group] a commercial software organization and exclude all the academic work of its founder based upon his association to the project, but so be it. There are some references out there that don't cite van Gunsteren like [here], but I fall back upon WP:Common and believe the @800 citations of each of the top three scholar hits for papers written on the subject prove that it is worth retaining. Celtechm (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am rather baffled why someone would think that being mentioned in more than nearly 800 scholarly publications is not enough to meet WP:GNG.T R 13:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to read WP:GOOGLEHITS as to why that is an argument to avoid. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about citations in academic papers here, not web search results. I would encourage you to read the final sentence of WP:GOOGLEHITS. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge See CHARMM as an example of the exact same situation: a notable MD force field and notable software package that implements it having the same name. Deletion is completely uncalled for here, but the argument for keeping them distinct seems weak in light of CHARMM. Jeff.science (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no doubt. GROMOS is not as widely spread as AMBER or CHARMM however, it is a very well known package. I would put it in the top ten of most famous. P99am (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This really shouldn't have been nominated. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If this is a POVFORK, I'm not seeing it, nor is the argument being made here. Operation Pillar of Defense is 140k - my dear old Grandmother has no chance of reading it on her dial-up modem before she needs to go down for her afternoon nap. Won't anybody think of her? Spinning out a section of such a large article is exactly what's supposed to happen. It isn't duplicating the single sentence in the main article, it's providing in-depth coverage in a daughter article. I don't find the NOT#NEWS argument very well made either - maybe it's because I'm not Israeli that I don't open my daily to read about which buses exploded yesterday, but that argument would need to be made, rather than asserted, and it's not. Wily D 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary WP:POVFORK. Had the attack occurred outside of the events of the conflict, it might have been notable enough for an article; however, this attack occurred during the course of Operation Pillar of Defense and the information belongs in that article. Ryan Vesey 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am voting keep below. Ryan Vesey 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the attack was not perpetrated by the combatants proper, perhaps it does merit its own article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. NickSt (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 1) Not sure how this is a "POVFORK" ? What is the POV that is being advanced by creating a separate article? 2) I would think we would be trying to spin off parts of the article in order to trim the very long Pillar of Defense. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I think that most people could tell I have a pro-Israel bias; however, this article is overwhelmingly Pro-Israel and includes information on sweet cakes that was taken out of the original article. That is the definition of a POVFORK, failing to get your way in one article and creating a new article to include that information. Ryan Vesey 21:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of POVFORK is that it concerned subjects that were inherently POV. This idea that your broach -- that editors are tying to include content that was removed from another article -- does not really make sense. What is to say that there will be any more success in the next article? You need a consensus, reliable sources, etc... If there was a consensus for non-inclusion in one article there probably will be same consensus in any other article that will be created.
That being said, regarding the specific issue of Arabs reacting to the bus bombing of civilians by celebrating instead of condemning, it is clearly worthy of inclusion. It is notable and cited by multiple reliable sources. Can you please point to a talk page consensus for removal of this information? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This attack was a small part of the larger hostilities, to make articles for each of the individual attacks that made up the conflict is ridiculous. We do not need this article or any other articles such as one on the bombing of the Dalu family being made as these events are already covered in great enough detail, and linked to all apposite references, in the proper article already. Sepsis II (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the killings of the Dalu family might be a different case, as the case might be brought against Israel in international fora. --Soman (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To the main conflict page. Unnecessary amount of detail that can be condensed and merged. This isn't necessarily a POV fork but it is WP:NOT#NEWS. §FreeRangeFrog 22:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:POVFORK. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons Sepsis II and Sue_Rangell mentioned above. In the latest round of hostilities between Israel and Gaza, much bloodier strikes took place, specialy in the Gaza Strip. Why should this event in particular, which hasn't even produced a single casualty of the almost 170 deaths of the conflict, merit an entry of its own, while much more important ones have not, is beyond me. I take this as further evidence of systemic bias in Wikipedia. Guinsberg (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale given is 'PVFORK" - a fork is the the creation of multiple article about the same subject , but there is nothing to indicate that this event is the same subject as the operation in Gaza. It happened in a different place, by different participants. It has nothing in common with the Gaza operation other than happening during the same week-long time frame. סוף-סוף (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — סוף-סוף (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the fact that people are making this into a POV fork is a problem, it is also, simply, completely non-notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper - not even an Israeli newspaper. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The attack was not perpetrated by combatants in the Gaza operation.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's hard to see how a city bus carrying civilians is a military target. This is the bombing of a bus, reminiscent of other bombings of passenger busses in Tel Aviv. Bus stop (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The attack was widely covered by reliable sources worldwide. The bombing was perhaps motivated by Operation Pillar of Defense, but this does not make it an integral part of the operation. The attack was not, as far as is currently known, perpetrated by combatants of that operation. Marokwitz (talk) 07:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about that. According to the article, what is currently known is that the Israeli police have said that the man they arrested on suspicion of planting the bomb was "connected to the Hamas and Islamic Jihad militant groups", both of which were combatants in Operation Pillar of Defense.[78] Sean.hoyland - talk 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this was a mass-casualty attack carried out by an Israeli citizen (!) of Arab descent, whom perhaps was motivated by Operation Pillar of Defense. The attack is also notable since it was committed against many innocent civilians in the heart of Israel (unlike for instance the many attacks committed against Israeli soldiers guarding the border, which do not get independent articles) simply because the targets were Israeli. Also, as it has already been stated, the event was widely covered in the Israeli media and the international media. Terrorist attacks with significant national or international press coverage are inherently notable. I really do not understand how anyone can think this event is not significant enough to have it's own separate article. I assume you would have never attempted to argue that this event is not significant enough for it's own article or that it is a POV fork if the article was about a mass-casualty attack carried out in the United States or Europe - for example, would you have also suggested that we merge a similar attack carried out by an American-Arab in midtown Manhattan, whom was motivated by the ongoing War in Afghanistan, to the article War in Afghanistan (2001–present) for the same reasons? In any case, the article still needs to be significantly expanded. I would do my best to expand it as soon as possible. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NOTNEWS, part of a larger conflict and appropriately covered at a different woefully named article. A similar article could be created on say this or this or this, each of which was widely covered by reliable sources worldwide. nableezy - 19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheCuriousGnome. POVFork criteria doesn't apply. Only real criteria for deletion is NOTNEWS, which I think CuriousGnome sufficiently addresses. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EVENT - there is nothing that I can see that suggests that this event has had or will have any significant lasting effects that could make it notable. Are there any sources that discuss the bombing that weren't published on the day? I don't find TheCuriousGnome's argument convincing as no event is 'inherently notable' regardless of whether it receives international coverage. SmartSE (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- there are many sources that discuss the bombing that weren't published on that day. Without question. I would think a simple gnews search would make that self-evident.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - edits made to sufficiently avoid WP:NOTNEWS. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered with multiple reliable sources. Claimant assumes this was part of the conflict but the evidence points to other perpetrators.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ryan Vesey. Still a crowd creating articles to showcase national victimism. One could mirror this. There are at least two incidents, often bloody, each day over the last decade, of settler violence. There's an article and list for it. We don't create articles on each event.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rocket attack is fundamentally different from the bus bombing. We don't know whether or not both were ordered by the same command structure. But the bus bomber knew his victims. There can be no claim of unintentionality. A rocket can go off course and kill civilians. But the bus bomber knew that he was targeting noncombatants. This is a different sort of event from the majority of activities taking place during this time. Almost all of the hostilities took the form of rocket attacks. A separate article is justified by an event that stands apart from the rocket attacks both in its technique and in its knowing targeting of civilians. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Nishidani about this being evidence of use of Wikipedia to showcase national victimism. BilalSaleh (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as nominator): I was only slightly confident that the article was a POVFORK when I nominated it. My largest reason for nominating was that I felt like this article was created to include information about the Palestinian reaction that was deemed inappropriate for the article on the conflict. I now realize a few things. First, although the information on sweetcakes was removed, that information is likely appropriate for this article. It would have been given undue weight in Operation Pillar of Defense, but is directly related to the attack here. The comments from others in this AfD have also shown that while this occurred during operations, it does not seem directly related to those operations even if it was spurred by those operations. This was a terrorist attack that appears notable, especially due to the effect it could have had on the ceasefire. That information is not currently included in the article, but should be since it was covered widely in the media. Ryan Vesey 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos. The times are few ... and fewer today than in the past, I believe ... that I've seen wp editors show the maturity and honesty to take a second look and change their !vote, even after taking a strong position. It is a sign of highly commendable personal characteristics, especially in a project that at times seems filled with views that are overly partisan and lacking in some of the more admirable characteristics reflected in Ryan's re-look at his nomination.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I.e.,those who argued on policy grounds for delete are dishonest and immature. Congratulations.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is yours alone. It of course may or may not be true. Indeed, one could perhaps not be faulted overly for viewing your comment as an example of res ipsa loquitur. But that is certainly not what was said or intended.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's no doubt a remarkable form of deductive genius to attribute a self-attributed statement to the person who said it, and make the wrong Latin gloss, which in your regard should read:quid rides? mutato nomine de te fabula narratur.Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—this attack was indeed separate from Operation Pillar of Defense, but even if it hadn't been, that alone is not reason to delete. We have many articles about events within other events, especially on the subject of military history. I've written a few dozen articles about specific battles inside wars myself. The reason this attack is notable on its own is because it is a bombing attack inside central Israel (specifically, Tel Aviv), something that's very significant in the context of the conflict (as outright stated by sources). As a symbolic event, it is one of the most notable events during the period of Operation Pillar of Defense. Having said that, whatever the event's importance, it easily passes GNG. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The stated rationale for deletion (since withdrawn), namely that the article is a POV fork, is clearly false: as a rule we have individual articles on bus bombings. This bus bombing happened to take place during a wider flare-up, so it happened to be mentioned in a different article. The withdrawal of the deletion nomination was correct. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What rule is that again? nableezy - 15:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths, which is one fewer than the dead 10 month old Palestinian infant killed in the Israeli terror attacks on Gaza (as seen in the current issue of Time magazine...) Whoops, thats other stuff doesn't exist, right? I'm sick of this one-sided civil war coverage. Whoops, that's a don't like it argument, isn't it? We'll stick to NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as WP:NOTNEWS which is a soft redirect to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. There is nothing in that policy that keeps this article from being kept. Ryan Vesey 04:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and as to your non policy ramble... we don't have an article for every incident in which a Jewish person was killed by an Arab.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an independently reported mass casualty terror attack is significant and meets WP:N Soosim (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Pillar of Defense. All of the sourcing appears to from right around the attack. This is an obvious WP:NOTNEWS situation. I don't particularly oppose deletion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered in Operation Pillar of Defense, and quite a minor detail in that war anyway. There were ~1,500 airstrikes in Gaza during the same period, each more powerful than the Tel Aviv bus bomb. --Soman (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article has received fair amount of coverage in reliable sources to merit its own article. I agree with Ryan Vesey about WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But now it seems to have been turned into a redirect, why? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SIZE the main article is already too large so it would reasonable to have this article as WP:DIVERSE has been met--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 12:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently, the sources show it to be just one of many bus bombings, and reporting yet another one just because the latest newspapers mention it is a fundamental failure of our not-a-newspaper policy. Come back when you have coverage in permanent sources like books or academic journals, or come back when news media refer to it as a past event against which the present should be measured. Nyttend (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NOT#NEWS, WP:PERSISTENCE and, sadly, WP:Run of the mill and WP:10 year test. Newsworthiness is not notability. Unfortunately, events of this magnigtude are a frequent occurence in just about any armed conflict, and this one is not particularly notable, especially as there were no fatalities. Despite widespread new coverage, there is little chance of this being considered particularly significant next month, never mind in ten years. Also agree that there is some nationalistic victimization going on here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with Dominus. Lacks persistence as an event. WP:NOT#NEWS applies; it might have made wikinewsy, but this is an encyclopedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see persistent coverage of it. The bombing continues to be covered in the news, as reflected in coverage just this week on December 2[79][80][81][82][83] December 3[84][85][86][87] and December 6.[88][89][90] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)

Did you look at these sources before pasting them? They are a collection of passing mentions and another is about government officials getting certificates in a ceremony, nearly all from two newspapers, one of which appears to be quite dubious at best Arutz Sheva. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually, I did. They are a mix. Some is passing, some is devoted to the subject of this article, and some is in between. They are from a number of sources, in a number of countries, and certainly include a number of sources which are appropriate for purposes of notability. They certainly contradict your statement that it lacks persistent coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you have persistent coverage of something that happended less than three weeks ago? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have it all the time. Otherwise -- obviously -- we would never have any article on wp until there was coverage for more than three weeks. And, similarly, we don't delete based on crystal-balling subjectively our guess that there will not be coverage in the future ... when there has been consistent coverage, in a number of countries at that, for the three weeks since the incident. Just as we don't crystal ball that something will in the future have coverage, see wp:crystal, we don't do the opposite in the face of persistent coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bwaaaaa, haaaaa, haaaaa, haaaaa, haaaaaaa! Best one I've heard in a long while! Pull the other one. It's got bells on it! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughtful response.

It goes without saying, I would have thought, that shortly after an event occurs, editors cannot know whether the event will receive further coverage or not. If not impossible, it may well be difficult to determine. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make the event non-notable. Persistence in this instance refers to coverage limited to the time period during or immediately after an event. We in this case have continuing coverage in the third week after the event, on three continents. There is nothing objective in what we have before us that suggests that this should be deleted because of lack of persistent coverage -- just the opposite, frankly. If anyone were to reference the rule on persistent coverage, I would have thought it would be a keep !voter. I imagine that's why most of the !voters on this page have so far !voted keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bombing was widely covered by reliable sources, and though it coincided with Operation Pillar of Defense, it was a different mode of attack committed by different people. Ankh.Morpork 23:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Soman. It's already covered elsewhere.--TM 01:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable event and legitimate sub-article of Operation Pillar of Defense. One review page can not cover every notable event in sufficient detail. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. even the nominator thinks it should be kept. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That's "keep" meaning "don't delete the information", if anyone still wants to propose a merge, now or later, they may do so on the article's talk page. - filelake shoe  13:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chili burger[edit]

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

Good grief, Seriously this is a DicDef it it is anything at all. Do we really want this in what is meant to be a serious encyclopaedia? Oh sorry. Notable Schmotable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seriously, dude, you're giving us deletionists a bad name. The article isn't sourced as of yet, but I'm 110% sure there's more than enough information out there to pass GNG. p b p 00:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like you have bothered with it since you created it in August 2011. Go on then. Prove it to be notable! It's still a dicdef. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hamburger. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick search turned up 25 Google Scholar references p b p 00:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And not one of those 25 Google Scholar references you say you found is cited.Blue Riband► 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found and reliable's all you need for WP:V p b p 02:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ or Merge- Per above, wikipedia is not a dictionary. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I vehemently disagree with almost every aspect of this nomination for deletion and the subsequent comments made by the nominators. First off, the implication that the page creator is somehow obligated to expand the article is almost as ludicrous as it is offensive; Wikipedia is about collaboration, not about one person creating a page and immediately bringing it up to GA status. Deletion is not a mechanism for cleanup; see WP:NEGLECT, WP:INVOLVE, and WP:UGLY, these problems are certainly surmountable. Additionally, remember that there is no deadline. I am baffled by the nomination and highly doubt that the requirements of WP:BEFORE were met. A quick Google News search turns up hundreds of reviews, and shows that chili burgers are the specialization of several restaurants that have opened up in places that are covered by a newspaper. That covers notability, there are no copyright violation issues, no one's disputing the content's factuality, so verifiability is not a concern, and it's not a BLP, so looking at the reasons for deletion shown here, Wikipedia's deletion policy, I see no earthly reason for which this should be deleted. I will stipulate that it's not much of an article as is right now, but that's a reason for expansion and collaboration, not deletion. Deleting an article because it isn't very well-developed would be like kicking a first-grader out of primary school because he struggles adding and subtracting, these problems can be fixed. Well, to summarize, keep the article and expand it, don't delete it. Go Phightins! 02:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comes up a lot too. Doesn't deserve its own article though. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Respectfully disagree Go Phightins. This is an unreferenced, one line article which says what the item is but doesn't state why it is notable. I could understand some mercy towards a newbie but the author has 12K edits(!) Blue Riband► 03:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article doesn't state why it's notable doesn't mean the subject can't be, like I believe this topic is...WP:GNG seems to be met. Go Phightins! 03:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there should be an independent article on every type of burger concoction a person can devise, but I can also see potential for more than a tiny little definition. My thinking is that this article could be incorporated into a "list of burger varieties" article that covers all the noteworthy variations. When it comes to food varieties we should set the bar exorbitantly high for articles on any given variation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "bar" should be either a) a "supervariety", like "chili dog" (chili dog is a variety of hot dog, but there are varieties of chili dog) or b) something you'd be fairly likely to find in any American diner or coffee shop, or the foreign equivalent. For the record, I consider chili size/chili burger to meet either of those criteria, but there are a lot of more oblique foods that don't p b p 06:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have done some work on the article and feel pretty comfortable now that the subject is notable, even if the initial stub did not make that apparent. The reason we have an entire category on Hamburgers is because a number of these variations are culturally significant.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments about other things and some mudslinging NE Ent 01:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Ah, the alleged wisdom of crowds. The article on Dog shit redirects to a wiser article. And the wisdom ~incoherent giggle~ of crowds wnats to keep Chili burger. It is so well worth fighting to retain! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't hide your own ignorance of the cultural value of chili burgers amidst the crowds, Fiddle. Much of what is notable in the world may not subjectively be "worthy" to you, but you're not God. But just because a Jucy Lucy is delicious does not mean it should be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's another article that seems ripe for an AfD. Original research, limited scope of interest (just to people from Minnesota?), no claims to notability, doesn't appear to have great sourcing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, spend a few hours researching it first, and you may conclude otherwise. This is how I learn that unusual things like a pet parrot can be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it might be interesting, I think the bar for notability is completely arbitrary. If Chili Burger and Jucy Lucy, then why not, for example, Middle Harbour Public School, for example? The latter is resulted in a legislative change across a state, is one of the top ranked schools in Australia, and it still wasn't notable enough. It just had the misfortune of being one of a couple of hundred primary schools that was nominated in an almighty clusterfuck and then mob-voted by people including, for example, our friend PBP who is now de facto claiming that a regional food is more notable than a highly ranked school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the bar for notability is completely arbitrary..." Well, not *completely*, but largely, yes, it can be. The outcome in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Harbour Public School (2nd nomination) could well have been different -- even on the discussion had, the closing admin could have closed as no consensus. And with a few random changes in the editors who participated, it may have been kept. I think its pretty clear that chili burger has far more coverage than that middle school, though its comparing apples and oranges. And I guarantee you could create Mosman public schools or similar and cover the middle school in it. The majority of articles sent to AfD are not controversial discussions, its when we try to delete things in the middle that arbitrariness comes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An almighty clusterfuck and then mob-voted by people including, for example, our friend PBP who is now de facto claiming that a regional food is more notable than a highly ranked school." Oh, I see. This is revenge for me voting delete on some school articles (and need I reminded you, only a dozen or so of those articles' nominations originated with me). p b p 15:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so arrogant as to assume that I give two shits such that I would seek "revenge". I don't hang around AFD very often, only every now and then to see whether that "clusterfuck" (and it was a godawful mess of a clusterfuck, there's no other way to describe ~200 articles within a particular category being nominated for AFD in 2 weeks) is being repeated. I saw this AFD, didn't even notice that it was your's until recently, and it is blatantly a case where delete really is the best option. I'm amused, but not altogether surprised, to see your hypocrisy on show in the massive double-standard for articles that you create yourself. It is because of people like you that AFD is as arbitrary as it is today. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or, as a second choice, refactor to Ptomaine Tommy I feel that there's more than a dictionary definition in the article, I think the history rises just above that bar. (And having spent four gasping years in the smoggy Southland of the early 1980s, I have a personal but admittedly non-policy appreciation for the sense that the chili burger has cultural significance, 2am treks to the Rampart Ave Original Tommy's retain mythic proportion. But I digress.) Still, I recognize some folks aren't fond of short articles, however, and if "keep" isn't the result, policy does require us to consider alternatives to deletion. As I feel the meat (pun intended) of the extra information here is the history, I'd recommend considering (as second choice) a refactor to Ptomaine Tommy. There's at least three LA Times articles that are about him (an obit, a memorial plaque, and "Sizing up"), although all are paywalled. In addition there's most of the references here, including the State Senate resolution about him. This would unequivocally meet the letter and spirit of GNG, could retain most of the information in the current article, and would be a plausible redirect target for "chili size", etc. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised to see this up for deletion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its my fault, because I mentioned it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_Purplebackpack89_from_ARS, as an article that could be wrongfully deleted if not worked on.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. [Change to redirect: see below.] Referenced; seems to be a happening kind of burger, though not, unfortunately, right here right now. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP per reasoned arguments above. Whatever happened to the mantra that wikipedia is striving to be the source of all knowledge? Isn't a chili burger included in that all inclusive list? :) Spoildead (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem rhetoric NE Ent 01:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see that you all believe the article has significant coverage in reliable sources. I just love the wisdom of crowds. I'm mainly looking at it from the perspective of a pigeon trapped in a wardrobe. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Insult your opponents! Great way to win a debate! Drmies (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... this is a debate? Good grief! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did you think it was? And for that matter in what forum would it be appropriate to insult those who disagree with you? Go Phightins! 23:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, Timtrent has a point, though more in general (for AfDs) than in specific at this AfD. It actually isn't much of a subject (and I say that after having looked at dozens of books and newspaper articles) and I wouldn't oppose a merger, though that's definitely not where this is headed. But let's not get carried away on either side of this 'debate', and Timtrent gets bonus points for "good grief". Drmies (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It just amuses me to see the great sallying forth of an army to defend this rather pointless little nonentity of an article with that great religion that Every Article is Sacred. The world laughs at Wikipedia for the 'community's' ponderous discussions about keeping trash in the encyclopaedia and yet leaving substantial topics to languish. Rabid inclusionist tactics to keep every goshdarned thing remind me every time that this is a great social experiment rather than any form of real encyclopaedia. So, since this article is so 'obviously valuable' the discussion will be closed as 'keep' and people will consider that they have struck a blow for the improvement of this project. Yet those who look at the project will say, yet again, that those who edit it are, at least in part, barmy. Folk need to get a grip on what is genuinely worth having here and what should be thrown out with the trash. So, again, "Good grief!" Irony is often lost on those most in need of understanding it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I share many of those sentiments--I just dislike being called stupid. Now, if this article is kept, I am not going to sing anyone's praises or celebrate some positive improvement, but I don't see how deletion makes the project better. That the world is laughing is doubtful: we're not that important, nor are the people of the world that informed (thankfully) about how this joint works. If your agenda is really to improve the project by removing what you think is an obvious eyesore, then a redirect would have sufficed, perhaps. If you had waited a week and then quietly redirected it, you might have had a fight with Dream Focus, but not an AfD full of hungry people. On that note: I change my vote and think a redirect is in order--this is not that notable a topic, though it's a happening search term. Just my opinion. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not called anyone stupid :) I'm simply sad that the community rushes to the aid of ordure, rather like a lynch mob in reverse. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief is one of my favorites; I can still here Charlie Brown saying that in regards to some shenanigans from Lucy. Go Phightins! 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally suspect too many people have way to much time on their hands. if this is such an insignificant article not worthy of anyones time, why waste so much time trying to delete it, using all manner of "clever" sayings to show how clever you are? At least those people who are attempting to save it have something to show for their efforts. At the end of the day, if this article is deleted, what do you really have to show for it? A lot of wasted time spouting "clever" sayings. Spoildead (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above comments. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP AND CLOSE this isn't deletionist...this is almost vandalism. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This love-in is nice, and has me half convinced that we've turned the corner away from a mindset of DELETE EVERYTHING, but not many people are actually giving reasons why this article should be kept when (a) the scope of interest in the article is extremely limited to a small segment of the population in and only in parts of the USA and therefore the notability is limited; (b) the article is only a little bit more than a dictionary definition; and (c) the significant (and focused) coverage in reliable sources is yet to be shown. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, I'll take that on, and thanks for, humor aside, trying to actually get back to the discussion rather than the fighting. Geographic scope is, I think, the weakest argument for deletion you present, as geographic scope is not in and of itself a notability factor (well, outside of EVENT, etc.) More or less, I think it's a bogus argument, and I reject it on its face. (b) I noted, in my argument, that I felt the history with respect to the creation of the chili size brought the article past DICDEF. Reading that page, the history of the chili size is about the thing, not the word. I recommend a full review of Wikipedia:DICDEF#Overview:_encyclopedia_vs_dictionary, and argue we're in encyclopedia territory, and emphasize that, despite popular opinion, size is not the guiding differential for DICDEF. (c) is probably your strongest case, the GNG question, and the existence of sources to meet this criterion is hampered by paywalls in part, and by the age and possible offline nature of any of the relevant sources. Judgment must be applied, and that is undeniably subjective. But it's my judgment that the enormously, wide-spread usage of chili burger, chili size, and so on gives weight toward the argument that sufficient notability exists.

On a purely hypothetical basis, were I to grant you point (c) we would be required by deletion policy to consider appropriate alternatives for deletion. Your argument to date in no way addresses any such consideration, perhaps you can enlighten us on this omission? ;-) --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to merging the content elsewhere where it can actually serve some purpose, probably to Chili con carne, where it seems to already be represented. But, at the moment, if we were to pass this article, then we would have to pass other regional variations on whatever. How many different types and combinations and one or two restaurant intepretations of Pasta are there? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing why keeping this automatically means creating and keeping other articles. The regional variations of Chili burger can (and probably should) just be covered at chili burger p b p 17:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm pretty sure you've derailed. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "But, at the moment, if we were to pass this article, then we would have to pass other regional variations on whatever." So, you're saying that if we keep this, we'd have to keep regional variations of Chili burger. And I'm saying that's not the case. I didn't "derail" from your previous comment p b p 18:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to regional variations of chili burger, I was referring to regional variations of other foods, e.g., pasta. If we allow this regional variation of chili, then why shouldn't we allow, for example, Rege's Tortellini with Boscaiola sauce, sold in the pub down the street from me? Separately, don't muck around with editing my comments. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say that a "chili burger" is merely a "regional variation" of chili and to equate it with some random dish in the nearest Italian restaurant is, besides being an other-stuff-doesn't-exist argument, not doing justice to chili burgers/chili size. You can get one or the other in almost any diner or coffee shop in every region of the United States. And it isn't that specific: chili burger may be a variety of chili or burgers, but there are varieties within chili burger p b p 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can get a Tortellini Boscaiola in virtually every pub here in Australia too. Wow... What's the colour of that link? How about we try Chicken Parmagiana. They're both less notable than the foods from which they have derived, Tortellini and Parmigiana. Regional variations, of which chili burger/size is one are not notable enough to warrant their own article.

The only reason why you're fighting this when you are otherwise voting at a clip of 97% delete votes (afd tool, btw, good to see that your success score has improved beyond the fail line since last I looked) is because it's your article. You have one standard for other articles, and a separate one for yourself, for example this AFD on an article that started off as quality as your's. Or this one. Let's face it, you're not exactly the best judge here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just close this already (as Keep or even no consensus): The concern was that the article wasn't long enough or well enough sourced. The article's longer and has sources. For the people who voted Merge or Redirect, another discussion could be started. But letting this one fester like a lava blister isn't good for anybody. p b p 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Just close this already the way I want it closed"? There are still notability issues, i.e., that the subject is notable independent of one or the other of the merge targets mentioned above (Hamburger or Chili con carne) that have not been addressed either in the article or in this discussion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep versus Merge doesn't need to be hashed out in an AfD... p b p 03:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above 2-1 keep !votes, and rationales. If there was reason to !vote otherwise when the article was in an inferior state, the article as it stands now meets our criteria for a standalone article given its improvements. If the community wishes to give those with a different view a resounding response, we can leave this open, or alternatively if at some point the !vote is so clear that it appears to be a waste of the community's time, this can be snowed.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:O ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: leaving aside any possible WP:CABALism or WP:MEATpuppetry, the above !vote, which is "per" the existing majority, doesn't really bring anything new to the conversation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're calling an editor with over a hundred-thousand contributions a "meat-puppet", which by definition is a new editor attracted to a dispute? I agree this should be left open for it's full length, I am just a little surprised at your decision to characterize an established editor a meat puppet. Go Phightins! 11:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling anyone anything. That's why I said "leaving aside". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a dicdef. The second paragraph is full of weasel words, and the final paragraph is barely on topic at all. The amusing thing is that everyone knows this but folk seem to have decided to use this article as a battleground. Usually this type of thing is disposed of on sight, there was just no handy speedy deletion rationale. Heavens don't close it early, let it run to term. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more then a hamburger with side dish. Sources not convincing, especially the Senate thingy. The quote sed seem te refer to a burger served with chili. The Banner _talk 10:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must take issue with the characterization of it as "Nothing more then a hamburger with side dish". Tommy's burgers and a whole bunch of other kinds of chili burgers have the chili in the burger, not adjacent to the burger p b p 16:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Do we really want this in what is meant to be a serious encyclopaedia? - Yes: what's not serious about it? Stephenb (Talk) 11:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a decently referenced article and will likely become better over time. Meets all criteria for inclusion. Buffs (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The objection seems to be IDONTLTHINKITSNOTABLE,for which the nominator themselves gave an excellent synonym "Notable Schmotable". Calling this merely a "hamburger with a side dish" is like calling a cheeseburger a "hamburger with a topping" , I suppose there are those here who would argue for just that, but would they carry the principle to its logical conclusion and call a hamburger a "ground beef variation", and I suppose, calling ground beef a minor format change of beef, which is of course merely one of the uses of cattle, which are just one species of animal?. This is a distinct food stuff, widely referred to as such by a distinctive phrase, about which a considerable amount has been written. It is originally a regional food, but so are most foods. And even if they remain regional, if they are discussed widely enough they are notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your glowing words for this type of food (i.e., "...calling this merely...") suggests WP:ILIKEIT, and then you use a Slippery Slope/reductio ad absurdum in suggesting that disallowing this article would result in everything short of ground beef being considered unacceptable. You sum up by saying that the subject will become notable by considering it notable... Not sure what type of fallacy that is, but it is definitely an argument to avoid. You're usually a considerate !vote'er hereabouts, have you got anything based in policy? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have never eaten one, primarily because I doubt I would like it. As far as I am concerned, good hamburgers need cheese, onion and tomato and nothing further. Don't read personal views about a subject into my AfD !votes. "merely" refers to the distinctiveness, not the intrinsic quality. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really no different than your Tortellini comparison up above, except it's in the opposite direction and he didn't punctuate it by attacking me. His policy argument is "about which a considerable amount is written". Things that have a considerable amount of stuff written get kept; that's GNG. There's no fallacy here. The person here who doesn't have anything based in policy is you p b p 06:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Attacking" you? That's funny. You really are a delicate little flower for someone who routinely badgers anyone who opposes him in virtually every other XfD with which you've been involved (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Occupy_Ashland_(3rd_nomination) if you want a perspective other than mine).

Having a lot of text written about it doesn't make something notable. That veggie lasagna is mentioned in such-and-such a best seller as so-and-so's Thursday night meal wouldn't make vegetarian lasagna notable such that it would need a separate article from Lasagna. It's the nature of the mentions that are important, and good quality mentions haven't been provided by you nor anyone else. My comments to DGG stand for themselves. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Add some slaw and onions and you have a Carolina Burger, which has been sold by various chain restaurants. There are other variations that are worth adding as well that add cultural aspects to the much maligned and oft misunderstood chili burger. Unquestionably, the article needs expansion and work, but so do half the articles here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh great, now I'm hungry. ;-) That Carolina burger sounds tasty. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
On the way home from church we stopped at a diner and, for the heck of it, I got a chili burger. It wasn't half-bad, but I think that it would've been better with Dennis's additions...perhaps even some bacon? Go Phightins! 17:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Keep The quality of sourcing required for some subjects is not set at as high a bar as for others, while notability is pretty much a given when it comes to fast food and all things popular culture. I'd hope that it doesn't fork (ahem) any further, but as a significantly distinct variation on the hamburger, I guess it is entitled to its own space. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of this, but great! Can you point me to the policy that says that WP:GNG should be laid aside? If you'd pointed this out in the beginning we could have avoided all of the above discussion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the sarcasm. GNG doesn't have to be avoided, because the article passes GNG. A bunch of editors have said this, and a five-second perusal of the article will reveal enough sourcing to more than pass GNG. So why do you keep saying it fails GNG, and accusing editors who says it passes it of being meatpuppets or other form? Oh, right, because that podunk Australian school was deleted, and that's somehow germane here. Like that matters p b p 00:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly asserting that it's notable does not mean that it passes WP:GNG. BTW, weren't the one being all innocence abused and wanting to keep the discussion on topic and away from talking about persons a little while ago? Oh, RIGHT, the rules don't apply to you or to your pages. Got it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem here is: significant coverage. It doesn't seem to be coverage focused on chili burgers as the subject of coverage, but rather burgers generally or the places that sell chili burgers. It is not deserving of it's own article and neither you nor anyone else has thus far managed to provide a policy based reasoned argument why it should be seen as an exception. There's a whole bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and, from you, WP:OWNership. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just added two good sources on the Carolina Classic, and I can assure you, I think they taste nasty, so I have no love for them. You are using an emotional argument. Are you sure you aren't suffering from the oppose ailment, WP:IDONTLIKEIT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennis Brown (talk • contribs)

Yep, I honestly don't give two rats. But I'd like for the rules to be consistent instead of completely arbitrary. In this case, it seems to me to be that there is one set of rules for articles in which certain individuals have no interest, and a completely different set of unwritten rules for articles in which certain individuals do have an interest. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You honestly don't give two rats?" You've perfectly proven that you're POV pushing. You've also reaffirmed that this is a payback for the Middle Harbour AfD that I didn't even start. And bullying a bunch of other editors this AfD ain't going to get Middle Harbour undeleted. It will nudge you closer to getting blocked, and sour editors to your point-of-view. You also supposedly seem to be emulating my style at AfD, except that I comment half as much, root my comments in policy (at Ashland, the policy was NOTNEWS, and the strongest advocate for keeping it was blocked for sockpuppetry), and I don't go around using terms like "delicate little flower" and "two rats". And in regard to OWNership, which you pretty clearly don't understand...there is one editor who has twice as many edits on this AfD. There's no OWNership issue on the article, either...apart from clearly promotional material (WP:NOT), I have never opposed any additions to the article p b p 02:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{multi ec) Danjel, the best you can hope for here is a merge with Hamburger, which is pretty much what your own words suggest. I would prefer that this article found another home but that is just me. I'd prefer that it did not exist here, along with crap about minor "celebrities", almost every high school that has an article, practically every hit single, almost all Bollywood movies and most TV series etc. And anything to do with Bieber. But it is not an argument that I'm going to win.

The subject of the article exists, it can be proven to exist (almost to the degree of "water is wet") and it has a significant place in the lives of people, a fair few of whom probably do need to see a dietician. Surely, you cannot deny these basic statements, apart perhaps from the dietician bit? It passes WP:V with ease. If the article was a recipe or merely a dicdef (as it was once) then that would be cause for deletion. Nonetheless, defining "passing mentions" in pop culture is just a complete waste of time: the nature of the culture is that much that goes on happens on a level that seems absurd from an academic POV but - certainly when something has been documented for at least 60 years - is not ephemeral. It passes WP:GNG, although if Heston Blumenthal or someone like that has done something with it then it would be helpful for us to mention that. Yes, I'd probably prefer that this crap was not here but I have no policy basis for saying so. It has sources and my bet is that if people who have an interest in it really did their stuff then it could have what I call "proper" sources, discussing health, economic impact, cultural significance etc. The nature of the article does not demand the same degree of diligence as, say, a medical article; and the notability is practically inherent. I hate it, but there we go: if people really want to spend time documenting such tripe (sic) then so be it.

Forgive another pun but we cater for all sorts, although the standard of contributions for articles such as this often makes me think that we should review that. I'll get on with building the part of this project that will have a lasting, informative value and not merely attract the attention of drunks and retards. (Which is not a reference to those who have worked on the article but rather the likely readership). I'll also continue to tear down the obvious crap - the puffery, the POV, etc, of which none exists here. If someone really wants to spend time documenting the sort of thing that appears in this article then that is their choice: I think they're nuts, but they probably think that I am also. And the chili burger will still be around when I am long gone; of that I am pretty sure. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, merge is pretty much what I'm aiming for here, as I've said above. Probably to Chili con carne, where there is already extant content on the article's subject. I'll make that clear by actually changing my !vote. Many many times more words have been written by the article's author here about how his feelings are hurt than he, or anyone else, is likely to ever write into the article. It's a classic WP:PERMASTUB. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if there is never a single additional edit to the article (other than to remove the AFD tag). I don't believe it is a stub. A stub is an article that is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage. This article does that, it's just short. Ryan Vesey 03:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty notable in its own right, and not just in the US - I've had good chili burgers as far apart as Dorset, UK; Bangkok, Thailand; and Taipei, Taiwan. (I don't have time to look for international sources myself, but they must be out there) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't imagine this not being notable. Ryan Vesey 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - notable foodstuff, information could be integrated into the hamburger article but I'm unfussed. Claritas § 16:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST TO CLOSE - Consensus seems to be overwhelming, can we close this now? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus has not formed, so it can't be called overwhelming. The poll on the other hand is overwhelming, but there's a lot of WP:ILIKEIT votes. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit! Its a clear keep. Though I've enjoyed watching you barb with PBP, its really not in question. The IDONTLIKEITS are trumped by research and sourcing and !votes in support.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "research and sourcing" still does not support the independent notability of the subject of the article. Many of the keep votes above don't reference any aspect of policy, but rather express some form of like for the subject, if anything. One even suggests that we shouldn't expect good claims of notability in regards to food! Quite a number of !votes are qualified with a merge or redirect also suggested, so, if anything, that is the developing consensus position. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arignar Anna Institute of Science and Technology[edit]

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

Non Verified Institute. Pure advertisment Pdykkh007 (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change vote to Keep per explanations given by User:Necrothesp. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perhaps this is not Oxford University, but an institution accredited by the All India Council for Technical Education would per se be notable enough to warrant an article. I removed some promotional wordings. --Soman (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, Annamalai University has winded-up the relation with this institute. The page gives the relation only for 2011-2012 which ended up in May 2012 itself. As per the records of Anna University, the institute has only 17 acres of land and 32,000 Sq. Ft. of constructed area. An institution accredited by the All India Council for Technical Education is not eligible for being as an article as Wikipedia nowhere states that the accredited institute can be as a part of this mega encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdykkh007 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a verified, accredited tertiary institution, which is sufficient for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no sufficient proof for tertiary institution! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdykkh007 (talk • contribs) 03:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes there is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Academic year 2012 is concluded by May. There is no extension granted. Pdykkh007 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, once notable, always notable. This is an encyclopaedia, not an almanac of current events. We have many articles on institutions which no longer exist, let alone those which still exist but which may or may not still have a specific status. Not sure why you're so keen to get this article deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; as per Soman. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Conformational Dynamics of Trialanine in Water. 2. Comparison of AMBER, CHARMM, GROMOS, and OPLS Force Fields to NMR and Infrared Experiments". American Chemical Society, 2003. Retrieved 28 November 2012.
^ "Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules". nature.com. Retrieved 28 November 2012.

[1] "Conformational Dynamics of Trialanine in Water. 2. Comparison of AMBER, CHARMM, GROMOS, and OPLS Force Fields to NMR and Infrared Experiments". American Chemical Society, 2003. Retrieved 28 November 2012.

[2] "Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules". nature.com. Retrieved 28 November 2012.

[1]

[2]