Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vedran Janjetović

Vedran has no played a professional football match.Simione001 (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Simione001 Simione001 (talk) 07:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although there appears to be some coverage, it is mostly routine sports reporting. Plus, he hasn't played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 06:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP: GNG, as there are ample reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No he doesn't. These sources are nothing more than routine articles. This is not significant coverage.Simione001 (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although much of the article is not about him and rather about the circumstances regarding his joining Sydney FC, for the sake of completeness of articles on current Sydney FC players it is worth having the article in existence, especially if it would be created anyway when he played matches. Izumojin (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact remains that he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Since when are articles kept because they make another page look nice?Simione001 (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The coverage is run-of-the-mill transfer news, and saying that the article should be kept "for the sake of completeness of articles on current Sydney FC players" is nonsense - why not create an article on the old lady who makes cups of tea at half-time?! Giant Snowman 08:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The coverage is routine sports journalism which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league. As such, the article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Query: why is this the "2nd nomination"? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as WP:ROUTINE, fails WP:NFOOTY as WP:TOOSOON. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:20, 27 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pytel

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

Somehow this article has survived six years without anyone providing any evidence of the guy's notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Trust me, it is not the only one. And this one seems to have much better potential than many others out there. Still, it needs better referencing. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: couldn't find enough independent coverage to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:GNG--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So this is Some Guy who wrote a couple computer demos heard of by no one outside of computer demo circles? Fails the GNG by leaps and bounds. Ravenswing 05:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Copyright violation of of http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,824/ redacted by Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he contributed more than enough to the progress in video game industry to have a wiki page. Also, how can I put the above text on his wiki? I found it on mobygames... don't want to just copy paste like I did here. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcellus2070 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't copy and paste it here either, because it is copyrighted material, meaning that it is unlawful to reproduce it without the consent of the copyright holder. Even if you were to rewrite this in your own words it would not be suitable for the article, because our content is based on what independent sources say, not the article subjects themselves or their employers. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was trying to do what you did - using the wiki edit tool can be challenging at times for someone just starting to edit a page or two... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.57.114 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 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) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything that shows that he would pass the GNG, in the article currently or elsewhere. No coverage in reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 21 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margene's bridal

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

Contested PROD. Unremarkable local retailer, borderline advertising, unsourced. Acroterion (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've removed the obvious spam, but what is left is a borderline A7 candidate. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete - I do not see a clear assertion of notability on this unsourced stub. It's a bridal shop in a city with at least a dozen of such businesses! It's not even the highest rated on Yelp in Oakland. How can that not be run of the mill? Bearian (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't quite prepared to speedy delete as an A7, but your mileage may vary; it's clearly not notable, the only issue in my mind was a credible assertion. Acroterion (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 4 stars on Yelp isn't very significant. Promotion on a local TV channel isn't either. WP:MILL Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an A7 candidate - there is an assertion of notability. Just not a credible one. Ravenswing 05:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that the article could say "Margene's Bridal has been around since Adam and Eve" and that would be an assertation of notability worth declining an A7? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Winning an award" is an example of a credible assertion of notability. Existing "since Adam and Eve" is not a credible assertion of notability. The latter would be speedy deleted, the former wouldn't. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have agreed with speedying it but I don't think the AfD was a waste of time; low-hanging fruit like this can be good practice for people without much experience at assessing AfD criteria, and what is clear to one person may not be to another. To be clear, I found no notability implied or present. Ubelowme (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst this business is no doubt known locally, it does not show the wider significance that would qualify it for an article. Mabalu (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of WP:RS makes it fail WP:GNG. On the other hand, even if there were refs, the subject is important enough, but just not notable enough to have a article on wiki. →TSU ^tp* 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I can see where reasonable people can disagree how notable this could be. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom — full of WP:WIKIPUFFERY and WP:ARTSPAM. —JmaJeremy ^TALK _CONTRIBS 19:58, 27 June 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 : defer to the decision to come out of the discussion at Talk:Microsoft Surface (tablet)#Requested move, which has precedence. (Non-admin closure.) --Lambiam 02:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Surface

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

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

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

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

There is no reason for this disambiguation page of only two pages. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - There's no reason to keep it. It would be better to delete it so that we can move the Microsoft Surface (tablet) article into that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephiles602 (talk • contribs) 23:01, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Delete and Move Microsoft Surface (tablet) to here. Obviously the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is even a hatnote at (tablet) for the PixelSense. Completely redundant disambiguation page. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm sure that we can come up with a few reasons to move Microsoft Surface (tablet) toMicrosoft Surface, The problem we have here is that there are potentially thousands of these Microsoft Surface tables in the consumer market right now. There are zero Microsoft Surface tablets. Each one of those current tables still says "Microsoft Surface" on its display and in its paperwork. Yes the company just changed the name of the table for new sales, but thats hardly common knowledge is it. The fact is that the table called Microsoft Surface was sold and those tables still exist. The "new" tables have had their name changed, but the old ones are still called Microsoft Surface. --JOJ ^Hutton 00:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a related move discussion is currently underway at Talk:Microsoft Surface (tablet)#Requested move. Themeparkgc Talk 01:14, 21 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Schwab Katz and Dwyer

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

Non-notable law firm, no external sources in article, creator's only edit was the creation of this article in 2006. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I'm seeing is directory entries[1] and job postings. No high profile cases. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 14 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 22:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched their website and found nothing to confirm the assertion about American Lawyer, nor on that magazine's website. There are some awards noted on their website but it's mostly that two of their lawyers were listed in "Best lawyers in America", not providing notability to the firm. I looked at all the firm's press releases since 2004 and found nothing that gave me confidence that they are of any particular notability -- nothing that I bothered to track down reliable sources for. Ubelowme (talk) 23:26, 21 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Revolution From the perspective of Political and sociological and economic

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

About a book not translated to English, with no assertion of notability included since the article was tagged. This user also tried to advertise this book in the article 2011 Egyptian revolution. ʝunglejill 05:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NBOOK. -Cntras (talk) 13:44, 18 June 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, —Hue Sat Lum 22:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NBOOK and WP:NOTADVERTISING — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamThweatt (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 June 2012‎

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BY NOM. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addobbati

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

Fails MOS:DABENTRY and MOS:DABRL. Has only two entries, one of which is a redlink. Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Keep to Giuseppe Addobbati. If Aldo Addobbati is created they can be disambiguated with hat notes. Unless information on the surname itself can be added, this functions more as a DAB page than a surname page.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was fast. :) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Blofeld practices the think method used in The Music Man. He just thinks there's a new article and it happens. Hey, Dr. B, are you going to create an article for the revolutionary, too? We wouldn't want that redlink entry lying around.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep (for what should be obvious reasons). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, economic historian, I initially got French revolutionary somehow LOL.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B, are you going to do something about "Cavalieri Addobbati — a name for Italian knights, also known as Cavalieri di Corredo"? There shouldn't be a redlinked entry, but I wasn't sure if you were done.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Bbbb23 is a virtue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep: populated now Sasha (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is populated now with 3 articles that look legit, but I agree with Bbb23 about the redlink.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legit dab page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If someone wants to close this as keep, I withdraw the nom.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: legitimate surname page, rather than dab page, and now identified as such. PamD 18:16, 24 June 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 The Daily Caller#Reporter interrupting President. Merging can be done from history if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Munro (journalist)

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

Person not notable per WP:ONEEVENT Belchfire (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to find anything about him prior to May 31, 2012. I can find blog post written by him. I can find discussions about what he said in his blog posts. But I'm unable to find anything about him prior to his interrupting the President. This is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Bgwhite (talk) 20:53, 20 June 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 June 20. Snotbot t • c » 21:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to The Daily Caller#Reporter interrupting President. Agreed that WP:ONEEVENT applies here, and that he does not meet WP:GNG and thus does not merit a standalone article. However, the incident has some degree of notability and is already mentioned (backed by reliable sources in the The Daily Caller article, so it would seem logical and reasonable to redirect to that section (merging any relevant content).--JayJasper (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Daily Caller per JayJasper as a straightforward case of WP:BLP1E, but where the event is probably worth noting. Robofish (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Daily Caller page per the comments of JaJasper and Robofish.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hermit Thrush (band)

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

First AFD closed in 2008 with consensus to redirect. Redirect undone by IP in June 2011. No real notability — includes members of other bands, but Hermit Thrush was only together for a year and released only a four-song demo. Fails WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a WP:GARAGE, and I'm wondering if it fails under WP:CSD A7... CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cyan Gardevior —Hue Sat Lum 20:54, 27 June 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. This does not absolutely rule out writing a new, policy-compliant article on the event, but consensus is that the current content needs to be nuked per WP:BLP, and what's left after deleting that is apparently a one-sentence stub. Sandstein 05:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Wade

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

This article is a WP:BLP nightmare, basically made up of unsourced and poorly sourced allegations against living people, based largely on original research. Moreover, I don't think the subject is notable by our standards. While the case did receive attention from various reliable sources at the time (broadly 1992-4), there seems to have been very little coverage since except in fringe sources. I don't think this case has shown long-term notability, and when you combine that with the major BLP issues, deletion seems the only answer. Robofish (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Delete as per the above rationale - Youreallycan 20:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm a little torn, as the event might actually pass muster if the flaws were fixed. I worked on this a little back in 2007, and Robofish was kind enough to notify me that it was going to AFD although he wasn't obligated to, but BLPs were handled differently back then. The question I have to ask is, are we wanting to delete this because of the flaws of the current article, or does it really not pass the bar for notability? If it is primarily because of BLP concerns, then I have to think this is more of a call for editing rather than deleting, but there are legitimate concerns as well. Several books were deleted after the nom [2]from the reference/links area, but I'm not sure if they were really unrelated or had mentions of this case in them. That would be good to know before a final decision was made, as it would push it passed the bar for GNG if one or more did so, but I don't know. As such, I'm not taking a stand, and will simply leave my !vote as a neutral comment for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BLP standards. That doesn't mean it could not be fixed, but we should not keep this hanging around while we gaze at our navels, it makes very serious allegations about identified individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have remove nearly all of the article content as BLP-defying innuendo. The article as nominated can be seen here. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename/Refactor to an article on the kidnapping, rape and trial with a different name that isn't just the name of this victim. (WP:BLP1E) There is some lasting coverage, much of it highly charged, but some serious stuff too. (e.g., possibly the first and third results, books via Springer, at [3]) There's a fair letter-of-policy argument that the refactored article would pass WP:EVENT. But I'd prefer deletion. WP:BLP gives us wiggle room in our assessment of marginal BLPs, and I'm going to also invoke my less-than-annual application of WP:IAR to suggest that both the encyclopedia and the victim, might be better served with deletion--this article will continue to attract a fair bit of agenda-driven attention, and if we keep it (even refactored), I'm guessing it's going to be a drama magnet and a BLP vio magnet. Is this event truly notable enough to make it worth that trouble? I'm going with "no". --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Refactor per Joe Decker. Seems to have had lasting significance as a crime. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 28 June 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 Nomination withdrawn - with no one except the nominator offering any input on the discussion. So this is what happens if they hold an AfD and nobody shows up? A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hervé Descottes

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

No real indication of notability. References cited don't mention this individual at all. 2 of the references do have the name of the company, but 1 is in a single paragraph, and the other is photos exhibiting the company's work on a particular project. If the awards can be referenced (and they are for him, not the company) I may change my mind, but as it stands, it clearly fails BLP requirements. JoelWhy? talk 19:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nomination withdrawn -- Author has now provided sufficient sources to indicate notability. Please withdraw this nomination. JoelWhy?(talk) 14:57, 26 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Most of the discussion centered around the correct use and interpretation of WP:PORNBIO, rough consensus is that article meets that bar. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brynn Tyler

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

I noticed the following things in this article:

This is a BLP and requires per the WMF, Jimbo and WP:BLP the highest levels of fact checking. After all Wikipedia's reputation is always being tested on how accurately it has assessed its subjects worthiness for inclusion and and how well the community has checked the fact of this article.
Both the title and the first sentence are misleading. - and would be easier to delete than to correct. The most basic fact in this article is under dispute. Is this article about Brynn Tyler ? Is it an article about Londyn Allison? Is it an article about some one else? Without reference to a real person none of this article can be reasonable WP:V Consider Mark Twain or Lewis Carrol. Is Brynn Tyler a person actually born on November 14, 1987 in Texas. Clearly not - Brynn Tyler is a fiction which was born years later by Wicked Pictures or another similar company whose interests are being promoted by this article WP:COI. Isn't the existence of multiple aliases further evidence that other companies later decided that Brynn Tyler is not a good name for this subject? All in all it is clear that this the title is misleading and a lie of omission. How can Wikipedia editors condone this article notable if they cannot possibly verify or correct the inaccurate statement drawn fully from WP:OR. If it is not 100% correct - it has no place in a WP:BLP The second sentence is no better:
"She debuted in 2007 and since then has appeared in about 90 movies." - this again is unfit for inclusion in any serious encyclopedia since it is WP:SYNTH. Since when do we publish assessment. This is a serious statement which boldly claims that someone has engaged in about 90 sexual encounters. I am certain that all our editors would be shocked if they were described by Britannica as having been in about 3 porno movies - especially if they had been in none. Further more it is contradicted by the info box which states exactly 87. Secondly these are not movies which debut in a Cinema as the article and its sourced would like to claim but pornographic videos, dvd or just internet based media. The article is clearly fails WP:NPOV in this regard. Finlay this material is plagiarised from IAFD in contravention with their usage policies. And in are still think that 87 == 90 consider that more reputable databases list 60. No database actually makes such bold claims this number is subject to change and cannot possibly be sourced in an adequately way it is just WP:SYNTH. So this too should be deleted immediately according to WP:BLP.
The rest of the article is promotional links and a list of awards added to create an illusion of notability.

From WP:GNG

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources",^[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.^[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.^[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Source	Issues	WP:N
[4]	unsourced peer produced information from their copyright page "You are more than welcome to submit corrections to us, via the "Submit Corrections" buttons found on every title and performer page. Please send other comments or suggestions to us, at [email protected]." information is plagiarised in contravention of IAFD's policy If you're using the bio data: Biographical data courtesy of the Internet Adult Film Database.	most of this DB entries are not notable.
[5]	WP:OR and fails WP:RS	This is a web page that gives awards and list over a thousand names.
[6]	WP:VAINITY;WP:OR;non WP:RS this awards includes the affiliate program of the year award, web host of the year, billing company of the year. This is not a reliable source for bio.	This is another web sites which gives awards. It discusses 100s of individuals on this page should they all all have article because of that?.
[7]	WP:OR; non WP:RS This is an article by AVN about an AVN and discusses 4 other individuals who shared this award	Fails WP:GNG and WP:PonrBio
[8]	WP:OR;non WP:RS this awards includes the affiliate program of the year award, best hosting of the year etc...	this article covers several hundred people it is unsuitable to establish WP:GNG for them all.

Keep - Subject clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. She has been nominated for several awards in her field. The references are germane to that field and are independent of the subject. The subject is clearly a pornographic actress, so there is no problem with saying that they've been in 1, 3, or 90 pornographic films. With all the fuss that OrenBochman (talk · contribs) has been raising lately over articles about porn stars, I'm thinking that they have a WP:POINT that they are trying to promote. I suppose that next they'll want to raise similar concerns over Lady Gaga, Cher, and John Wayne due to their names.

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Dismas|^(talk) 18:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So basicaly if it is a PORNBIO it does not have to abide by WP:V WP:OR WP:SYNTH or WP:BLP. in this case anything goes ? BO | Talk 18:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted 18 minutes after you announced that you've "retired". Perhaps you should make up your mind. Ubelowme (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed if I cannot get a fair hearing my retierment will be effective immediatly - it is this important.! BO | Talk 19:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that. I also believe it satisfies WP:BLP, WP:V, and every other guideline and policy we have. Saying someone who works in porn has been in a porn movie does not violate BLP. It's all verifiable. It's not SYNTH or OR since we have RS's for the info. Dismas|^(talk) 19:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying some one has appeared in 90 films based on a count of the database is WP:SYNTH. The DB is accurate in listing known movies but it does not claim this is the actual number. So this is OR and Synth. I spent hours research this. You decided within five minutes. BO | Talk 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe I read faster than you do. It actually takes less than five minutes for me to pull up the IAFD listing as see right at the top that it says 111 titles. What's your point? Dismas|^(talk) 03:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already explined this above. For one other databases say IMDB give differnt numbers. IAFD is not a particulary accurate source to refrence for this information - it asks for corrections on every pages. So it cannot be claimed to WP:RS. Tommorow the number could go up or down will you update it every time - I don't think so? It also considers web based only as movies. Thus stating that these are movies is an deceives the general public that these are on par with the number of movies that Nicolas Cage or Brad Pit has appeared in. Finaly it is not fact. Now the reason this is OR and Synth is that you have selected one of many unreliable sources which do not agree for this information and concluded that this is the correct one. THis is a conclusion. Unless there is a definitive research done on this outside WP then this WP:Fact must be excluded - since this is still a BLP. BO | Talk 07:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another problem with using IAFD is that it has published usage policy and this article violates it. BO | Talk 07:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this individual meets WP:PORNBIO and, yes, I agree that the nominator seems to have some kind of WP:POINT about biographies of porn stars. There is a place for that discussion and it's not with relation to a specific article. Wikipedia is not censored; this material is perfectly appropriate to this encyclopedia. Ubelowme (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the nominator's essay Pornography considered harmful could be enlightening about that. Cavarrone (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: now the essay has been deleted upon request of the same creator.Cavarrone (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor refuses to correct the mistakes in the article then AfD is the choice of last resort. I am sorry that it has come to this. But according to protocol I could not remove the inaccuracies without a broader consensus. While I respect that you prefer to include this article - it cannot stay in its current form. Cavarrone knows my user page better then me and has been quoting my talk page nonstop for 48 hours - but he has refused to correct any of the defincenices in this article. Please let me know if I should ask Jimbo himself to intereceed ??? BO | Talk 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination, just a part of a massive disruption you can see reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Mass_speedy_deletion_requests_by_User:OrenBochman. Cavarrone (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good faith nomination grounded in policy and indeed a direct follow up of the CSD attempt made earlier this week - mentioned in the above link. However the admin who removed the CSD advised that an AfD is the correct venue for this deletion request. Also the incident has not ruled that I have been disruptive. I have only made a single AfD on this subject this week and I doubt you have even bothered to read it. If you bother you will learn something about how badly your bios are written. And yes I have declared my biases to keep my action transparent and avoid COI.BO | Talk 19:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really... everyone could read in the above linked discussion the comments about your behaviour, not only related to this "incident". All your five speedy deletion requests were declined. All your overtaggings were reverted as pointy and retaliatory (see relevant edit summaries). According to your talk page (that you requested for deletion and now blanked - have you something to hide? [9]) I see your rollback priviledges were removed. I see you were warned about a cool-down block related to the incident and then about a possible future block for disruptiveness related to your improper use of automatic tools. But everything is ok, keep it up! Cavarrone (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked my Talk Page due to extensive grierefing.

Delete No sources detail this individual in the depth required for an article. Nominations for porn-awards do not pass the extremely low bar of WP:PORNBIO. Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When I accessed WP:PORNBIO a moment ago, it said "has been nominated for such an award several times". Are we looking at two different documents? Ubelowme (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - There's a movement afoot to take that part of the requirements out of PORNBIO. Some editors feel it's too much to allow those who have just been nominated for several years. Dismas|^(talk) 19:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the new tightened version of WP:PORNBIO that gained widespread consensus. Epbr123 (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets the requirements of the lastest version of PORNBIO, as set by consensus. We're always welcome to revist this article after other portions of PORNBIO are removed through a consensus, and then judge notability per WP:ANYBIO's instructions toward well-known awards... and we will argue then whether or not a film award notable to its genre has any merit. 23:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Speedy close of bad faith nomination per the AN/I discussion mentioned above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you consider this a bad faith nomination? BO | Talk 00:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award is not an industry award - it is a fan award.

Comment: CAVR is an award given by a website. This is not an industry award either BO | Talk 00:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. DarkAudit (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination is based on a failed understanding of what the policies mean and how they are applied. Clearly meets the inclusion criteria. QU ^TalkQu 09:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual appears to pass WP:PORNBIO. Fine piece of Wikilawyering, though. I mean that in a positive light. Roodog2k (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. The nominator's concerns about sourcing and BLP issues are certainly sound, but the current consensus has been that a stub article like this which recites an adequate set of well-known/significant awards/nominations is not so inadequate as to result in deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:26, 23 June 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. No prejudice against independent renominations of the two sub-noms here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bruce Findler

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

There's nothing particularly notable about him beyond what is expected of a research professor. Note that this article is mostly written by someone who has coauthored various papers with him. Dtm1234 (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for similar reasons. Note that all of these pages have been tagged for speedy deletion in the past. Dtm1234 (talk) 14:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something weird is going on with Shriram Krishnamurthi: according to the article history it was tagged for CSD A7 from 2007 to 2011... Question to the nominator: Just wondering: according to your contribution history, this AfD is your first contribution to Wikipedia. AFD is not a simple process (and combining multiple articles into a single AfD even less). Have you contributed to WP before and if yes, under what user name? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I used to be Dantheman531, however, I have forgotten the password to that account and also the email address that I used for that account as I have not logged in to it for a very long time. Dtm1234 (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for explaining! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty notable for a programming language theorist. Author of several often cited papers in the field [10]. —Ruud 16:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The AfD notices for Shriram Krishnamurthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Matthew Flatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) point here as well. That's really not appropriate. Unless these are made into separate nominations, just keep all. —Ruud 16:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being widely cited doesn't make a person notable. We need reliable 3rd party sources about Robert Findler. The other two AfDs need their own nominations. Kaldari (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Being widely cited doesn't make a person notable." I don't think Wikipedia:Notability (academics) completely agrees with you on that point. —Ruud 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need reliable sources about the irrelevancies of his personal life, what we need are reliable sources for his professional life — what he has contributed to academic knowledge, etc. But that's exactly what many of those thousands of citations to his work are. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or speedy close. They each have multiple publications with over 100 citations each, enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. And despite working together sometimes they are on the faculties of three different universities and have many distinct publications, making a single AfD problematic and justifying a speedy close on procedural grounds. The sourcing for all three articles needs improvement and there is some anecdotal material in Matthew Flatt that would probably be better removed, but those aren't reasons for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being widely cited is exactly what makes a scholar notable under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 23 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry W. Crosby

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

Photographer and local southwest US historian of no particular notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GNews[11][12] searches confirm that Crosby is a recognized expert in several areas, and that his work and books have received substantial coverage. His work on the cave paintings of Baja California has been covered by sources such as National Geographic[13], Archeology[14], Modesto Bee[15], and Chicago Daily News (reprinted in Miami News)[16], etc. His work on old California has received substantial coverage in sources such as the Los Angeles Times[17], and The Catholic Historical Review[18]. GBooks shows that his books are cited by many others[19][20] and the GNews searches show a number of additional (but currently paywalled or inaccessible) articles in the San Diego Union-Tribune. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What Arxiloxos says. Additionally, his books seem to have lasting interest. Among them, The Cave Paintings of Baja California (1975) was republished in 1997 (Worldcat) (or 1994, archaeology.org); Tijuana 1964 (2000) has just been reprinted. Keep. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 22 June 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 (G10 attack page) by Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)

Atheism and obesity

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

A completely rambling, half-nonsensical essay, that is pretty much composed entirely of WP:OR. Aside from the obvious WP:SYNTH problems, there's also the fact that most of the article is just attacks against various random atheists, and rambling discussions about things that have nothing to do with the claimed subject of the article. PROD was removed by page creator with no explanation, so I brought it here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a attack page as it serves no purpose but to promote the author's point of view that atheism is inherently immoral. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism is immoral. You are proving my point. It is also scientifically linked with bestiality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sertnwoe5s (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nothing but WP:G10 & WP:S. - The Determinator p t c 16:47, 20 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Pack (novel)

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

A self-published book that has zero notability. There are only two references included in the article, neither of which are actually valid sources. The first is just the books sale page, the other does not even mention the book or author at all. Upon searching for additional sources, I didn't find a thing about the book that wasn't either a first party site (ie Facebook), or the author and his friends spamming various message boards about the book. Neither, of course, is valid. PROD was removed by the article creator with no explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not because its self-published, but that because there aren't any references. Don't assume things like "the author and his friends spamming various message boards". Can you really know who's doing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.117.227 (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can be sure because the message board messages specifically said things like "I am the author of this book!" or "I'm trying to draw attention to my friend's book!". Not that this has anything to do with why this book in unnotable, it was just to explain the few ghits you would get while searching for sources. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are two references; one to the Createspace eStore page for the book which includes all vital information on the book, and which backs up the content of the page, and the second refers to the expansion of Amazon's Createspace distribution into Europe. I included no references linking to "messaging boards." Cleanskin2012 (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, as I stated in the nomination, neither of those sources are valid for establishing notability, per Wikipedia's policy on WP:Reliable Sources. The comment on the Facebook page and message board messages was just me describing my efforts of trying (and failing) to find any actual valid sources. Rorshacma (talk) 20:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources that contain comments from arm's-length third-party expert sources -- or any others that I could find (this title is a moderately difficult search pattern). Notability is neither asserted nor present. There is no problem with recreation if and when notability can be demonstrated with reliable sources. Ubelowme (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable self-published book. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no reliable sources to show notability for this book. Beings self-published doesn't mean that you can't have a notable product, but this is the case in most situations and it's what the case is for this book. I wish the author well, but the book just isn't notable per WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons. A self published book with no independent WP:RS except its own. --Artene50 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Ali Said Al Said Al Amari

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

On a released guantanamo prisoner, no secondary coverage, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. The subject is already included in the List Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay DBig Xray 14:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nominators rationale - Youreallycan 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per rationale of nominator.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:00, 21 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monametsi Kelebale

(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. Contest rationale was here he is playing in the Africa Cup of Nations, which is at least a little more notable than the "fully professional" League Two, wouldn't you agree? However, I do not agree. Notability is not a measure of quality or importance, but of coverage, of which Mr. Kelebe has had almost none. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proof he even played a game in the tournament, not notable Seasider91 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - previous consensus at two AfDs - 1, 2 - established that being a squad member at the ACN was not enough. This player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - non-notable. Giant Snowman 13:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – has he actually played in the African Cup of Nations or done anything else besides sitting on the bench? No, so he fails WP:NFOOTY. Add the non-existent significant coverage in independent reliable sources and he fails WP:GNG as well. – Kosm1 fent 13:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I could only find two paragraphs dedicated to Kelebale here, so I don't think the article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I may have spoken too soon. The Monitor has quite a few in-depth articles on Kelebale, and this one suggests he had played for the national team before being injured in 2007, although I've been unable to confirm that he played in a FIFA "A" international. Jogurney (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has nobody actually looked at the reference that I added when contesting WP:PROD deletion? It is published by FIFA, and clearly says that Kelebale did play in the African Cup of Nations. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But Phil Koms1fents link says otherwise, it just says he sat on the bench all game which doesn't count towards notability i'm afraidSeasider91 (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the more reliable source, FIFA or Soccerway? And the FIFA source comes with photographic evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA, the most reliable source in the history of ever (according to you), has also reported that Olympiacos has won 13 more league championships than Panathinaikos, while (guess what) it's really 19. Don't insist on supporting a source when there are others that contradict the first. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 17:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The caption on the photo is wrong. The Botswanan player in the photo is wearing shirt #13, meaning he is actually Mafoko Boitumelo. The CAF's official match report (found here) confirms that Mr. Boitumelo played in the match against Mali, while Mr. Kelebale, shirt #15, did not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good observation, Sir Sputnik. Confirmed by Soccerway as well. – Kosm1 fent 04:58, 21 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Pruett

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

Promotional article, with no evidence of notability. All the references are either by Pruett, not about Pruett, or barely mention him. (NOTE: PROD contested with no reason given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this is pretty much volunteer work, as near as I can tell, with the pageant organization -- the book is published by them, which to me confers no notability, and there are no arm's-length third-party sources of expert opinion to confer any either. His business efforts don't add anything to notability. Ubelowme (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the following accomplishments: "historian for the Miss Texas pageant ... inducted into the 'Miss Texas Hall of Honor' for his years of volunteer service ... enters cooking contests for a hobby and has had several award winning recipes published." EEng (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none; he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have. -- Encyclopedia Brittanica (1797)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alcatraz (horse)

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

No content apart from an infobox full of redlinks. I have been unable to find any reliable sources for this horse. Certainly no in-depth coverage, so fails WP:GNG Tigerboy1966 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable racehorse which hasn't won anything significant Seasider91 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This stub's creator's edits in 2008 were all only on this racehorse and a single crown and then he left wikipedia. This hardly gives any notability on this horse which has not won any major prizes bar one. This is not the Kentucky Derby. --Artene50 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Triple Crown he won isn't referenced either. It was when I was trying to add references to the Triple Crown of Thoroughbred Racing article, when I stumbled upon this one. Tigerboy1966 08:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at Tigerboy's link it appears that whilst this is a top horse in Ecuador not all triple crown winners deserve an article on Wikipedia as not all countries have the same standard of racing as the UK or USSeasider91 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if sources could be found this would be an automatic keep, but an article that is an infobox and no text is not an article (and there really, really should be a speedy criterion for that). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 22 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erindale Centre

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of this shopping centre in reliable sources. It does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Till 12:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Would be fine with either option. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 12:58, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a fairly significant shopping centre going over several blocks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ? To be eligible for inclusion, the mall must have significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources which I couldn't find. Don't think going over several blocks qualifies for notability. Till 13:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination seems to think this is a mall. It is in fact a whole geographical precinct. It includes a mall, but also clubs, a major sports centre and school, petrol station, medical centre, and several more blocks of shops. So it should be kept on the basis of other geographic regions, the gazetteer part of what Wikipedia is. I have seen several newspaper stories on the topic, but not handy at the moment. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether a mall, entertainment centre, etc, per WP:GNG it can only be notable if it has received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Till 01:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any decent 3rd party references. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Doctorhawkes, did you look ? How about the area's government master plan, the book Erindale Centre Development Plan: Proposed Retail Development by National Capital Development Commission (isbn: 0642885915), the book Erindale Centre also by the National Capital Development Commission where the proposal for the area was discussed, the various discussions in the ACT parliament that are recorded in Hansard, the "National Capital Development Commission"'s annual reports, the various news reports about the place, the discussions I can see in academic sources of the community library...and I am sure with another minute or so work more could be found. And this is just online. It is a significant geographical area that has been widely written about and discussed. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a sizable shopping, education and medical services district (basically a specialised sub-suburb) of Canberra which has received very considerable media coverage over the 30-odd years its existed, and the ACT Government is planning to build it up over the next decade. I'd suggest that the nominator view the Google maps imagery of this area - all the buildings with white roofs are Erindale. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show evidence that would indicate there is "considerable media coverage"? Cause I can't. As a keep voter you should provide evidence to back up your argument, I don't think a claim that it got coverage for 30 years does the job. Should sources be found that meet GNG, I will withdraw this nomination. Till 08:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, searching for "Erindale Centre" in the Factivia database's record of stories from the Canberra Times returns 73 stories since 1997, of which about a third would be of some potential use to developing the article. Searching for just "Erindale" in the Canberra Times gets you 2,980 mentions in stories since 1997; even if only 10% of these contain some potentially useful content (and from skimming the results of the search that's probably about right) that's 298 references. If anyone had the patience and motivation to go through hard copy archives of pre-1997 editions of the Canberra Times it would be expected that they'd find a roughly similar number of stories again. You need to bear in mind that the Canberra Times had a very limited website until late last year, so you need to consult databases to find much media coverage. In addition, searching for "Erindale Centre" in the National Library of Australia's online catalog also returns several government reports and plans for the centre's development which would obviously be of considerable use in developing the article: [21], [22], [23], [24]. Searching for 'Erindale' in the collections of the ACT Herritage Library's catalog [25] returns 15 government reports and yearbooks from Erindale College, about half of which look to be potentially useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added 10 newspaper references to the article to show notability. There are also heaps of sports stories, some crime reports and some advertorials. These are from ProQuest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has been expanded, with references, it now appears to meet the WP:GNG. However, as there are two other delete votes, it's probably best if we let the discussion run its course by getting closed after the normal period of 7 days. Till 12:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought you were going to withdraw the nomination if it could be demonstrated that the GNG was met. Why waste editors' time on this? Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because I was so caught up in replying to others that I forgot there were delete votes. Obviously, closing this early isn't my decision, and anyone independent of the discussion can close it if they want to. Till 03:33, 23 June 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 Divisions of the American Psychological Association. v/r - T P 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Clinical Neuropsychology

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

DePRODed without addressing the notability issues (unreferenced, no reliable sources). As a small division (only 4,000 members) of a larger organisation , it does not credibly assert notability for a stand-alone article. May be possible to merge it to the parent article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (changing to Redirect, see below) This is merely one division (out of 40 56 according to this) of the American Psychological Association, and there is nothing to suggest it is particularly notable. I would oppose a merge because none of the other divisions have coverage or even a mention at the parent article; no reason why this should be the only one. Anyhow, there is no verified information to merge, since the article contains no sources. I would oppose a redirect because the name is so generic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. When the WP:SPA creator removed the PROD, they claimed that three other divisions of the APA have Wikipedia articles. We might want to locate those articles (I was unable to in a brief search) and consider their notability as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Information has been added to the article with reliable references from sources not affiliated with APA or the Division of Clinical Neuropsychology, to address one of the comments made by Kudpung, above. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Uspring76 — 152.131.10.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The references do not appear to address notability issues. Are they strictly about, and dedicated to the history, work, andimportance of this small academic division, and are they the required kind of WP:RS? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Clinical Neuropsychology is a major specialty within the field of psychology (in clinical, research and training contexts), and this organization is central in establishing standards and policies for this specialty. Although the importance was not necessarily highlighted in the previous version, I believe the new additions to the wiki reflect this now.152.131.10.133 (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Pacific03062006[reply]

Clinical neuropsychology already has an article here and is unchallenged. This discussion is about a division of the APA, and about whether it meets the notability requirements for an organization. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not asserting notability of clinical neuropsychology, but the important role of this organization in this field as supported by the numerous independent books and journal articles cited here about this organization's work and influence. Pacific03062006 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Pacific03062006[reply]

BTW I'm striking out your second "do not delete" - you can comment as much as you like, but you only get to "vote" once (meaning a boldfaced "keep" or "delete" or whatever). --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not USpring76, so removed the strikeout. Pacific03062006 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Pacific03062006[reply]

"USpring76" and the "Pacific" user represent two different accounts, each held by a different user (despite the same IP address showing in the username/timestamp). I have not double-voted. Uspring76 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)Uspring76[reply]

Keep Ordinary article that meets out WP:N/WP:GNG guideline, a verifiable topic that we want to cover. Given our WP:ATD alternatives for deletion policy, we would delete neither the edit history nor the redirect. If someone wants to merge the four division articles, they should do so, I think they'll find that the encyclopedia is better factored as four articles, but these topics might fit together reasonably. Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename I would merge any and all division articles with the main APA article. They do not warrant separate articles otherwise you open the floodgates to all 56 divisions. Additionally, the current title of this particular article is not sufficiently explanatory. It would need changed to APA Division of Clinical Neuropsychology to meet WP:PRECISION. Famous _dog (c) 13:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my opinion to Merge/Redirect because I found the perfect target: Divisions of the American Psychological Association. There is room there for a sentence or two about each of the individual divisions, without overwhelming the American Psychological Association page. I also found three other articles about APA divisions, Society for Personality and Social Psychology, American Psychology–Law Society, and Society of Consulting Psychology, and I think they are excellent candidates for a merge as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Psychology is comprised of many facets and each division within APA is important in its own right and has contributed significantly to the field of psychology. Division 40, in particular, has set the standards for practice, education, training, research, and the advancement of neuropsychology in the public interest. Give its integral role in the development of the discipline, it merits its own article.

RUswell (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)RUswell — RUswell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Please see the nutshell of WP:N, that states, "We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention." Unscintillating (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Divisions of the American Psychological Association per MelanieN, appropriate for articles of this size. Sandstein 05:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Divisions of the American Psychological Association. I went through the references in the article that I could view in Google Books, and all the mentions of the division that I found were only a sentence or two; not the significant coverage that WP:ORG requires. I had a search for other sources on Google Books as well, and much the same picture emerged: the society is only mentioned in passing, usually in conjunction with the rise of clinical neuropsychology as a discipline. Divisions of the American Psychological Association looks like the most sensible target for the redirect, but I think it would also be a good idea to merge some of this to clinical neuropsychology, as that is how it's usually mentioned in the sources that I saw. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:21, 28 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PECTAB

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

Non-notable orphan, like the kid who played the kid who wasn't Annie. Only relevant to a non-notable system. No potential for growth. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Remember that being an orphan (WP:ORPHS) or the potential for growth are not the focus of the AFD. The article seems, however, to fail WP:GNG which is a relevant point. Also seems to be a potential ad, which is not encyclopedic. I lean towards "delete" but I have no grounds at the moment to confirm it. Some of the information found on a simple google search seems to lean me towards "keeping and expanding" the article. So for now I abstain from expressing my view. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this data template subject merits its own wikipedia article considering its been an orphan since 2010. It will likely remain a stub which won't serve anyone's encyclopedic interests. --Artene50 (talk) 08:49, 22 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Hunger

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

The previous AfD for this was closed as "no consensus" on the basis that the book had been nominated for a Bram Stoker Award. The only problems with this is that the book did not win and being nominated isn't really a feat that shows notability- especially when you consider that anyone can nominate someone for a Stoker Award, even the authors themselves. A search for the book did not bring up any usable sources to show notability, as everything I found were from non-notable blogs or non-notable magazines. I'm also nominating the author. While her page is sourced, it's all primary sources from her own blog, her workplace, links to organizations she donates time to, a link to Amazon, and other sources which are non-usable for the reasons stated above. Neither the book nor this author are notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated above:

I'm adding these as well because I am unable to find any independent and reliable sources to show that this author and this digest have any notability. These are all ultimately puff pieces for people and items that do not yet have any notability per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Comment There's also a COI going on here, as the person who added these pages is also an employee for Dark Moon Books, Matthews' publisher. I might add more to this AfD as his edits have been primarily to add his workplace and various authors from said publisher onto Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:01, 20 June 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 June 20. Snotbot t • c » 09:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... thought I'd entered it correctly, but oh wellTokyogirl79 (talk)

Delete Blind Hunger per its own reception section. Not notable and (allegedly) promotional. No vote on the others, haven't looked. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Matthews. If her most notable accomplishment is Blind Hunger, it's just logical. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fail WP:NBOOKS and/or WP:AUTHOR, not to mention WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 20 June 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 speedily deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Councilman Thomas Martin

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

Councillor for a town of 27,000 people, no other claims of notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as he lacks any significant coverage. Valenciano (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see any evidence he's notable. Being a councillor in a small town is not enough. Admittedly it's hard to Google his name, but I don't think there's anything to find that'll supply WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article offers no evidence of notability and supplies no biographical details. (BTW what little mention of him I could find at Google News suggests that he is or was the mayor, not just a city councilman. Can't tell for sure because his city webpage does not appear to have been updated since 2001 or so! If he was mayor he's still not notable, but this casts doubt on the accuracy of the article as well.) Article created by an WP:SPA. Reminder to self: if the article is deleted, I should remove the links to it from Maywood, California, List of chemical engineers, and the dab page Thomas Martin. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious spam, no assertion of notability. EEng (talk) 17:40, 20 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marwat

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, unsourced, unverifiable, self-promoting article about a "tribe" with no encyclopedic characteristics. Tags have been removed more than once in the past. Article is basically orphan. Only articles liked to it are about non-notable individuals that should also be PROD'd. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTFORUM seem to apply here. Also fails WP:GNG in "significant coverage", "reliable sources", "independent of the subject". WP:NRVE is also an issue. Loukinho (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC) Also, it is worthy to note that the first nomination has not properly addressed the issue of notability. Only two "references" point to 3 pages of a subjective mention on a book whose existence and publication can't even be confirmed AND a link to a map. None of which seem to confer notability to the subject. Further reading is equally filled with unverifiable books and information. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

In what way are the books listed unverifiable? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me that you ask that because you seem to be an experienced editor. The books have NO ISBN, no availability, non-notable books (SEE WP:OR and WP:QS). Further, take note that NONE OF THE BOOKS ARE BEING USED AS REFERENCE which should be cited IN-LINE with the text. Also, many of the books could very well not exist for verifiability or not even touch the subject. It should be more than a trivial mention. As a fellow editor, you are welcome to add this information if you find them. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. I think the article is notable enough, since there are articles about other neighboring tribes in the regions (Wazir, Zadran and many others). Marwats should have their own article, although references need to be added to it as it needs to have sourced and verifiable content. I found some other articles does mention the Marwat tribe although they don't link to it. Khestwol (talk) 08:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Keep in mind that just because other articles exist, it doesn't mean that all similar articles should. WP:OTHERSTUFF explains in further detail: "Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they are missing before they are created, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. So just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and listed it for deletion yet.". Also it is important to remember that just because it exists, it doesn't mean that it has been subject of significant coverage. Further, notability requires the presence of in-depth and significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources. None of which seem to be the case in this article. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Khestwol's rationale. The article also has plenty of Further Reading links which may be useful as sources. It has potential for verifiability and is adequately written and organized. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No question it is adequately written and organized, however that alone is not grounds for notability. An article about "My Special Garage Band" could be very well written and organized and even look like the article on Aerosmith for instance. But, if it has no VERIFIABLE SOURCES and SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE it is still not worthy of an encyclopedia. Further, much of the information currently there is not encyclopedic. None of the "further reading" are links!!! The existence of these books (which are NOT being used as references) can't even be confirmed! Remember that an article should have verifiable coverage as WP:NRVE clearly explains. PLEASE read the rationale for nomination. -- Loukinho (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Significance coverage doesn't seem to be an issue for this article, because obviously the article is about a large tribe of Lakki Marwat District. Khestwol (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this case, please show me all of the newspaper articles that back up your reference. Also, this is a great way to explain that notability it NOT inherited. While the region of Lakki Marwat is notable, Marwat tribe can't be unless significant coverage (press, media, articles, documentaries and movies) are present and verifiable. See WP:INHERIT. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: See Google books results for the Marwats.[26] Khestwol (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better than "press, media, articles, documentaries and movies" are books and scholarly papers. Have you, Loukinho, looked at the books cited in the article, or investigated what else can be found by Google Books and Google Scholar searches? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You are welcome to go ahead and add them to the article. I am not the one preventing you. Remember, though, that WP:GNG says that sources should address the subject directly in detail, sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. Also, sources for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Also, can't be self-published or works affiliated with the subject (And I'm not pulling these words out of nowhere. They're straight from the general notability guideline. Word for word).
Further, WP:NRVE suggests that the information should be VERIFIABLE. In other words, it can't be a book I wrote myself or a book that has never been published or an academic article that is nowhere to be found or something that somebody said. Books, should, then, have ISBN to be found and be verified. I mean, just because a book says that Hobbits exist doesn't mean we're gonna take it at face value, right? Much less when it is considered ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Academic, peer-reviewed research is a different ball game. But anybody can publish anything in favor or against anything else. WP:OR is very specific over WHICH KINDS of books are considered reliable sources: "books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses". My point is that, it is not up for us to decide, but rather, it is our responsibility AS EDITORS to make sure that we're backing up everything we say and that anybody can go ahead and double check it. And that the source is reliable enough to not be misleading.
Moreover, I am not preventing anybody from editing this article and contributing. I am contesting, however, its notability. There is a HUGE difference between finding references for LAKKI MARWAT (which is plenty and abundant) and MARWAT TRIBE (which seems to be a subsect/faction of society). All I can find refers to LAKKI MARWAT. And RELIABLE sources have been proven hard to find. Including the books mentioned in the article or all 3 pages of references given in the reference section. The other link refers to a very unreliable source that doesn't meet the criteria and is WP:QS. -- Loukinho (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The lack of an ISBN does not automatically cast doubt on the reliability of a book. Books published before about 1970 never have ISBNs, and I don't think they became effectively universal until about 1990. And even after that, there are acceptable, if less common, substitutes - such as the OCLC numbers provided for some of the books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PWilkinson (talk • contribs)

The point goes beyond ISBN. Verifiability is the main issue here. WP:OR is very specific over which kinds of books are considered reliable sources: "books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses" Please read rationale. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laukinho, it would be much easier to read, and to take seriously, your comments if you were to cut the SHOUTING. You have simply regurgitated information from policy and guidelines without explaining how they actually apply to this article, which, even before I cited some more sources, had several sources listed from a university press and another from Macmillan Publishers, which is undoubtably a respected publishing house. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to come across this way, but in either way I recognize that I could have been misinterpreted. I think that from the very beginning I am not being understood and it could be due to the way I wrote my rationale. I just recently read the guidelines on the use of capital letters and can see how it was an appropriate point that you raise on shouting. For that I apologize. I am tempted to not believe, however, that you or other editors took the time to actually read what I wrote, perhaps due to the length of my arguments. I also didn't want to be so through as to sound like I am stating the obvious and become tiresome, but I reckon that in this case, regardless of the length of the essay, it is appropriate if there are serious editors reading. It seems to me, however, that there is a small set of very passionate people who will defend an article with claws and teeth which can also very well "scare" away the general public from the discussion. And the need for a lengthy discussion that issues from that doesn't help it either. This sort of behavior by these passionate users could be easily misunderstood and doesn't seem to add much to the improvement of the article. I do congratulate Phil however for focusing on improving an article of his expertise rather than focusing on the discussion per se. I wish I could do the same, even as a non-expert coming from a neutral point of view, but I found absolutely no reliable information that could be added. My reminders of the policies throughout the discussion pinpointed precisely my concerns over this article. Whereas it could be seen briefly mentioned as a geographical location, namely, Lakki Marwat, there seems to be little evidence that the tribe itself is of any notability. So far, none of my concerns have been properly addressed and even though the article has had some improvement due mainly to Phil's repeated editing. It was a good effort of his part. Certainly worthy of mention.
I am not an editor that lives here on Wikipedia focusing on making a certain number of edits a day. But I think I come from a fundamental pillar of the site which refers to the casual editors or those who do not necessarily collect number of edits. It is a seriously under-represented group that used to be of some significance. Now our concerns are often quickly dismissed even when they are valid points or clearly address major concerns of wikipedia itself. It has swayed many people away from this website and with good reason. Some of my concerns, (which may have been worded differently) are not by any means coming from an inexperienced editor. I am raising valid concerns about the values that wikipedia has always held. For instance, the references contains material that is not considered valid or reliable. Wikipedia policies are very clear over which kinds of books are considered reliable sources. Please note, however, that the "read more" section is not considered reference. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research. While it would be considered valid to add related material to the article, whenever they are not part of the article itself, they are not references. They are, as the name implies, related material or in this case, further reading. Let me explain it again in different wording to try to make myself clearer: Suppose that I write an article about Yosemite National Park. If I add "Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)" or "African-American Heritage Sites (U.S. National Park Service)" to the related pages, that would be valid. However, it does not mean that these are references or sources to the article. Wikipedia requires verifiable evidence from secondary sources or they can be considered original research.
Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information. Whether editors personally believe the information is true or false should never determine Wikipedia content. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citations. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. I agree that some of the related material is from Macmillan Publishers but they are not being used in the article and are not helping to support the information in the article. I am trying to open the eyes of all editors to the fact that these materials are in no means listed as references and that the references consist of unreliable sources. The materials that could be considered reliable could very well be about other subjects, geographic locations or larger groups and not even mention or just trivially mention Marwats, which are, as the article itself suggests, just a branch of a larger Lohani tribe. The Lohani article itself seems to point 4 branches, none of which are Marwat. Still, the Lohani are also a subdivision of the Pashtun tribe which are in turn a subdivision of the Eastern Iranian ethnic group according to the article itself. Would it be the case of merging Marwat to Lohani? According to Khyber.org (which is one of the sources listed) in its article about Lakki Marwat: ... Among those sub tribes, the Lohani became more famous. Marwats are descendants of the Lohani sub tribe. They are subdivided into four clans (also known as Khels) known as Salars, Tappay, Mussa and Nuna . A little later, it then states: The Marwats form one of the four Great sub-tribes of the Lohani tribes and are also known as Speen Lohani (white Lohanis). That to me sounds contradictory but enough grounds to have them considered within a branch of the Lohani article. I understand there has been some argument between editors of different tribes and regions of the globe about their respective articles but rest assured, I have no dog in this fight. I am yet another wikignome who has no dedicated time for this endeavor.
I also challenged the notability of this article. The notability guidelines are meant to be satisfied and filter between the articles that are worthy of an encyclopedia and the articles that are not. (//interruption//) My computer has just signaled that it was about to crash twice and I still have plenty of errands to run today. I wish I could go on about how this article further doesn't meet the notability guidelines but I don't think I will be able to do it today. I am sorry if I couldn't be so through in my details but I hope reading the basic information on the policies and guidelines will lead to the best course of action. -- Loukinho (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marwat_(2nd_nomination)&action=edit&section=1• Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just noticed that I hadn't offered a clear opinion here. I have added some citations to the article to significant coverage in reliable sources, but they only scratch the surface of those available: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 26 June 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 Device Manager. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting from Device Manager

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

Wikipedia is not a How-To manual. Contested proposed deletion. Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Device Manager. The article does not in any way read like a "how to" guide and as such its title does not well describe its contents. The merge target I suggest is very brief as it stands and would be enhanced with this content. The redirect could usefully remain. Thincat (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good How-to manuals can be kept as per WP:IAR when they are useful to editors. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cluttering up the encyclopedia with off-topic, off-tone prescriptive content does not improve it. Please recalibrate your IAR meter. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPG states, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The pertinent part of my comment was the first sentence. The second was merely friendly advice. I can count on no hands the number of times I've seen a "keep, useful" close of an AfD on grounds of IAR, so it would seem helpful to advise others not to make that mistake. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Thincat. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:02, 27 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Smith, Jr.

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

Non-notable screenwriter lacking GHits and Gnews of substance. Article references are only listing of his name as writer or actor. Does not appear to have been nominated or has won any major awards. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE. ukexpat (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Ukexpat points out, fails WP:CREATIVE. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:48, 23 June 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 Truthiness#Alleged snubbing by the Associated Press.2C and Colbert.27s response. No prejudice against using the redirect to create an article on the surfer if she's notable. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Clark

AfDs for this article:

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

No claim of notability. Was briefly in the news at some point. Secretlondon (talk) 07:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Truthiness, which already covers her involvement. Seems an obvious case of someone who's famous for one event. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually need an afd to do the redirect. I don't actually support that...as there is a surfer, Heather Clark. I propose we move this article to Heather Clark (Journalist), and have that redirect. In fact, I am going to propose that on the talk page of both articles. This might also bring other interested editors to this afd.User talk:Unfriend12 01:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I put that up on the talk page some 3 months ago, and no one has shared a concern. Since this is in afd now, I don't think I should proceed until the afd has its chance to run its course.User talk:Unfriend12 01:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, although perhaps with slightly more detail on why she is relevant than in the current version. Calwatch (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Truthiness since this person was in the news for a brief moment. --Artene50 (talk) 19:18, 22 June 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 Procedural Close, as per my comment below. Though this isn't the correct name of the song, as nominator correctly notes, it is a redirect - and redirects are dealt with in a different venue (Redirects for discussion). I have created the correct redirect at Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Trunk). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Truck)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Truck)

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

Not even the correct spelling RazorEyeEdits (talk) 06:33, 20 June 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 June 20. Snotbot t • c » 06:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I almost closed this outright, but want to make sure I understand. The linked article appears to be nothing more than a redirect - and always has been. Is the redirect flawed in some way? Or is there an article out there somewhere with a different spelling? If you have a concern about the redirect, Redirects for Discussion is that way. If not, please explain. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Wrong venue. As a redirect, should be at WP:RFD. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 13:00, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I figured it out - the song is correctly titled Cruising California (Bumpin' In My Trunk). I'm going to make that a redirect and close this. Nominator, if you want this redirect to be deleted, please see WP:RFD and follow the instructions there. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 20 June 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 WP:SNOW and WP:HEY The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Matrimony

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

No citations. Besides, The Matrimony is not one of the films in the filmography section of the Fan Bing Bing article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well... just because it isn't listed in the filmography section doesn't mean that she didn't star in it. It's mentioned further up in her article, but generally (assuming that she did act in it) all that the lack of a mention in the filmography means is that someone forgot to add it. That aside, if Bingbing received a best supporting award for her role in the film then that could show notability for the film. I'm not familiar with the Golden Horse Film Awards, but it appears to be a rather big deal for Taiwan. Even if this isn't supposed to be a big enough award to give notability for a keep, it does mean that there could be more sources. I managed to find a source to back up the award, so I'll add it to the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One source isn't enough and the reviews do not count. So notability still isn't met, in my opinion. Besides, even if Bing Bing did get the award, that would still be rather minor. I don't know, but I would say the Golden Horse Film Awards are somewhat like the Academy Awards in Taiwan, but it doesn't get that much coverage? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews don't count? I've always been under the impression that as long as you have reviews from multiple independent and reliable sources, they count towards notability if the film received a wide release.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, reviews DO count... and represent the expected commentary and analysis in secondary sources. We actually care less for the helpfulness of wide release, and more for coverage in decent secondary sources, as lacking coverage, release means little... and sometimes even a film with only a limited release can have the coverage to be determined as notable. (and the film is NOW included in the Fan Bing Bing filmography through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this article survives afd, the grammar and stuff needs to be corrected. The info too. Also, I found an imdb page on this. But apart from that, and a few other run of the mill reviews and untrustable wikias and blogspot pages, I could find nothing to increase the sourcability of the article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isues best addressed through regular editing.... not deletion. And had you looked at the sources for reviews linked through IMDB (in discounting It as a source, it still leads to much that aids us), you will see this thing had wide enough release[27] and was covered by enough secondary sources.[28] And no... I am not limiting my thoughts to just what few are listed, but to the wider picture of even more coverage than shared on the list. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, you said that your native language is chinese,so,can you read this:百度百科？read this link:[29],then you will konw that this film is starred by Fan Bingbing.上帝啊，你竟敢说你的母语是中文？你知道范冰冰吗？你知道她主演的所有的电影？这部心中有鬼是她主演的电影！竟然还要被删除？你脑子进水了？OH,FOR GOD'S SAKE,FORGIVE YOU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmmvidyahoo (talk • contribs) 07:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in Variety and DreadCentral, both of which are usually considered reliable sources for film articles, as well as other references which provide further information. There's a bit here[30][31] (both professionally-edited sites that should meet WP:RS) and another ref for the award[32]. Meets WP:GNG. And there are likely to be Chinese-language sources as well. Golden Horse Film Festival and Awards are Taiwan's major film awards; Taiwan doesn't have a film industry as big as the USA or India, but it's not negligible[33][34]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a ton of stuff in Chinese about the film and there seems to have been a bit of a kerfuffle concerning the film. Supposedly at one point there was something about the promotion and it not featuring Fan Bingbing or certain marketing material being pulled. The translation is pretty wonky, but the general gist is that it was a pretty big thing for the film, the equivalent of I Heart Huckabees#Tension during filming. If anyone who reads any of the Chinese languages can translate this, I'd be much obliged. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job on the article! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Nom should have done his research and then perhaps tagged for sources if they were lacking (no longer the case), rather than bring an improvable article to AFD and force cleanup. Awards aside, the nominator might now better understand that sources need not be IN an article for a topic's notability to exist, and that the topic being notable and sourcable in Chinese-language as well as in English-language through reviews, analysis, and commentary in multiple reliable secondary sources is exactly what notability is all about. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Snow Keep and Speedy Close per proven notability.Cavarrone (talk) 16:37, 21 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kichi (Reality TV)

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

Speedy deletion contested by author. BLP with no references, and I cannot find any mention of this personality or her TV show on the internet. Possibly a hoax. Michitaro (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, no sources, poorly written, a promotional piece, etc., ad infinitum. TuckerResearch (talk) 07:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any sources verifying any part of this article. Page creator has 7 edits (all to this and a twin "Kia" page--also unverifiable and prodded); hoax is possible. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 27 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Carr

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

Subject request:

I am Lucy Carr, this article holds personal and incorrect information regarding myself. I would like it to be removed. This information is 10 years old and I do not wish it to be on this site. Please understand my request for deletion. Thanks. Ladymanor13

I am neutral on the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient claim to notability with Top 40 hits. I see no information that is harmful. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a borderline notable Top 40 artist. We have no way at this time to verify whether Ladymanor13 is or is not the subject. I recommend WP:OTRS as a way to verify your identity. If you are the subject, perhaps a better solution is to suggest corrections on the talk page or at WP:BLPN where biography specialists will pitch in to help. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I expect the subject's concern was with some tabloid gossip that I have removed from the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can understand Lucy Carr being embarrassed about her association with Peter Stringfellow, who's well known in the UK as a strip-club owner and lothario, but I don't think she can remove every reference to her past life from the internet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not responsible for the rest of the Internet, but we are responsible for the top-ranked Google hit about the the subject, and need to remember that responsibilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject was signed to a significant label, received coverage from the BBC and released two charting singles, so qualifies as WP:MUSBIO. I would point the article's subject towards WP:PROUD. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the relevance of WP:PROUD? I see no evidence that the subject created the article or otherwise encouraged its existence. And what is the significance of the record label? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The salient point in that page is, when somebody deems you are notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, you can't come along and request the page gets deleted just because what other people decide is notable happens to be something in the past you'd personally rather forget about. In fact, it's counterproductive as it attracts unwanted attention. I had never heard of Ms Carr before, but because I occasionally scan musician / band articles in AfD I now do. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are missing the whole point of WP:PROUD, which is that if an article subject deems she is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, she can't come along and request the page gets deleted, not if somebody deems this. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - The last paragraph of "Miscellaneous things to be aware of" in that essay explains what I'm talking about. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, that section is part of our advice to people considering creating articles about themselves, which Lucy Carr has not done. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The first sentence says, verbatim, "If you do not push to have an article about you on Wikipedia, but one was created without your involvement"! That's exactly what's happened here. Anyway, I'm done with splitting hairs. You win. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the reasons cited by Ritchie333. I don't know what Ms. Carr thinks is incorrect about this, let alone offensive, and the article does her the courtesy of not quoting the part from the BBC article about "ex-lapdancer girlfriend", which is more reticent than I would have been. We all have a past, and two charting singles is considerably less of a cross than others must bear. Ubelowme (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, and I would say that whether or not Carr had requested deletion, so no OTRS validation is required for me to support deletion. Scraping into a music chart is not a strong anough claim of notability to mean that we should keep an article that was clearly created to spread tabloid-style tittle-tattle rather than for any genuine encyclopedic purpose. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have directed Lucy Carr to OTRS so that she can verify her identity, although it would seem to be in little doubt. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that the wish to keep an article based on a couple of very minor charting records overrides genuine concerns about harm to the subject consider what she has written on her user page. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way was the article "clearly" created to spread tabloid gossip? I'm not seeing it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page, as created, said that the subject was most famous for being the long-term girlfriend of someone famous for being famous. If the thing that she is most famous for doesn't confer notability then how can less fame-inducing things do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I must add that is a first - I don't think there's ever previously been an AfD where Ten Pound Hammer has !voted "keep" and I have !voted "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, if only there were some way we could remove potentially polemic info from an article. You'd think by now they'd make this place so that content can be edited. (Seriously, though — even if it were initially created to spread gossip on someone, said gossip is no longer in the article, so the original intent is immaterial. Should the earlier edits with the gossip in them prove problematic, they can be delrev'd.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have edited the article, including removing references to tabloid-style sources (yes, even the BBC spreads gossip) that are not needed for verification, but another editor promptly restored one of the links, showing that the effort needed to ensure that such links don't reappear outweighs any encyclopedic benefit from the article. If we had sources meeting the standard of the general notability guideline then I would certainly not call for deletion, but all we have is a couple of very brief gossipy news articles and the bare confirmation from Guinness that the subject reached numbers 28 and 41 in the charts at a time when sales of physical singles (remember them?), on which the charts were then based, were very low. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        At what point have the links been re-added? I've never seen them come up. ETA: I see you mean this link, which does not look harmful or overly gossip-y to me. WP:BAND does not make arbitrary inclusions or exclusions based on chart positions, but I think it can be agreed 100% of the time that anyone who ever had a Top 40 hit in a country the size of the UK is notable, bar none. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources which seem to suggest she meets the general notability guideline, including but not limited to this, this, this, and this. She also meets the guidelines at WP:NMUSIC by virtue of her charting singles. The inaccuracies that were present are indicative of lazy editing, but not a reason to delete the article, nor is the fact that the subject is no longer in the public eye. As TPH says, any problematic earlier edits can be del-revved. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some pre-release publicity pieces and an interview. Have you actually done the thought experiment of seeing how much of a Wikipedia biography could be wrung out of what you cited? I did, because I found those myself. There's not much to be made from them. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The article doesn't seem to violate WP:BLP I think although the subject may not be very notable in the music industry. Is the information out of date? That's a hard call. However, if there are more recent sources for her, feel free to add them to this article and maybe this article can be kept. Having a Top 10 or Top 41 song does give one some degree of notability, I would think. --Artene50 (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's a dead easy call, if one actually puts the effort in to look and do the research. The relationship — pretty much the only context in which this person was publicly documented in the first place — has been over for more than eight years, and there's no public record of this person in the years since. Whether or not Ladymanor13 is the subject at hand, what Ladymanor13 says appears to be true. This subject has been a private individual wholly out of the public eye since 2004. There are no more recent sources. There was an old photograph dug up when Stringfellow married someone else, and that's it. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC with charting and WP:GNG with a lot of coverage about her. Since most coverage focuses mostly on her relationship with Stringfellow so should this article. Wikipedia is not here to write your prefered version of history or to censor your past. Carr put it out there and supplied some of the gossipy details herself, as in Collins, Laura (2 May 2004), "STRINGFELLOW? HE IS JUST AN OLD MAN WITH A DISAPPOINTINGLY SMALL YACHT...", The Mail on Sunday and Whitfield, Lydia; Mainwaring, Rachel (2 May 2004), "LUCY - MY SPLIT WITH STRINGY.", Wales on Sunday. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, it's not a given that Carr "put it out there" as you describe - more likely a journalist managed to talk to her and spin something out of it. However, if the newspaper is a reliable source (personally I'd question the Mail being truthfully accurate about the weather without some hidden agenda, let alone anything else, but that's just me), and multiple ones covered the same story, that could make it worthy of mention here. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both Stringfellow and Carr have long since stated for the record that Carr was misrepresented by the journalist in that Mail on Sunday piece. Carr stated it on 2004-05-09, the week after, and Stringfellow stated it in an interview on 2006-02-10. If that source is the primary foundation upon which you're building a case for notability, Duffbeerforme, then you should be aware that both parties actually involved dispute its factual accuracy. Your argument that Wikipedia would be "censoring the past" if it didn't do anything but slavishly follow a Mail on Sunday piece that the people involved both say to be a misrepresentation by the journalist, is a fairly duff idea. Uncle G (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not based just on that. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Lucy"s toyboy", Wales on Sunday, 22 August 2004

"Peter's Such A Lovely Fellow.", Wales on Sunday, 9 May 2004

Price, Karen (21 February 2004), "Carr to stay with Stringfellow despite playing second fiddle to his nightclub.", The Western Mail

Adams, Emma (28 July 2003), "String's girl - Pete and I OK.", Daily Mirror

Hudson, Lori (10 July 2003), "Lucy syndicates her route to stardom", This is Blackpool

"Lucy's record triumph.", Daily Post (Liverpool), 20 January 2003

Hudson, Lori (24 January 2003), "Lucy is missing you", This is Blackpool

Lyons, Beverley (16 January 2003), "Strings attached.", Evening Times

Mainwaring, Rachel (12 January 2003), "BATTLE OF THE BABES!", Wales on Sunday

"High hopes for Lucy's first single.", The Western Mail, 10 January 2003

Duncan, Hugo (6 January 2003), "IT'S LOVE - NOT MONEY - THAT BINDS LUCY TO 62-YEAR-OLD STRINGFELLOW.", Daily Post (Liverpool)

O'RIORDAN, MAGGIE (5 January 2003), "So what if I'm 26 and Peter's 62. I love him, not his millions", The Sunday Mirror

FULTON, RICK (4 January 2003), "MY GOODFELLA.", Scottish Daily Record

"No-one is stringing says Lucy me along.", Liverpool Echo, 27 December 2002

Bendoris, Matt (19 December 2002), "No strings attached..;Interview;Lucy Carr", The Sun

Mohan, Dominic (12 December 2002), "Carr in gear", The Sun

"Lucy's lady of the dance.", Wales on Sunday, 8 December 2002

PEARCE, DAVE (28 November 2002), "Lucy hits the spot.", Daily Star

short single reviews

Strangeways, Sam (2 January 2003), "Pop Reviews.", The Northern Echo

"Rock & pop - TAKE 5 SINGLES.", Evening Mail, 1 August 2003

Hyland, Ian (19 January 2003), "Reviews - Hyland's VERDICT - Singles.", The Sunday Mirror

MACCASKILL, JULIE (16 January 2003), "THE 192 SINGLES AND ALBUMS REVIEWS WITH JULIE MACCASKILL.", Scottish Daily Record

Are you seriously suggesting that the likes of the Daily Star, The Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Daily Record are reliable sources of the standard required for an article about a living person? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i over did the show sources without checking credibility. Some still survive. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These sources show she spectacularly passes GNG requirements, it does not mean we should use all them for the article. Cavarrone (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, the subject meets the letter of WP:MUSIC, but I'd argue not the spirit of that guideline. The majority of the coverage cited here is of the trashy tabloid variety that is factually disputed by pretty much everyone involved, presumably causes real world harm or distress to the subject, and probably shouldn't be included in the article at any rate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think anyone's proposing to add the content cited by the tabloids. The best you could really do is say "In 2004, several tabloid papers alleged that Carr did 'x' with 'y', but this was found to be without merit". Or something like that. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What sources would you suggest we use for such a statement? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tabloid sources could be used to provide a secondary source for hearsay and rumour - assuming you think such things are worthy of mention in the article, which I personally don't. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per clearly passing WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 07:24, 26 June 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. Consensus that the article does meet the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Sometimes (musician)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Competed on The Voice, hasn't released anything yet. Fails WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia notability guidelines WP:MUSIC, if any one of these it true the artist is notable.

Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. Yes, 'Waves and the Both of Us' hit #145 on Billboard top 200 http://www.billboard.com/artist/charlotte-sometimes/chart-history/981425#/artist/charlotte-sometimes/chart-history/981425

Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Yes, has been on multiple nationwide US tours, including Warped Tour in 2008. http://www.interscope.com/artist/player/default.aspx?meid=2612&aid=1040 http://www.soundspike.com/story2/14554/warped-tour-moves-beyond-its-punk-roots/ http://buzzbot.buzznet.com/user/journal/2492561/charlotte-sometimes-wonders-if-shell/ http://www.seventeen.com/cosmogirl/daily-kiss-charlotte-sometimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warped_Tour_2008

Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels. Has released one album on a major label, and two EPs independently.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. Has been featured on the Voice nationwide on NBC. http://www.nbc.com/the-voice/artists/charlotte-sometimes/ Also, she was featured on the 2008 Warped Tour compilation. http://www.amazon.com/2008-Warped-Compilation-Various-Artists/dp/tracks/B0017R5UI2/ref=dp_tracks_all_1#disc_2

Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. Has been featured on VH1 as a 'You Oughta Know' artist. http://www.vh1.com/artists/az/charlotte_sometimes/artist.jhtml at which time the video for 'How I Could Just Kill A Man' was in rotation.

Thereby artist is notable, and should remain.

666Fox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chart position is fairly low, #145 on the #200 and apparently for only one week. The tour does not seem to have independent coverage, as the source you cited is from her label (which is considered a primary source). Two independent releases generally won't cut it. Being a contestant on a singing competition is not inherent notability — lots of American Idol contestants have been merged or deleted. "You Oughta Know" artist does not seem significant, or at least not equivalent to having a music video in rotation. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this artist isn't notable by those standards. Most contestants on American Idol, etc are amateurs who don't have a track record of multiple releases, several nationwide tours and haven't been featured on a national level before being in a competition. I vote to keep. 666Fox (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2008 NYT article in the article is substantial. The AP coverage appears to be also (see text here) and may be able to be verified by looking through theAP mags around July 2008. Other articles in that link may also be verifyable. There is: A decent chunk on Sometimes in Burger, David (26 June 2008), "Warped Tour: One size doesn't fit all", The Salt Lake Tribune. A long review of Waves and the Both of Us by Chuck Campbell, Scripps Howard News Service that was published in The Knoxville News Sentinel, 16 May 2008 and in The Record, 23 May 2008. A sort review Aquilante, Dan (6 May 2008), "Waves and the Both of Us review", New York Post. She was at one point the top played video ("How I Could Just Kill A Man") on VH1 ("Billboard; Video Monitor", VNU Entertainment Newswire, 8 August 2008) suggesting rotation. Contary to the claim in the nomination she has multiple releases. All that without till now mentioning The Voice. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic review and bio. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Profiled in NY Times, Allmusic bio, and plenty of of refs listed in article and others commenting here. Easily passes WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in the New York Times, Allmusic, The Star-Ledger, Montgomery News, Sputnikmusic (staff reviews are deemed professional by WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE), and shorter pieces at MTV and Entertainment Weekly. Having the charted album helps suggest notability, as does the music video rotation at VH1 (here's a news clip about her on the channel as well). Whether or not every article above contains "significant" coverage can be debated. In my view, enough do such that she satisfies WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, without taking into account her participation on The Voice. Gongshow ^Talk 18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added some of these sources to the article (others, including the NY Times/Alt Press/Allmusic, were already included). Gongshow ^Talk 19:58, 26 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VALO-CD

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

Nominating for deletion because it is completely insignificant and seems to just be someone's pet project. Canine virtuoso (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been written by 6 people (and one robot). I don't think the VALO-CD is insignificant, as it is now likely to be bigger than OpenDisc or OpenCD, both have Wikipedia articles too. --Ottokek (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC) — Ottokek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin This nomination was malformed, it is still listed in the deletion log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 28, it appears that due to being malformed, no one noticed that it was not dealt with during the review of that day's log. I have refactored the nomination and added it to today's log, I suggest treating the time of this comment as the start time for the nomination. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, functionally, it's a relist. Happens all the time, no worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like to distinguish cases such as this where there was some problem with the initial listing from regular relists as the date stamp on the nomination would otherwise be deceiving as to how much time for discussion there has been. But basically a relist. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, though the nomination is flawed - pet projects can be notable if they get coverage in reliable sources. The presence of articles on OpenDisc and OpenCD does not have any relevance to this article, really. What we need to see are sources that talk about VALO-CD and why it's important and notable. In this case, we have four sources - Two press releases, a Slashdot Posting (which isn't reliable as such, as it just reposts content), and a news article. That last, the Finnish news article, appears to support notability - but one source isn't sufficient. Is there anything else out there that discusses the importance of the VALO-CD project? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:35, 29 May 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, Sandstein 06:28, 5 June 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, →TSU ^tp* 06:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Educational software collection with a noble purpose and 8 releases. --Hiddenray (talk) 15:34, 12 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:20, 20 June 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. Discussion for a move/rename can take place on the talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical urban community sizes

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

A notable topic, if it were possible to actually write such an article. However, it is not actually possible to make estimations like this, except in rare instances. "An article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject" and there is no accepted knowledge about this subject. Most of the sources are arbitrary estimates and the one major source, cited over 100 times, is actually pseudoscience written by an obvious crank. WP:SYNTH all the way through, similar to the recently deleted page List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan. Shii (tock) 04:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep m'encarta (t) 00:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The estimates of Tertius Chandler can certainly be challenged. Removing the article is not the right way about it. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC). Updated 08:25 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- For both of you why? AFD is not a vote. Secret ^account 04:38, 20 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious original research that doesn't really intercept with each other except for the timeframe and no clear inclusion criteria or what exactly an "urban community site" means. Secret ^account 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Topic is notable, but article needs some discussion of the sources and possible unreliability of the estimates. Chandler is a notable source even if a crank on some other issues. Not WP:SYNTH as it is just a list of numbers and doesn't advance any position. Possible original research as sources may be unreliable; adding more sources might alleviate this problem. Taliban fatality reports was deleted mainly because it was news, so is not relevant to this discussion. CodeTheorist (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Chandler is a notable source even if a crank on some other issues." Is there any evidence for this? It seems many of his figures are totally wrong, and were fabricated. Also, isn't this article essentially WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Shii (tock) 12:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Modelski (link): "... the work of Tertius Chandler (1987) that has now become a basic reference for students of the evolution of the world system (see i.a. Wilkinson 1992-3, Chase-Dunn and Willard 1993; Bosworth 1995)." Seems pretty notable to me. Can you provide any sources for the alleged fabrication? The topic seems interesting and worth including in WP; it just needs improving. Adding some discussion at the top explaining the origin of the statistics would help avoid WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm changing my recommendation to keep. CodeTheorist (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I held off commenting on this in the hope that a better justification for deletion would emerge, but here goes. 1. It is agreed that the topic is notable. 2. The sources are not all from Chandler. 3. Most articles are, and ideally should be, drawn from different sources, and WP:SYNTH does not prohibit that in any way. 4. Books have been written about what constituted a city at different periods, and the title seems a reasonable attempt at arriving at a description appropriate across time and place. As a notable topic in its own right WP:INDISCRIMINATE cannot apply. 5. We cannot delete an article, with great respect to the nominator, on the unsupported grounds that the source of some of the information was a crank or dishonest when he is described elsewhere as a reliable source. This would open WP up to all sorts of academic tit for tat behaviour. If there are reliable sources offering different figures in particular cases, or questioning whether a place was indeed urbanised at the relevant period, they can be incorporated in the article. --AJHingston (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably renamed) -- This is a useful compilation of estimated city populations worldwide. I think that Historical city population estimates would be a better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more sources which hopefully demonstrate that Chandler was simply fabricating his figures and should be removed from the page entirely. Shii (tock) 00:52, 25 June 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. Renaming the article can be done WP:BOLDly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of six-man football stadiums in Texas

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

Obvious violation of WP:NOT#INFO, no evidence that any of those stadiums" listed even meet WP:GNG, or if they are considered to be stadiums at all. Delete Secret ^account 01:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wondered if there might be scope for turning this into an article on 6-man teams/the 6-man game in Texas, but I'm not sure even that is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a similar article List of American football stadiums by capacity for traditional American football stadiums. If this can be shown to meet WP:LISTN for a standalone list, which is less stringent than WP:GNG, a list of stadiums is not unprecedented. Here is one article from The New York Times on one stadium, which apparently is a different size than regular football and lacked bleachers (this one at least).—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inclusion in Six-man football would bog down the piece. That's the merge target if it comes to that... The information appears accurate. It's a distinct variant of the game popular in Texas and I can't for the life of me imagine how deleting the piece would improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination statement erroneously concludes that some of these stadiums must be themselves notable. Per WP:NNC, individual entries in a list need not be notable, and the nomination statement appears ignorant of WP:LISTN. I've never heard of the game before, but I suspect adequate sourcing to discuss the fields as a whole can probably be found. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reading in a little bias on behalf of the nominator, with the statement "if they are considered to be stadiums at all" ... let's show a little good faith please.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant to say if there's any sources out there that they are considered as stadiums. I Goggled checked several of these alleged stadiums and some of them the only sources about them is the some guy named Texas Bob personal website in the bottom of the link. All those places listed don't meet GNG, and some of them have obvious WP:V issues as there's no sources that mentions if it's a real "stadium", or just a park with a section for football games which most of them listed seems to be. Secret ^account 04:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't object to renaming the article List of six-man football fields in Texas, but that to me is a minor change and not worthy of AFD. The article Stadium defines "a place or venue for (mostly) outdoor sports, concerts, or other events and consists of a field or stage either partly or completely surrounded by a structure designed to allow spectators to stand or sit and view the event." If even they have a partial set of bleachers, that meets the minimum definition. But wanna rename it to "field" that's okay by me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:37, 18 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm ready to take a position in this discussion after some reflection. I have decided that the subject meets WP:LISTN. My research in 6-man football shows it to be a unique enough sport and this list can help to display its geographic impact. I'd like to see some additional information added, including a few images of some of the stadiums and if possible a map showing their locations. It's good that we have capacity for each one, and it's nice to see such a broad range of seating capacity (150 to 2500 I believe) so I can see how this article can really add to the article on six-man football. I also would like to see some more sources added (there's got to be stadium history information in papers online). Overall, it would be too clumsy of an article to combine with the six-man article so we're left with this list. I do suggest alternate titles as list of "fields" or "venues" rather than "stadiums" to avoid confusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:12, 20 June 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. Davewild (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ekil

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

Contested prod, not a dictionary of given names, not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, as far as I can tell. However, I disagree with the nominator's rationale that we are "not a dictionary of given names". We have, and should have, many well-referenced articles about notable given names, including my own given name, James (name). It is just that the name itself must be notable. This one appears not to be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be notable. CodeTheorist (talk) 23:31, 22 June 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. Sandstein 05:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms

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

Does not display sufficient notability, and seems to have a redundant role - there is no need or use for a long list of plots from both history and fiction on Wikipedia. The article is poorly laid out and poorly written, repeating information from the first and second sections ("Begin" and "Other notable executions and Murders" [sic]) in the third ("Brief timetable", which unfortunately is not quite so brief as intended), and with inconsistent style throughout. Additionally, the article does not distinguish between the historical and fictional plots, making an already-unclear article with no clear notability additionally confusing. Please discuss below. Benjitheijneb (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essentially just a big in-universe plot listing. JIP | Talk 05:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While the book is clearly notable and a very encyclopedic topic, this is a unsourced, OR mess. I am willing to change my policy based vote if the notability is further explained (and not just some barely understandable timeline). Secret ^account 05:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's title intends this article to be all about plot, but WP:NOT#PLOT, even for such old works. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion 1 the article does not distinguish between the historical and fictional plots/ the additional issues of poor writing and inaccuracy ======== gauge00's page is for the list of assissanation plots of the ROMANCE of 3 kingdoms. Therefore the list contains only fictional ones!! Then what on earth that list should distinguish between the historical and fictional ones? What line was the line you said that gauge00 did not distinguish between historical and fictional one? Pick one and show here. Once again why should that page distinguish between historical one and fictinal one? And You said the words "inaccuracy", where exists inaccuracy? Pick one and show. And Timeline of the Three Kingdoms period is very similar to gauge00 page.

Opinion 2 Romance of the Three Kingdoms is a long novel as we can see in List of longest novels, Therefore when anyone said about 'brief'ness of this novel, he should be careful. That novel contains roughly 0.80 million chinese characters. One chapter contains roughly 7,000 chinese characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TITLE ITSELF doesn't differentiate between history and fiction; it refers simply to "Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms", and nowhere in the title is "Romance of" found. Given the academic usage of "the Three Kingdoms" to refer to a historical period, the title of the article should have been "Assassination plots in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms". If the page is not deleted on other grounds, then a change of name to reflect the NOVEL in the title rather than the ERA would be appropriate.

And your statistics do not change the fact that the "Brief Timetable" was not at all brief; for an example of brevity, see the Romance of the Three Kingdoms page wherein the entire plot of the novel is summarised in less space than the whole of the timetable. Of course, that point is now irrelevent, since the author removed it "after dusgusting morons opened their wide filthy mouths" and "after hearing some dogs started to shit". Finally, as Sgeureka shows, the article solely serves to act as a plot summary (detailing specific elements of the plot, ie. assassination attempts) rather than an encyclopaedic resource. Benjitheijneb (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TITLE ITSELF doesn't differentiate between history and fiction; ========= (gauge00) If you have any time, go to the List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms, and attach "AFD" tag on that page insisting that "Given the academic usage of the Three Kingdoms to refer to a historical period" And I'd like to know that; if I have forgotten the insertion of the words of "ROMANCE", then this could be the reason of DELETION REQUEST by your reasoning?

that the "Brief Timetable" was not at all brief;==== (gauge00) Funny. Did you think the 'brief' words would stick to that page forever, and that anyone must not delete that word 'brief'? And if A article is not brief, but its title contains brief words, then it would be a good candidate of AFD for you?

entire plot of the novel is summarised in less space than the whole of the timetable ==== (gauge00) Who gave you the privilege to determine which summary is better than the other? Is your personal perference is something like, that does not like the style of page The Ancestor's Tale? And it is funny, do you really think that an entire plot EVER exists in ROMANCE of the three kingdom?? You surely have an ability of making summaries of Doctor Who, MacGyver and the like. What is the summary of Prison Break (season 3)? Attack AFD on Prison Break (season 3). Its episode section seems to be too long to read.

(gauge0) I found a summary of the ROMACE of 3; Which is The world under heaven, after a long period of division, tends to unite; after a long period of union, tends to divide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The non-historical context of "Fictional people of the Three Kingdoms" is obvious enough from the title; a historical category would not be labelled as fictional. 2) Yes, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms certainly does have an entire plot, which is summarised in brief on its page, as a summary should be by definition. 3) I have a right to believe that this article serves as nothing more than a few points of the plot taken into a different context without any encyclopaedic use; this is not at all helped by the fact that it is too long and disjointed to prove useful(and hence, SHOULD be brief). So YES, I do believe the main page plot summary is more effective, because it actually serves a purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjitheijneb (talk • contribs) 21:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The non-historical context of "Fictional people of the Three Kingdoms" is obvious enough from the title; a historical category would not be labelled as fictional. ==== (gauge00) Ridiculous. Haha. Funny. I want to hear your answer when some asks you whether or not the charactor Cao Cao of ROMANCE of 3k is a FICTIONAL character or not in the ROMANCE of 3k. definately I think Cao Cao is also a fictional. But the List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms is just for the people who were created by the author of 3k ROMANCE, those who were NOT written in formal records like Records of the Three Kingdoms or Zizhi Tongjian or etc, by that reason, Cao Cao was could NOT be in that list. Now, if then, If I wanted to make a list of all the characters of 3k ROMANCE, whether fictional or not, and If I wanted to make its title List of people of the Three Kingdoms, then will you insist that List of people of the Three Kingdoms should be List of people of ROMANCE of the Three Kingdoms?? Do you understand my question?? Can you understand that both List of people of the Three Kingdoms (named ALL list)and List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms (named FORGE list) would be good and legal wikipedia pages? Cao Cao could be in ALL list only. However Diaochan could be in both ALL andd FORGE list. You should understand correctly the meaning of fictional of List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gauge00 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is of no importance in this discussion, as it is not a reason for deletion. However, if you must know, Cao Cao is NOT fictional, as even if some of his exploits in the Romance were fictional, he as a character is not. You may describe a fictionalised version of Cao Cao, but Cao Cao is nevertheless historical. Thus, all historical personages would be legible for List of people of the Three Kingdoms and, by extension illegible for the Fictional list. Fictional characters, not being from the historical period, thus are entered into the List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms as stated in the article - "Fictional characters in Luo Guanzhong's historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms and those found in other cultural references to the Three Kingdoms are listed separately in List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms." Thus, without mentioning either "Romance" or "Fictional", the article is delineated as being about historical characters. It is necessary to disambiguate between history and fiction, and this is represented by the addition of the qualifiers "Fictional" or "Romance of" in the title. In conclusion, being "fictional" is antithetical to being "historical" in this context; a character cannot be both, though their describe actions and stories may be; inclusion in one requires exclusion in another, since a person cannot simultaneously be real and fictional.

Now, if you have a problem with the naming conventions for these pages, please contest that on the relevent pages. This is a deletion discussion for THIS article, and I am quite happy to accept that the naming convention is not a valid cause for deletion; if you have any argument against reasons that ARE, please feel free to present them. Benjitheijneb (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Benjitheijneb and others above. 220.255.1.88 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPLOT Snuge purveyor (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I showed that you purveyor are incompetent at Talk:Records of the Three Kingdoms. Do you still think that 184 was the beginning year of the records of 3k? (Gauge00 (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not attack Snuge purveyor; he has proven himself competent time and time again (not that he should need to), and you have no right to be criticising his or anyone else's capability. Benjitheijneb (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

gauge00 I once again say to you that the person who changed 189 to 184 was Special:Contributions/Ordaz17. (Gauge00 (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete per sguereka and benjitheijneb; this is basically both just a plot summary, and also an OR mess. siafu (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Phenomenon

三国(Sanguo) has two characters; san(三) means three(3); Guo(国) means nation, or kingdom, or whatsoever. Therefore 三国(Sanguo) means '3 kingdoms'. Too easy to understand. Ehrefore "three kingdoms" does not mean "three kingdome period". Some people insist that "3 kindoms means 3 kingdoms period, academically, or histocally." This opinion is just a shit. However I can understand his opinion cause Qing means Qing dynasty or the period of Qing dynasty or the region that Qing power reached, etc. However his insisting is just a shit.

三國志(sanguo zhi) means "record of 3 kingdoms". We can understand the meaning of zhi at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E5%BF%97 Records of the Three Kingdoms was the page of this 三國志. It was written by Jin Dynasty (265–420). Jin conquered all three, therefore we, the conquerors, pompously, were to write history of the poor,humble,perished 3 kingdoms. It was the mind of the writer of it, if I am correct.

三國志(sanguo zhi) begans in 189 and ends 280. Records of the Three Kingdoms said that it began in 184. It is totally wrong, if I am correct.

The book 三國志 is very difficult to read, and is boring, though I have never read it. The main drawback of it is that it was collection of biographies of many many individuals. Just boring. Therefore in order to make it more entertaining and easy to read, someone has to mangle and hash 三國志, and to arranges each stories and biographies of 三國志 CHRONICALLY. The one who did this job was Luo Guanzhong. THe name of his book is 三國志通俗演义(Sanguozhi Tongsu Yanyi), or 三國志演义. This title means "I made the boring 三國志 easy to read. I rearranged it. I added dialogues. Sometimes exaggeration, I gave lifes to boring characters of 三國志. Hey, you can read this novel without any trouble, even though you are NOT university properssor. You dont need any 'academical' or 'historical' minds to read and understand 三國志. Before you surely have difficult times, that whevenver you were to says something about Liu Bei, some academical man promptly and pompously said to you that that is not historical or you can not distiguish history and fictional".

Anyway Sanguozhi Tongsu Yanyi is called in English as Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Romance of the Three Kingdoms sould be understand as a animated version of the record of the three kingdoms.

Funny one is that ... Romance of the Three Kingdoms starts in AD 184. The reason why 184 was chosen is just the author's will, just his preference. But after Romace started in 184, some morons began insisting 三國志 began in 184 also. I added a comment at Talk:Records_of_the_Three_Kingdoms.

Another Funny one is that some people insist that the Three Kingdoms period began in 184, or in 189, though the last Han Emperor Xian of Han still had his chair in 220. We can see this funny statement However, many Chinese historians and laymen extend the starting point of this period back to the Yellow Turban Rebellion in 184.. We can see the power the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Yes, laymen could do that. However wiki academical men did that also.

Still Funny one is that there EXISTS a page named of List of people of the Three Kingdoms, list of historical people significant to the Three Kingdoms period. Please do search 'List of people of something.." in wiki. You would find many many many so many List. But there is ONE special one. List of people of the Three Kingdoms is the special one. This is List of people of SOME period.

There is no List of people of Han period. There is no List of people of Qing period. There is no List of people of Emperess Victoria period. There is no List of people of Elisabeth I period. However this is golden and platinum plated one, List of people of the Three Kingdoms.

We can see the power the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. If Luo Guanzhong did not write Romance of the Three Kingdoms, there DEFINTELY would be no such stupid thing like, List of people of the Three Kingdoms; However if I added DiaoChan, a fictional character, on that list, a great watch dog would bite me barking Diaochan is a fictional one. Younger Qiao was allowed, but Diaochan was not allowed.

Another Funny thing is that there EXISTS a page named of List of fictional people of the Three Kingdoms. List of fictional people of aaaaaarhhhh period??? What a nonsense.

Therefore I made a List of people of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Any academical men and historically oriented men could not boast of his high knowledges on my new page, I think. Instead they will boast his knwleges in front his college students, if they have any.

Anyaway if the phrase Assassination plots in the Three Kingdoms period looks strange to you, then you should think it as Assassination plots in the ROMANCE of the Three Kingdoms instead. Then it fixes all. There is no need to discuss to AFD. And if you had not read 10 times the unabridged ROMANCE of the threekingdoms, then you have no right to vote on this discussion, cause you are not apt to discuss. I think so.

I see that you clearly have no sense of my comments, so I'll make this clear: 1) a historical novel is not a "less boring" version of history; if you think it is, you must be insane. It's a piece of FICTION set in a historical period. 2) Diaochan is, to all intents and purposes, HISTORICALLY NONEXISTENT. Writing about a fictional character does not make it any less fictional, and if you think that doing so is true, you should seek professional help. 3) You have absolutely no proof that the Three Kingdoms era was extended to 184 as a direct result of the Romance - that can be justified by purely logical sense, since the major players in the Three Kingdoms era (eg. Liu Bei, Cao Cao) gained their foothold on power due to their roles in the Yellow Turban Rebellion and Ten Eunuchs incident. If you can provide any evidence for that, please do, and I will change my view on that.

But here's the most important one which you don't seem to get: 4) For the LAST TIME, the naming convention is not the reason I put this article up for AfD. You keep ignoring the fact that the ultimate reason for the AfD is lack of notability and an excessive detailing of plot. If anyone can combat THESE reasons - and no argument against these reasons has been presented - I will withdraw my support for the AfD. But at the moment, all you've managed is to hurl abuse, disregard the knowledgeability of other users, throw a temper tantrum in cyberspace and make a fool of yourself. So when you've gotten over that, you may want to provide arguments for notability and usefulness.

I am tired of this pointless argument over naming conventions which have no effect on the AfD whatsoever; I just want civil discussion of the article, so I will not respond to further comments on the naming. And without the personal attacks would be nice, thank you. With all due respect, Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:52, 22 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bivona & Cohen

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bivona & Cohen

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

Non-notable insurance defense law firm; creator of page has worked only on this article and nothing else. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 13 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here that confers notability, I found nothing on a brief search, this seems like nothing but corporate advertising to me. Ubelowme (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable law firm. --Artene50 (talk) 19:03, 22 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of ThunderClan cats

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

Contested PROD. Another obscure corner of the encyclopedia where fictional content has been allowed to bloom unchecked. Purely in-universe and sourced entirely to primary sources, there is no realistic possibility of this content being repurposed in a manner befitting an encyclopedia. It appears that there is a wikia:warriors, which would be a vastly better home for this content (and the editors responsible), so in the event that this is deleted provisions should obviously be made for a transwiki if requested. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki We don't need to keep every tiny detail of every notable fictional work (see WP:PLOTSUM etc). If something is of massive cultural or pop-cultural importance, like Hamlet or The Simpsons, it makes sense to have more detail, but that's not the case here. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per above. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Would we do the same for all the other lists of cats in various Clans? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Chat ♠ Watch} 23:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the plan. Once this has closed, and assuming the decision is to delete / transwiki, I'll compile a list of similar article in this domain and do a mass-nomination. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:00, 18 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an obvious delete (not even a redirect, as I can't imagine this is a likely search term). There's no independent notability for the various clans of this book series. I can see including a page on Hogwarts or the like, but, not that's an exception to the rule.
Delete This has been transwikied in the past to Warriors Wikia. This information is already included in all of our individual character articles. It serves no valuable purpose on Wikipedia and includes a number of incredible minor, inconsequential characters. This was found wanting on Wikipedia previously and what is desired here can be accomplished better at Warriors Wikia. Kitsufox^{(Fox's Den)} 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like how as soon as I take a break, all of a sudden, there is just sudden upheaval. Like, when did Kitsufox suddenly come back (I don't mean that in a disparaging way, in case anyone reads that in the wrong inflection)? Anyway, I'm not using this point to try to support a keep, but the problem that's likely to occur once these character pages have been deleted is that fans are going to start piling character descriptions into the main page for characters, or if that's deleted too, there's a chance it'll start piling onto the main series page. Now, I'm not saying that that's a reason to keep (because that would be a logical fallacy), I'm just offering my opinion of the potential effects as I would expect from experience. Seeing as the majority appears so far to support deletion/transwiki, if that's indeed what happens, I'd like to request that the deleting admin also userfy it to my mainspace (you may have to overwrite a bunch of redirects, if I remember correctly). Bramble claw x 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also, there are a bajillion redirects at the moment to the page. seeing as the article is probably going, those redirects need to be dealt with. Bramble claw x 19:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of third party sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:56, 24 June 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. Sandstein 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Str8 Rippin

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

Tagged since June 2010 with citation issues. Each of the Major League Gaming team articles have either no sources or those that fall under WP:PRIMARY. No reliable, extensive third party coverage could be found. Some small articles, such as [40], [41], [42] exist, but do not cover the teams themselves with any WP:SIGCOV. Any relevant information can be covered in the Major League Gaming and List of MLG National Championships articles easily. Teancum (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons listed above:

Delete - Very little coverage in reliable, third party sources. The ones given are short and trivial, covering very little other than it exists. As Teancum says, the sentence or two of confirmed can be merged into either of those articles if deemed fit... Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:16, 14 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge if appropriate, but delete this page. I was unable to find enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 01:11, 21 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth About Forever

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

This article has worn a Template:Notability since July 2009. No assertion of notability is made in the article. A Google search for ("truth about forever" dessen) yielded lots of hits, but the vast majority were either bookseller sites or fan blogs. I found a one-paragraph review at Kirkus Reviews; another one-paragraph review at Publishers Weekly; and a five-paragraph review (whose final paragraph was a single sentence) in The Family Magazine of Michiana. However, there doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage in national media. To me, this appears to fail WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some other reviews and it looks like this is also being used pretty heavily in many schools' summer reading lists and in classes.[43], [44], [45], [46]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:32, 14 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79. It's no War and Peace, but it's a book of above-average notability from a definitely notable author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:45, 20 June 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poulomi Desai

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Dwaipayan (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but substantially clean-up article. The article contains several independent sources, and I was able to find a few more.[47][48], which I added to the article. Poulomi Desai meets Wikipedia's artist notability guideline which states the following: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Keep – Topic meets WP:GNG:

Interview with Poulomi Desai (Usurp gallery) | Harrow Community Radio
ART REVIEW; Many Shows and Many Indias - Page 3 - New York Times
There's also this article, which is not quite significant coverage, but beyond passing mentions – Dakin, Melanie (April 19, 2010). "Hair exhibition opens in West Harrow". Waterford Observer. Retrieved June 05, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 25 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have coverage, and have played a significant part in a notable well covered creation. [49] Dream Focus 05:01, 26 June 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talegenes Attention Training

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

Non notable promotional article: the references are almost entirely about ADHD and neurofeedback training in general DGG ( talk ) 14:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have agreed with the nominator, since most of the references don't mention the company, but the few that are asserted to are written in Chinese, which I don't read and cannot translate. On the balance of probabilities, though, this does look like self-promotion. Ubelowme (talk) 15:36, 6 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete originator seems correct from what I can see.--Nouniquenames (talk) 22:33, 23 June 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.

^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[3] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]