Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 13 March 15 March >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hirshon

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

Non-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapmin (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:02, 16 March 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. However, DoctorKubla does have a point, maybe this article was created too early. Once this event happens then perhaps this issue can be re-evaluated but at the moment there's no consensus to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Course of the Force

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

While I personally like the idea behind this upcoming event, and it is certainly for a good cause, I don't really think it meets the notability requirements to be included as its own article. As it stands, the only places that make any mention of it are the websites that are directly connected to the event, thus it fails having reliable third party sources. In addition, as the event itself isn't scheduled to occur for nearly half a year from now, it is too early to even say how notable it will wind up being, per WP:Crystal. Rorshacma (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Rorshacma, I really appreciate the concern. Third party references have been added, so I hope this helps. I think an event that hasn't occurred still warrants a page. This is my first time creating a page, and I do appreciate all feedback. Ehenneberger (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Third party sources seem alright, and I'm sure it'll get more coverage as it happens, but I still don't think it meets the notability guidelines in WP:EVENT, as I doubt it has enduring historical significance. I'd suggest, Ehenneberger, that you wait until after the event and then add it to the Nerdist page, since they seem to have organised the whole thing. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - As a first of its kind event, the Course of the Force has already generated substantial pre-event publicity and news coverage. It is a standalone event that is significant in the Star Wars, science fiction, and charitable worlds. It is economically significant for the cities from Santa Monica to San Diego that it will go through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.221.40 (talk) 20:01, 6 March 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) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article seemed to be marketing copy, but I've been following the progress of the event and think it warrants inclusion. I made the article neutral and removed alot of the marketing wording. The Nerdist partners founded the event, but it looks to be it's own thing. I removed some of the stuff that looks unfounded or unplanned at this point, like the scheduling section. I also combined several unnecessary subcategories into one. Fluxfire01 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 23:56, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hatchard

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

A complete mess of an article about a young man who set up an events/animation company. It falls halfway between being a resume for Hatchard and a long list of activities and associations of Hotbox, his company. Most if not all the sources verify something trivial about Hotbox. There is barely anything in the references of note, certainly no in-depth, independent, reliable coverage about Hatchard. With his uncommon name you would expect to find anything that exists online, unfortunately I can't find anything to support this article. The 'notability' tag has been on the article for many months. Sionk (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article as Hatchard's company, Hotbox Studios, is very successful and has been covered by a number of reliable and independent sources. As it's founder, Hatchard is also mentioned in this articles, so I considered an article about him would meet the general notability requirement. Perhaps there is too much focus on him and not enough on the company however. Maybe the article should be titled 'Hotbox Studios' instead and give more prominence to the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystal Wilde (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I cannot find signifcant coverage about Hatchard or Hotbox Studios to establish notability. The long list of references in the article are almost solely non-reliable sources. If substantial reliable sources can be put forward as asserted above, then I will certinaly consider them. -- Whpq (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. I have also nominated Hotbox Events for deletion, similarly poorly sourced and non-notable. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 17 March 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Croydon Fiveways

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines; strictly of local interest. Miniapolis (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lack of independent references in article; no evidence of notability yet. A more thorough search may find some articles (regional press coverage, maybe even architectural/town-planning refs). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; would you merge as much information as you think appropriate into the Croydon article? I'm busy with backlog-reduction work at the moment. Miniapolis (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep (non-admin closure). Cloudz679 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Regional Amateur League

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

Amateur league. Fails WP:FOOTYN. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 09:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 09:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of a subject is not predicated on the current quality of its article. While editorial discretion may support a merge in the short term simply to improve the average quality of our coverage of the subject, that's orthogonal to discussion of the subject's notability. That's important to establish in case an editor subsequently comes along to improve the article and a well-meaning editor party to this AfD goes and speedies it as G4. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Clearly notable as per WP:GNG/WP:N. There are enough reliable sources with regards to the topic to warrant keeping the article, see Phil Bridger's comment. Also, the nom stating that this league does not meet WP:FOOTYN is wrong since the article clearly meets WP:N. We are talking about the league here, not the clubs involved or the players involved! Straighforward KEEP ! TonyStarks (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think, as the fifth tier football league in Turkey, it satisfies WP:N and the article can be improved more. Besides, I added League Status and two references from Turkish major news websites.Hcagri (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's clear from the google results linked above that sufficient coverage of this league exists to pass WP:N. Obviously it would be better if more of the information contained in those results were incorporated in the article, but that's a problem inherent in writing articles on the English Wikipedia about subjects (in any field, not just sports) with little English-language coverage. It's an argument for improvement, not deletion. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep Reluctandly, as I am still not really convinced about the notability of an amateur league. But the article is now better sourced and it seems that even more sources are on his way. I give it the benefit of the doubt and reuqest speedy close as keep. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)as said before, I'm not Don Quixote[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fournote Network

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

Non-notable website. Despite the original author's attempt to make this article look really impressive with lots of references, five separate references were found to be citations to the same press release published in five different magazines. Other references are to generic articles about privacy in social networks, but there is no evidence of anything on the web about this website but self-promotion by its founder. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't think this article should be deleted only because some of the sources are from a press release. At least one appears to be from a legitimate source that provides adequate coverage (the Crowdsource Gazette). I think the author or other editors might be able to turn up more sources. A quick Google search reveals some potentially noteworthy ones. If nothing comes up, I'd certainly change my vote. 66.229.0.153 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this stage, the company doesn't have any real independent coverage in reliable sources. There are a lot of reliable online publications covering technology news in minute detail (CNet, Wired, Engadget, The Register, and many general-interest publications too), but I can't find any references in any of them to Fournote. If the company is a success, this will change, but right now, it doesn't meet notability criteria. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 16 March 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 Kilvey Hill.  Sandstein  19:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kilvey Killer

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

Fund-raising sport event. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Kilvey Hill. Coverage about this race exists over a period of time, but is strictly local (see [1], [2], [3], [4] all from This is South Wales). This suggests that there is insufficient notability to sustain a standalone article, but verifiable information can be selectively merged to the Kilvey Hill article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain This article satisfies the No Original Research Test because it is attributable to a reliable published source. This article satisfies the No Significant Coverage Test because sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. In addition the significant coverage is more than trivial because the subject is the main topic of the source material in more than one article. The assertion for deletion or merger is therefore not proven and the article is valid as a stand alone article. User:Vouliagmeni (talk)00:30, 23 March 2012 (CET)
    • Yes, there are four articles from the same local paper that are about the event. The question is whether four articles from the same local paper qualifies as significant coverage. (The other two sources appear to be dead links - the one linking to a forum definitely doesn't count towards notability.) You do, the nominator doesn't, and that is what this AfD is for: to decide whose interpretation the community agrees with. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kilvey Hill. Locally known and appears to have local significance, but insufficient coverage to satisfy GNG as all citations that I can view are to Thisissouthwales.co.uk. The Runner World link is dead, and appears to have been a user's forum in any event, which would not qualify as a reliable source. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:29, 24 March 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. Spam / nn-website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Favourite Voucher Codes

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. Article creator declined prod with explanation that it is mentioned in the national (I assume British) press. However, my own search turns up little on this company and website. The sources given in the article appear to talk about coupon sites in general, not this particular company. Safiel (talk) 20:46, 14 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of eye care facilities in Ghana

[edit]
List of eye care facilities in Ghana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:58, 15 March 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McLaughlin

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

Repeatedly proposed for speedy deletion but tag removed with no explanation. Questionable notability and seems to have been written by either the subject or a close representative. Admin response reqd. Steelwool (talk) 16:12, 26 February 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 February 26. Snotbot  t • c »  16:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as not notable. The only source provided is nothing beyond routine coverage (and I doubt it's reliable), and I cannot find anything else. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as it stands definitely has problems. It is almost entirely unsourced and, while I am reasonably certain that everything in the article is substantially true, I have not (at least yet) been able to verify most of it from independent reliable sources. However, the one source in the References section of the article is definitely reliable, even though it's probably too slight to establish notability by itself - it's the subject's entry in the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, and the very fact that it exists suggests to me that the subject is likely to be notable (the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction contains far fewer Doctor Who-related articles than does Wikipedia). The subject is also verifiably one of the leading scriptwriters for The Beano.[5] Under the circumstances, I would think it advisable to give an extra week to see if anyone on Wikiproject Comics or Wikiproject Doctor Who (neither of which seem to have been informed of this discussion) can do better on identifying reliable sources than I have. PWilkinson (talk) 21:00, 3 March 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, Bmusician 03:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:20, 14 March 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. Consensus favors the notion that this topic is not sufficiently notable for its own article, but apparently we do have an article on a related subject. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STANAG 3910

[edit]
STANAG 3910 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an encyclopedia article. Hard to tell what it's about, but it seems to be about the development of a product, with a distinctly spammy feel. No independent references. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 24 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 3 March 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, v/r - TP 20:19, 14 March 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. I'm sorry Yaloe and frankie but I disregarded your !votes because they didn't add anything to the discussion. Another "keep" !voter admitted that his !vote wasn't very strong. Add to that the nominator's admission that he was unable to evaluate non-english sources. This one's a draw. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Commission of National and Democratic Parties

[edit]
Advisory Commission of National and Democratic Parties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This group seems to (at least as near as I can tell) have come and gone without much impact. It generates three mentions at Google Books, zero in Google News, and most of the hits on Google in general are either Wiki mirrors or are sites that basically cue to a set of words. My best guess is that the group was a "flash in the pan" prior to the first round of elections in Afghanistan and that it never managed to do anything of note (there were a number of organziations like this in the mid-2000s in Afghanistan as near as I can tell). Even the sole source cited seems to back this up...it seems to imply that this was nothing more than a temporary working group among a group of minor parties. Tyrenon (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notability doesn't expire over time. If a group was notable at one point, it is notable enough to have an article. This grouping was quite significant as a rallying point of various political parties. I googled in Farsi, and came up with some more links. Notably, there seems to be different version of the name circulating. I added another ref to the article, and this page has a report on a meeting of the coalition, http://www.acsf.af/reportsHTML/simin1.html . --Soman (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we tried hard enough, we could come up with a long list of groups that came and went but still have Wikipedia articles. I know that's not really a strong argument, but that's my inclusionist nature coming through :) --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions to both points: 1) Was the group actually a substantial force? Again, the lack of more than a handful of non-press sources (at least, English-language; I'm not qualified to look things up in Farsi) and complete dearth of stories on GNews (at least, as far as I can tell) casts some doubt on that point. Put another way, was this a case of a group with possible notability that just never quite broke out? (I'd note that all but two of the parties don't have wiki-pages, though given that this is Afghanistan that's something of a poor indicator) 2) What are the other name(s) that the group had and/or might still be operating under?Tyrenon (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that it was a quite notable regroupment, an attempt to form a 'third front' of sorts in Afghan politics. Jamil Karzai, for example, was elected to parliament. The confusion regarding the name seems to be that the coalition could be referred to not by its full name, but rather just 'National and Democratic Parties'. --Soman (talk) 18:22, 17 February 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, Bmusician 06:00, 22 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:53, 3 March 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, v/r - TP 20:18, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Correspondence Games Server

[edit]
Free Internet Correspondence Games Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website of questionable notability. Google news search shows zero results. Standard search shows primary and unreliable sources, directory links, and social media mentions, but no significant coverage found from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with my article. FICGS does get google search results. I also updated my sources with independent pages. Such article does exist in the Italian wikipedia and there is no complaint there.

This article should not be deleted for lack of asserted importance because the article is about new correspondence chess organization. FICGS is responsible for organizing correspondence chess championship similar to the ICCF World Correspondence Chess Championship. I am not affiliate with FICGS by any means.

I want to mention that similar article is written in Italian and my article is the English version. The Italian article is accepted, the English version should be accepted too. FICGS is hosting World Championship tournament which is the second most important event in the world of correspondence chess after the ICCF World Correspondence Chess Championship. The last 3 FICGS events were won by ICCF and FIDE recognized chess grandmasters - Edward Kotlyanskiy and Eros Riccio. This article gives information about correspondence chess. FICGS is mentioned in the main article Correspondence chess and I think it deserves place in wikipedia.

There are several other articles mentioning FICGS like Eros Riccio and Edward Kotlyanskiy. Both players are recognized as FICGS champions by Chessbase. Chessbase Correspondence Chess Database 2010 and 2011 includes correspondence chess games, played in FICGS by international masters and grandmasters, recognized by ICCF and FIDE.

I think the articles serves a purpose to inform about new possibilities like playing advanced chess, invented by Garry Kasparov and also giving information about international correspondence chess event, recognized by Chessbase and other Correspondence database creators. Without this article the information in the main article Correspondence chess and the articles Eros Riccio and Edward Kotlyanskiy is incomplete.

Therefore I think the article shouldn't be deleted. I as the author of the article am open to suggestions about improving the quality of my article. Dimvass (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 28 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:31, 5 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think notability has been established via significant coverage from independent reliable sources. I don't think Edward Kotlyanskiy meets the notability bar for a chess player either (but that's a separate matter). Sasata (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is my opinion biased and irrelevant? Because it does not conform to what you think? The onus is on you to show that the subject of the article meets notability standards through "coverage found from independent reliable sources" (another copy/paste). You have not done so in your blurb above. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that have to do with anything? This is the English Wikipedia. If you want the article to remain here, you need to prove "notability standards through coverage found from independent reliable sources". If you can't, the article will be deleted. I suggest trying to find sources to meet this requirement would be a more useful pursuit than pointless bickering with me. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 15 March 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 HP Pavilion (computer). —Tom Morris (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dv9000z

[edit]
Dv9000z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Variant of HP Pavilion (computer), no independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:09, 28 February 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:21, 7 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:17, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Karmakar

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

WP:NOTABILITY - Five references provided; several are event listings, one is a cast list where he played a minor role, one is a page of a database (one that doesn't even mention him, due presumably to linking to a non-stable search result, but which would not confer notability even if he did.) Subject gets zero hits on Google News, google hits are his social media and his own promotion. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:42, 9 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:14, 14 March 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. I consider the initial rationale for deletion to have been fully rebutted; however, the later delete !votes focused on the series' (as a group) failure to pass WP:LISTN and WP:N. I think that consensus was reached that it did not. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Control series

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

This stub is not written like an advertisement; it is advertisements that are usually written like this stub! The whole foundation of this stub is based on weasel words and peacock terms that merely boast this series of video games while neither this article nor any other of the three Ground Control articles have supplied a shred of evidence that this game is ever well-received. In fact my Bing searches suggest otherwise. Fleet Command (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a list of a small number of interrelated and apparently notable, commercially published games. Weasel and peacock can be changed through editing, per WP:ATD, and do not constitute a policy-based reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complete violation of WP:NOTADVERT is more than enough a reason to delete a piece of stub. And you talk as if the problem is one or two sentences amongst a very good article. That is not the case. The entire stub is written like an advert; every single line of it. See Also sections and/or a navbox serve this purpose. Fleet Command (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article quality doesn't relate to notability. I deleted the unsourced "hypey" promotional material by the way, so now it's down to 1 sentence. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. But I think "Article quality doesn't relate to notability" is a theory and does not necessarily correspond facts and realities. As you you say, the article is now down to one sentence and now fits the bill for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A3. But I guess nothing good comes out of beating the dead horse. So, cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, bad phrasing. WP:GNG does not say anything about present article quality; it is about the topic. I know there is this whole debate on WP:BEFORE and on articles being required to not only have sources in principle, but also include them on the page. But the topic doesn't become less or more notable just because we edit the page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Much appreciated. Though my nomination is not about notability at all. (But I stand corrected: I realize that NRVE does not stands for "no reliable verifiable evidence". My mistake.) Notability is just guideline, but WP:NOT is a founding pillar. Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah, I see. Yes, you are right in that WP:NOT is crucial. But the thing is that it is possible to write an unacceptable article (like advertisement) on a notable subject. So WP:GNG may conclude the subject is notable but WP:NOT may conclude the article is presented in an unacceptable way. Hence AfD is typically about WP:GNG, because one could have just removed the promotional material under WP:NOT and WP:BURDEN leaving a stub. So I guess that's why I wasn't sure what you meant. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Er... merge with Ubisoft Massive, anyone? Fleet Command (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick search shows that the games themselves pass WP:GNG. Not sure this passes WP:LISTN as a stand-alone list. Then again it's arguable if any smaller game lists do. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have zero doubts about the notability of the games themselves, but series articles like this are far better suited for larger series and franchises which actually need the space. There was an expansion pack and a sequel, hardly a group which needs a collective article, this is just an additional wrapper. Someoneanother 19:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's good to keep connections between related things. I personally can't speak to notability of the games. If the games are notable, and even those wanting to delete the article think they are, the overall series is at least as notable--and if notability is borderline, we'd do better to combine the individual articles here under the series title, which is what we usually do for minor works. If the works were totally unrelated, and the series is merely what librarians call a "publisher's series" then the serial nature might be merely nominal and could be ignored, but it is clear from the 3 articles that the plot is continuous and related, so it's a true series in every possible sense of the word. I think in fact the article should be expanded to give some indication of the relationships, but even if it is not, it can be thought of a disam page. I see no reason why the fact that its a small series means it should be treated differently than if it were larger. The basic principle is that WP is NOT PAPER, the needless discussion of this here is, in fact, more harm to the encyclopedia than the bytes occupied by the page. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 2 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:31, 3 March 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, v/r - TP 20:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that it can be so replaced is not an argument that it should be. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yeah, but when people say something like this, they are also implying that it should be. Seriously, you don't possibly expect a reply that says "oh, sorry, what a waste of time I coming here and saying something like this when I am strongly against a navbox", now do you? ;) Fleet Command (talk) 13:36, 22 March 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. Note that the number of views or the number of google hits are not considered valid arguments for keeping. henrik•talk 10:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crissi Cochrane

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

Fails wp:NMUSIC. I can't find any mentions on a Google search, or a Google news search. Looking at the article's references:

  • source 1 is self-published
  • source 2 is from the record label she published from
  • source 3 is a tabloid
  • source 4 is dead
  • source 5 only mentions her in passing
  • source 6 is a student magazine
  • source 10 is from YouTube

Now let's look at the Earshot chart references (8 and 9)...

  • I see that she's four on that chart (ref 8). However, when I search for the second song on the chart ("All Kinds of Mean"), it's red, and so is the band that released it. Number one also only has a short article, and the number one song doesn't have an article either ("Tuco"). The same happened for the ninth reference, as I couldn't find articles on bands higher on the chart than Ms. Cochrane, which makes me doubt the notability of the chart itself. Non-notable indie artist. Albacore (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to WP:NRVE we need to confirm the notability based on the data we have in the article, it means that absolutely we should not cross check whether or not other people have article or not, or whether the other people have a long or short article. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. This means that if the band that released All Kinds of Mean is not on Wikipedia it does not mean it is not notable. This applies also to the short article you have mentioned. The fact that there is an article, whether it is short or long cannot be used as a feedback or reference point to take decision on this AfD.

I have corrected the source 4. It's now working and it's a reliable source according to WP:V. Source 1 even if it is self-published can be considered as reliable and used as a reference in similar cases because it cites raw-data such as place of stay and job type. Source 2 you are right is a primary source. Alone it cannot stay. In this case it is supported by reliable 3rd party references. In my opinion it can stay. --★ Pikks ★ MsG 21:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is clear from searching Google and other music resources (including Pitchfork and NME) that this artist is not known outside a very tight circle of his own community/circles, and as such will need to have a lot of justification of notability. This article has none. Google searches find none. If I can use such evidence, article page hits don't suggest there's a significant number of people looking for him. In short - fails our policies on Musicians, notability and promotion and as such the article should be deleted doktorb wordsdeeds 04:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This seems to be a borderline case, perhaps because she began with folk music, which is not as popular in Canada (or the U.S.) as during the 1950s/1960s. The March-2012 pageviews ([email protected]), in the first full month after the article was created, show some interest in the topic, averaging 15 pageviews per day. Compare that to 1 pageview per day for little-known footballers who have articles. Perhaps the reason this article was re-listed is because there is just barely enough notability, for a singer with an "indie" background. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a search and there is plenty of hits on her. Mrlittleirish 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that "lots of google hits" do not equal actual "significant coverage in reliable sources"? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do realise, I seen some of the sites that came up on the search, and I would say they verify her according to policies. Mrlittleirish 15:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to WP:GOOGLEHITS please refrain to check the number of hits from google. Of course you can use google to add other relevant sources to the article, but not as a tool to see whether an article can be kept or not because of its number of hits. In the current state in my opinion the article should be kept according to WP:MUSICBIO as it satisfies the point 1,2, 4, 7, and from what I see in the refs also 11.--★ Pikks ★ MsG 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, passes multiple points of our Guideline for music.Cavarrone (talk) 11:24, 22 March 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. henrik•talk 10:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Ingram (producer)

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

Non-notable producer JayJayTalk to me 03:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 February 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) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm not totally sure about this; there's quite a few articles making reference to him, though a lot of that seems to be recycled press releases. He's produced some high-profile productions, and to that extent he would seem important in his field and notable. However, the lack of detailed coverage is a worry. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 6 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searching for Colin Ingram on Google yields plenty of results, but they're all similar to the three links in the article: passing mentions, rather than in-depth coverage (or even moderately detailed coverage). Fails WP:GNG. Terence7 (talk) 04:45, 19 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1000Fryd

[edit]
1000Fryd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notalbe building, can't seem to find references to suggest notability JayJayTalk to me 22:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From all the concerts by famous talent, and it being mentioned in a novel, one might expect the sort of coverage which would contribute to satisfying WP:N. Are there any sources in Danish? Edison (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 28 February 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) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found some sources about the novel and the major role the establishment plays in it, and a raft of news stories about vandalism and fights there. I'll expand the article a little bit and add refs, over the next few days. There appears to be some reliably sourced material on their promotion of alternative music, although I could search better on that if I knew diddly-squat about popular music '-) It'll be a pity if most of the references are about disturbances, but from what I've seen plus its important role in the book, in my estimation it meets the threshhold for general notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:50, 7 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 14 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1000mods

[edit]
1000mods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band, also fails WP:NBAND JayJayTalk to me 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 28 February 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, Bmusician 03:49, 4 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:57, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Benjaminsen

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Footballer who hasn't played at senior level for a professional team, also fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds he has played in the Norwegian Cup. However, his single appearance to date was in the early stages of the competition against lower division club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:47, 14 March 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. Bmusician 06:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Oblivion (2012 film)

[edit]
Land of Oblivion (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strange article that seems to be a recreation of an earlier removed page (tagged in september 2011), and copyvio from a Facebookpage (dubbed the official website). And apprearing here just before the official launch on 28 March 2012. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—I deleted the copyvio text from the article, but there are a few critical reviews of this movie in reliable sources, including Variety [8] and East European Film Bulletin [9] and foreign language sources. Appears (barely) notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you help me add these to the article? If you don't want to, then just list them on the talk page of the article. If we don't add them then the article will only get nominated again in the future or tagged for lack of sources. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:30, 15 March 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 argument that there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to give an accurate portrayal as required by WP:BLP is perhaps not the most common, but I find it persuasive. The arguments by Gatoclass et. al, has shown coverage weakly sufficient to establish notability. However, I am persuaded by the argumentation that the sourcing falls short of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV requirements for an accurate portrayal to such a degree that it's not possible to write a policy conforming article. henrik•talk 11:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Eden

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

No evidence of any substantial notability; article uses dubious and self-published sources for all information about her (the NCCAM source is just used for a definition, and is arguably WP:SYNTH, since it doesn't actually discuss Eden's ideas). Seems like a marginal article at best, and lack of good sources is likely an insurmountable problem, which a look at Google Scholar and Books only confirms.

It's probably also worth noting that the lack of any reliable sources gives this article major WP:BLP issues. 86.** IP (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article in a newspaper and a review of a book meets up to the requirement of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources as per WP:GNG. As an author I don't think WP:AUTHOR has been met either. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to arguments put forward above, anybody can write a book and have it published. The fact that one of her books won an award is hardly notable when you consider that the award in question is the invention of a marketing company (Smarketing LLC), the president of which is in the business of selling books and there are literally hundreds of "finalists" every year. All must have prizes it seems. Eden does not seem to be particularly notable, even in the not-particularly-notable field of energy medicine. Regarding the "evidence" put forward by Arxiloxos, an article in a local newspaper about the fact that she is holding a workshop is definitely not notable, and Publishers Weekly is, like the Indie Exellence awards, in the business of promoting books. No brainer, this one. Delete, delete, delete. Famousdog (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing of use in this article. It does not meet the WP:V requirements of WP:BLP. I've spent some time checking out the references and they are all unverifiable, self-promoting, exaggerated or a combination of the three. Agree with Famousdog, PW and the award are both forms of advertising. Neither are sufficient to make this subject WP:N. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am disappointed this article has been put for deletion again without adequate notice on the article talk page. I am busy in real life ATM and unable to contribute much here; however a quick google search of news archives would appear to show a number of sources which could be used to establish notability; for example, this profile in Third Age which states: "For more than two decades, Eden has been teaching people to understand the body as an energy system and to see their aches and pains as signals of energy imbalance. Her students have included everyone from Gloria Steinem to Bernie Siegel, M.D., author of the bestselling healing guide, Love, Medicine & Miracles". I also found articles in magazines from as far afield as Germany[12] and Romania,[13] indicating that Eden has an international profile. When I get more time I will take a closer look at some of the other sources, but IMO it would be better to give people an opportunity to respond on the talk page before starting an AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if any of these sources are sufficient to establish WP:N. None of these sources are of themselves notable. --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not, and there are other issues with using such sources. Third Age is not a reliable medical source and just seems to be advertising her book, Reiki-land is a blog and the Romanian website just seems to give a quick synopsis of what her book is about. This all falls under WP:PROMOTION and is not WP:RS and certainly not WP:MEDRS. Famousdog (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are not going find an article on "Energy medicine" in a "reliable medical source". Energy medicine is clearly WP:FRINGE medicine but that doesn't mean either it or its principle advocates must necessarily be non-notable. Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.kinesiologie-welt.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29%3Aenergiemedizin-fuer-frauen&catid=24 is a review in a German applied-kinesiology online journal. While mostly favorable, it is definitely not a PR piece. Kdammers (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if she had a notable international profile decent sources should exist. This Bernie Siegel also seems non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the first [14] reference in the article. It's clear that Eden's importance has been exaggerated for the purpose of promoting a yoga-business. As for the "Prestigious" Nautilus Book Awards [15], this looks like yet another non-notable book-marketing business --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have made it into the Worcester Telegram and a substantial bunch of other newspapers, and mentioned in books not written by herself. 3K+ hits in google books - and most are not by her. Notable enough - not up to Mary Baker Eddy and L Ron Hubbard, but not absolutely deletable. "Energy Medicine" is in 95 libraries - making it not absolutely ignorable. Collect (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Meets Author requirements - one paperback is in top 3K on Amazon list, and in top 50 on "Healthy Living" there. Number of other books also with very respectable sales ranks. Collect (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this? [16], it seems to be yet another promotional puff-peice. In this case, promoting the fact that this person will be speaking at a local event. This is advertising disguised as news. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is substantial coverage in secondary sources, not reprinted press releases. That link isn't good enough to show notability. 86.** IP (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[17] paywalled but free snippet has Well, then, its high time you shake the stupor and get your energy moving again, and we know a coffee run is no long-term answer. Donna Eden, energy... Bermuda Royal Gazette [18] has her listed in the company of Deepak Chopra etc. (free). Lots of Miami Herald mentions - generally for lectures. More then 30 of the articles arejust book-signing stuff. [19] paywalled StL Post-Dispatch - snippet A pioneer in the field of energy medicine for more than two decades, Donna Eden has taught people worldwide how to understand the body as an ... but may also be a book-signing bit.
The hits on Google Scholar seem far more definitive however. Collect (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not sources that can be used to write an article. These appear to be press releases, and do not show any major notability. 86.** IP (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For Author - published by major publishing houses, cited by others, significant sales = sufficient notability. In the case at hand; all three of these are present. Cheers. And I did not think the cites in Google Scholar were "press releases" by the way. Collect (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far the article has only one reliable non-primary source. The article has been tagged with multiple issues for the last 4 years. It seems unlikely that the sources exist to create an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IRWolfie-, could you state (in the article's talk-page) which of the sources you feel are not acceptable. Irrespective of whether this article is deleted we should probably clean up inappropriate sources. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment there are 2 sources: her personal web page, which is definitely not WP:RS, and an advert for one of her workshops dressed-up as a news article in a local Florida paper. Neither of these is the type of "hard" source that BLPs require. Agricola44 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Agreed. I'm happy to edit these out. I think in the end we will find that there are no reliable sources that establish Donna Eden's notability. Can anybody provide a rationale for retaining these sources? --Salimfadhley (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The following observations seem pretty convincing. (1) Eden has had no real impact in the medical field, as judged by scholarship. Specifically, she has published only 1 paper (Feinstein and Eden, 2008 Alt. Ther. Health Med.) that has only 5 citations. (2) She has written lots of books, but the institutional holdings are not nearly what one would expect for mass-market publications. Examples: Energy Medicine ~140, Energy Med. Kit 1, Promise of Energy Psych. ~250. These numbers are very small compared to those of others of established notability. For example, Chopra's many books seem to have many thousands of holdings each, e.g. this one at ~3400. (3) It is easily argued that Eden is not actually in a field recognized by Evidence-based medicine, so she should not be judged by the same standards, typically WP:PROF. While I think this is true, the implication is then that she would have to pass WP:GNG, which mostly relies on independent, substantive coverage, WP:RS. Significant effort from many eds seems not to have turned-up much here. (4) I think the bottom line is that requirements are much more strict, especially for BLPs, than the last time this article was visited for AfD 4 years ago, and that it no longer meets these requirements, as they now stand. Agricola44 (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Then you've unfortunately missed the point. When all the promotional nonsense is stripped away (there's no shortage of it here), the notability question hinges on whether there are sufficient sources. The point is, then, that there are other established BLPs whose sourcing statistics serve as objective "yardsticks" for this case and Chopra is one of the examples showing that, if assessing on the basis of book holdings (a commonly-used indicator here), we expect stats in the thousands for "mass market" books. Eden is nowhere near this. Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Donna Eden may believe in what she says, but her claims are very far out indeed hence why not many have bothered to investigate her claims, sometimes these type of fringe folk may get third party coverage but I have not seen any for her work, I did read some of her book once, there have been no notable reviews. She is doing new age metaphysics not science. It is also difficult to find third party references for her work I have looked, she gets hits in other new age books but that is it. She is rather unknown even in fringe circles. GreenUniverse (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Eden is doing "new age metaphysics not science" is not a valid reason for deletion; the only question here is whether or not Eden has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, and I think she does. Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I really don't have any interest in "energy medicine" but I am concerned that this AfD is imposing unreasonably difficult standards on this author because of the subject matter. Here is an author who is repeatedly mentioned by other authors in the same area[20]; who has multiple books published by major mainstream publishers, at least three of which have been reviewed in Publishers Weekly[21][22][23] (and please note that two of these reviews include substantial criticisms as well as positive comments); who has been written about at some length in multiple legitimate newspapers[24][25][26]; whose books continue, years after publication, to have reasonably high rankings on Amazon's overall and subject matter charts[27][28] , and who has made it to other bestseller lists as well (e.g. [29].) The deletion arguments here argue that each of these indicia of notability should be disregarded for one reason or another, and she's obviously no Deepak Chopra, but if this author were writing about dogs or trains, it's hard to imagine we'd be seeing anyhing like this level of scrutiny. Again, I'm not carrying any brief for this subject matter, but I do care about the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the encyclopedia, and I don't find the deletion arguments being used here to be consistent with my conception of those values. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What you've said sounds compelling until you drill down a bit. First, there's no notability in having a book reviewed by Publishers Weekly. That's a trade magazine whose mission is essentially to do just that and they publish reviews on about 7K books every year (see our WP article). It's misleading to imply that such reviews are on par with a review in something like Nature, which is highly selective. Second, many of the "newspaper" articles are actually adverts in disguise. For example, the one you cite in the Ashland paper is for a paid workshop, "Tickets: $25 in advance at...", the one in Petersburg Times is likewise, "Cost of Eden's workshop is $20 in advance", and the one in the Telegram is advertising for an appearance at the "Natural Living Expo". Again, I think it's misleading for you to characterize these as "legitimate" WP:RS. Are there any sources not related to promotion? Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • As I said in the last AFD, subscribers to Publisher's Weekly according to the Wiki article include "6000 publishers; 5500 public libraries and public library systems; 3800 booksellers; 1600 authors and writers; 1500 college and university libraries; 950 print, film and broad media; and 750 literary and rights agents, among others, which sounds reputable enough to me. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh...you're confusing "reputability" with "selectivity". Nobody accused Publishers Weekly of not being reputable. However, it is patently not selective. They review something like 150 books every week! That's surely a large fraction of all the books published, so it's in no way "notable" to have such reviews. I'll be embarrassed for you if you keep arguing this line. Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Your claim that Publishers Weekly reviews "a large fraction of all the books published" is obviously speculative. I'm not sure what criterion is used for book reviews at PW, however, Eden's book Energy Medicine was also reviewed by Library Journal and Booklist, both of which only review books deemed of interest to libraries, and both of which appear only to list those books which are positively received by their reviewers, so there are clearly selection processes in place at these journals. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you seem to be totally unaware that these are all trade publications (not journals) that review enormous numbers of "mass market" books. There's no notability conferred by having reviews in such outlets. Perhaps this would set things in perspective: By your argument, we would be having to create pages for around 150 new mass market authors per week just because they got a Publishers Weekly review. Patent nonsense, that is. Agricola44 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
With all due respect, I'm getting a little tired of your patronizing comments ("seem to be totally unaware", "embarrassed for you", "confusing the issue" etc). I said I didn't know what selection processes are in place at PW, but that there are clearly selection processes in place for the other two journals, a point you failed to respond to except to argue they are "trade publications". Gatoclass (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel tired, but again I point out that you apparently haven't familiarized yourself with your own argumentative points. These are trade publications. Example: the first sentence in Library Journal is, "Library Journal is a trade publication..." (emphasis added). I can only repeat what anyone who is familiar with the publishing industry already knows: Listings and reviews in such publications are a routine part of the business and confer no notability whatsoever. That is why they do not appear in WP notability criteria. It is clear that the notability question for Eden's particular case now falls down to whether she passes WP:GNG. And for that, there will have to be multiple substantive sources that discuss her (and these don't count adverts for her workshops, etc.). My friendly advice to you would be to try and find sources and abandon this bit about being reviewed in Publishers Weekly et al. because it's a dead end. Agricola44 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Where does it say in WP:GNG that "trade publications" cannot be used to establish notability? Gatoclass (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm the one who's growing weary. WP:GNG requires sources that discuss the person in substantive detail. This requirement immediately implies an enormous list of things that do not count toward notability, like routine reviews in non-selective trade publications and promotional newspaper adverts, both of which you've pushed hard. I really think the debate would be served well if you were to drop this line and try instead to find substantive sources that discuss her. I couldn't. Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think the issue is that it appears we're looking at an echo chamber in the mentions of her in other books - a small group of people, none of whom is notable, talk about each other a bit, but without any notability outside of their tiny group of proponents of the specific fringe ideas. I've seen no evidence of any sources of any real quality; just being mentioned by non-notable people in non-notable publications a couple times, and having a few press releases published surely doesn't add up to notability. 86.** IP (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, it seems we have somebody who is well known amongst a clique which is not itself very notable. The Energy Kinesiology community is a very small subset of what is already a fringe movement who seem to promote each other's events. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - on the following grounds:
  • Energy medicine is recognized as an alternative therapy by the US government agency NCCAM; [Comment: I'm pretty sure that NCCAM is just using the term de novo, to mean any alt med that claims to manipulate energy. 86.** IP (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)][reply]
  • A google search on "energy medicine" returns links to Donna Eden websites in four of the top six slots;[36]
  • There are numerous articles in reliable sources devoted wholly or partly to Donna Eden's work. Articles devoted entirely to Eden:
    • A substantial article in Oregon's Bulletin devoted entirely to Eden and her partner David Feinstein,[37] also published in the Ellensburg Daily Record;[38]
    • Worcester Telegram;[39]
    • Oregon's Ashland Daily Tidings;[40]
    • Florida's St. Petersburg Times;[41]
    • Third Age.com;[42]
    • A series of eight articles in Bermuda's Royal Gazette dedicated entirely to Eden's healing techniques, plus several additional articles (type "donna eden", with quote marks, into the search box);[43]
    • I also listed two articles devoted wholly to Eden in publications as far afield as Germany and Rumania; while someone dismissed these as "blogs" I was unable to determine their provenance, but I think they demonstrate that Eden has at least some degree of international recognition;
  • Articles offering substantial coverage to Eden's work:
    • Seattle Times;[44]
    • The Bulletin;[45]
    • Florida's St. Augustine.com.[46]
  • I should also note that the above are only from freeview websites; there is a significantly larger number of pay-per-view articles that may also offer substantial coverage;
  • Google scholar returns scores of cites to Eden's work in other publications;[47]
  • While I don't have time to follow up at the moment, some of Eden's books are high on the sales list in their respective categories; additionally, numerous independent sources, including some of those listed above, refer to her books as "bestsellers" and state that Eden is "famous" and internationally recognized. I think one or two of Eden's books may also have won awards, but again, I don't have time right now to verify that. Regardless, I think the above alone should be sufficient to establish Eden's notability. Gatoclass (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just rechecked the previous AFD and it seems at the time that Eden had several books listed high in their respective categories, several years after publication; her Energy Medicine Kit, for example, was #2 in the Naturopathy category, another was at #11 and so on. These books have dropped considerably lower now but the earlier rankings ought to demonstrate Eden's popularity and recognition level. Gatoclass (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third Age.com is an unreliable fringe source. The daily tidings is a tiny newspaper with less than 2000 readers apparently: Ashland_Daily_Tidings, the seattle story is actually from a writer from Daily Tidings. Your royal gazette link didn't point anywhere. stagustine.com appears to be another small time newspaper. These all appear to be standard small time newspaper mentions, remember that wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOT#NEWS. The category you referred to was according to amazon rankings and in a specific fringe category. According to WP:AUTHOR we look for enduring notability not temporary notability. Since the "books have dropped considerably lower now" that shows that she has little enduring notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Third Age.com is an unreliable fringe source
It's called Third Age.com not New Age.com. It's a magazine aimed at female baby boomers, and it clearly has a strong editorial board composed of journalists and academics, as a look at its editorial page will confirm.
The daily tidings is a tiny newspaper with less than 2000 readers apparently
Where in WP:V does it say that a source cannot be considered reliable if it has a small readership?
[The Seattle Times] story is actually from a writer from Daily Tidings
So? The Times is a reliable source, and it saw fit to print the article. That is all that matters.
The category you referred to was according to amazon rankings and in a specific fringe category
Naturopathy is not a "fringe" category - it is a major alternative therapy with accredited courses in a number of countries.
According to WP:AUTHOR we look for enduring notability not temporary notability
I don't know whether Eden will secure "enduring notability" for her work and neither do you; however, in my experience that is a policy caveat routinely ignored on this project. Gatoclass (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you go to the Royal Gazette page and type "donna eden" (with quote marks) in the search box the articles will come up. Gatoclass (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of Naturopathy is considered to be quackery, so yes it is fringe. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, WP:CRYSTALBALL, we look for notability now, You appear to be suggesting we ignore the notability requirements but I fail to see why. I mention the tiny size of The daily tidings as you are trying to use it to establish notability, it is a relevant metric. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether or not you think naturopathy is "quackery", my point is that naturopathy is not a minor phenomenon but is hugely popular - my local drug store, for example, has almost as much shelf space devoted to naturopathic remedies as it does to conventional medicines. So scoring the No. 2 spot on Amazon's Naturopathy booklist could be considered a significant achievement. Gatoclass (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Gato, with all due respect, it's irrelevant to this discussion how much shelf space your local drug store gives to such books. Moreover, Amazon category rankings are not admissible. Please refer to established sources like the WorldCat stats above. They're not impressive. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I was referring to naturopathic remedies not "books", as anecdotal evidence of the popularity of naturopathy. But I won't quibble with regard to the usefulness of Amazon rankings. I do however note that the notability threshold for a book at WP:NBOOK is that it should be catalogued by the Library of Congress and "be available at a dozen or more libraries". Apart from being so catalogued, Eden's Energy Medicine appears to be available at something like 200 libraries across the US alone, including 16 university and numerous college libraries. It has also been the subject of several independent book reviews. That would seem to be a sufficient indication of notability to me. Gatoclass (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but now your confusing the issue of Eden's notability as a person with the asserted notability of one of her books. They're not the same thing. The notability of an author of a book, as judged by her books' institutional holdings (as you seem to be arguing), are conventionally taken to be satisfied if holdings are in the thousands for "mass market" books. Here it is in a nutshell. At the time this article was created (4 years ago), BLP notability was much lower than it is now. The rising standard is simply a result of community consensus. Given the guidelines that are now in force, she does not pass any of the obvious tests, e.g. WP:PROF (no demonstrable impact), WP:GNG (lacking sources), etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I am not "confusing" anything. The fact that someone has written a notable book obviously factors into their own notability. Gatoclass (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the very fact that there are separate notability guidelines for books (WP:NBOOK) versus the people who write them (WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, etc.) means precisely that they are judged separately. There certainly is a correlation, but I think the disconnect here is your assumption that Energy Medicine is itself notable. It's not. WorldCat shows only ~140 institutional holdings, which is very low for a mass market book. LOC cataloging is also not notable because that is a routine part of the commercial publishing process. I'll repeat here my good faith and gentle advice given above: Eden is clearly not notable for her scholarship/publishing activities and she'll pass, if at all, only on WP:GNG, which primarily requires substantive sources about her. Your case will be best served by trying to find those sources. I couldn't. WADR, Agricola44 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment This is absolutely nonsense. Do any image search of Donna Eden and you will see this lady is a fraudster, gets money from the gullible her buy her books. She claims that if ones Chakras are out of tune then somebody may die! The only place she is quoted is on new age sites. Theres no notability. Theres nothing wrong with folk with far out claims having a wikipedia article, see Royal Rife for example, but only if they are notable and have reliable references. Do you know how many modern new age authors there are? Millions, but only a few have been covered by mainstream press or outside of fringe circles. GreenUniverse (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those "millions" of new age authors are published by Penguin? How many have books high on the list in their respective categories on amazon? How many have had their books acquired by scores of libraries? How many have been described as bestselling authors by numerous third party reliable sources? Gatoclass (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my London borough's library system: There are no copies of any of Eden's books in any branch. I checked the search engine on Penguin.co.uk - Donna Eden does not appear to be listed on their main imprint. I could see no indication on Amazon that this book had any enduring status on the best-seller list. In short even if these were suitable criteria for notability (they aren't) they do not pass verification. I'm forced to hold my original conclusion which is that Donna Eden is not a well-known person outside of her own community. --Salimfadhley (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A four year old book that is still listed in the 1200s on Amazon's booklist has no "enduring status"? That is some pretty tough criteria you must be applying. I wonder how many authors can boast of having a book in Amazon's top 1200 four years after publication? Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the timescales of a book 4 years is a short time, her books printed 10 years ago seem more relevant. You cite her being in the top 1200 in amazon, yet not all the writers in the top 100 have their own articles, so this seems irrelevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • I note that Eden's book Energy Medicine, last republished four years ago, is still listed as #1,262 on Amazon in category "Books".[48] The previous edition received positive reviews in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Booklist magazine.[49] Gatoclass (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wheres her birth date, town she grew up in, career, qualifications, education, etc etc?? Even if the article is kept due to a few sources which mention her energy medicine, the page does not look like a biography article, it looks like promotion. GreenUniverse (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the page needs work. I think with the recent sources I and other users have turned up, somebody could do an appropriate rewrite. The fact that the page is currently a bit of a mess though, is not a reason for deletion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That she is involved in quackery is irrelevant to the points against the article. The sources shown were all newspaper clippings from minor or unreliable sources, wiki isn't a newspaper, these are sources which probably can't even be used for anything, the mentioned thirdage.com is completely unreliable. Erich von Däniken on the other hand has very firm notability with individuals like Carl Sagan writing about him. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted as I think your edits made her sound like a crank, and might prejudice potential contributors to this AFD. Assuming the article survives the AFD, I will be fully rewriting it since I have already gone to the trouble of finding sources for it. Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete [duplicate !vote] Gatoclass, it seems since I last checked this AfD that you have done a good job of increasing the quantity of sources mentioning Eden, but not the quality of sources. As far as I can see the new sources simply suffer from exactly the same problems (mainly being promotional or press releases) as the old ones. She is not simply "less well known than Deepak Chopra." She is in fact an order of magnitude at least "less well known than Deepak Chopra." That "Energy medicine is recognized as an alternative therapy by the US government agency NCCAM" is irrelevant to whether Eden herself is notable. Also, I'd like to add into the mix that this article seems to show a severe American bias and WP is, last time I checked, a global encyclopedia. I searched WorldCat for copies of Energy Medicine in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and several other countries and found only a handful of copies. Literally countable on the fingers of one hand. This woman is only known in fringe circles, only cited by fringe authors, only written about in local (American) rags and only when she's promoting a book or a workshop. DELETE Famousdog (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Deepak Chopra is one of the best known people on the entire planet, I still find your comparison pointless. And while the sources may not be ideal, I disagree that they are "promotional" - they are not PR releases and they are not advertising, they are simply profiles that the sources in question chose to run. And your argument that she is not notable because she is not well known outside the US is nonsensical, there is no requirement in WP:GNG for the subject to be well known globally. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! He might be well known among viewers of Oprah, but i guarantee you that a good portion of humanity doesn't know who the hell Chopra is. Far, far fewer will have heard of Eden. Famousdog (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gatoclass, your stated rationale for undoing my changes is not has no basis in WP policy. The changes could not have influenced this AFD since there is no wikipedia policy against having articles about (as you say) cranks. I do agree, that the sources (particularly Ashland Tidings) give the impression of an individual with unorthodox beliefs. I do not understand why you object to using the article in a way which reflects it's actual content! --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you cherry picked the oddest-sounding quotes you could find and presented them in a totally decontexutalized manner. The relevant policy is WP:NPOV (not to mention WP:BLP). Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Eden appears to be a fringe theroy promoter or not is irrelivant to this AFD since no policy forbids pages about fringe topics. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Eden said it, and it can be verified, it can stay. If you want to balance it out with some of her less "cranky" pronouncements, go ahead, but don't just delete stuff she actually said because it makes her sound like a wack-job. That's her fault for saying it, no?
Oh, and I still think this argument is irrelevant because this article should be deleted. [duplicate !vote] You've had quite long enough (4 years) to prove that this woman is worthy of article in a global encyclopedia and the efforts so far to prove her notability have been pretty weak. Famousdog (talk) 08:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't author this article, and just because I happen to have !voted "keep" on it at AFD does not make me personally responsible for fixing it. Having said that, in all likelihood I will be rewriting the article after this AFD if only to save myself the trouble of having to return to this debate. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are motivated to fix the article please do so. Even if the article is deleted it can always be re-added if the new version substantially addresses the concerns with the original article. I am personally skeptical that it is possible to write a decent article about Donna Eden simply because of the paucity of reliable sources about her. Don't let my skepticism get in the way of you trying! --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apology and comment Gatoclass, sorry I didn't mean to personalise this disagreement by saying "you (specifically) 've had quite long enough..." That was a poor choice of words and i meant to say that the authors/defenders generally of this article have had sufficient time to establish notability. However, I agree with Agricola that you are confusing the notability of an author with the (alleged) notability of (some, or one of) her books. Earlier in this discussion you also (seem to) have argued that because the field of energy medicine is notable, Eden is. What this all adds up to for me, is that Eden's book itself might deserve an article, or deserves to be used as a source in the energy medicine article as one of the "seminal" works on the topic, but none of it necessitates an article on her. If it does, wouldn't WP rapidly fill up with stub articles saying: "Person X is an author. S/he wrote insert name of book here" which would be no more helpful than a simple redirect. Famousdog (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete PW is a RS for notability. Yes, it reviews 7000 books a year but that's about 10% of the English language books published, and taking one out of 10 is selective. The comparison with reviews in Nature is irrelevant--the fields they cover are different (most books reviewed in Nature are probably not reviewed in PW, which is public library oriented. That's why there are multiple review sources in the world.) The standard of notability in a field like hers is not to compared with that of medicine-- that the scientific basis is non-existent is irrelevant. But that one review is not sufficient in the absence of anything else substantial. Even in the field, she has very little importance--I don't go with the argument that the fact that there are more famous alt med figures proves she is not notable--follow that line of thinking and we'd have one person per profession. But she's pretty near the bottom tier--theis is a field that unfortunately gets substantial newspaper coverage, and her's is minimal. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Eden is "pretty near the bottom" in the field, why do her books come out on top on the topic of "Energy Medicine" on amazon.com? Why do we have multiple sources describing her as a "bestselling author"? You say that "one review is not sufficient" but I also listed reviews of her Energy Medicine, from Library Journal and Booklist, did you not see those?
Agricola above stated that a mass market publication must get "thousands" of institutional holdings before it can be considered notable, but I can find nothing in policy to validate this claim. In fact, all NBOOK seems to say on the issue is that at minimum there should be "a dozen" institutional holdings before a book can be considered notable. WorldCat records that Eden's Energy Medicine returns 227 institutional holdings in the US,[50] while her Energy Medicine for Women returns 348.[51] That seems like a pretty respectable number of holdings to me. Energy Medicine has also been translated into five languages.[52] Gatoclass (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments (sorry this is probably getting tedious now) DGG, while I agree with your opinion that this article should be deleted [duplicate !vote] your argument that Publishers Weekly is "selective" doesn't work. PW is a US-based trade magazine for the publishing industry and therefore probably "selective" for US publications (like Eden's, which as I've argued previously, don't have much of a presence outside the US). If you factor in that every country on earth probably has a trade magazine for the local book trade (e.g. The Bookseller in the UK), I bet you can find a review of pretty much any "of the English language books published" in the trade mag for its local market. That's why trade journals are not RS. They are promoting sh*t. Non-RS links cannot and should not be used to establish notability.

Gatoclass, at the risk of incurring your ire, you still seem to be using the argument "notable book = notable author". But your arguments regarding the notability of the book rest on numbers in libraries or rankings on Amazon. Amazon is in the business of books and how they rank them is mired in mystery, so that's not a good argument. Regarding numbers in libraries, there are lots of copies of the UK phone directory in libraries, but its not a notable work of literature. Numbers of copies doesn't = notability. Although the two factors are probably correlated, other factors such as price come into it. Also, politically-motivated organisations such as the Discovery Institute can flood libraries with propagandist crap like this further distorting that connection. I'm not suggesting that this is the case here, just trying to explain why this argument is problematic.

What I actually think is going on here is this: If some hack were to write a book about a quite obscure topic about which there were few books available, it would undoubtedly become "seminal" in that field by the simple fact of its availability in the absence of other books. Maybe Eden's book is incorrect, full of errors or misrepresents energy medicine completely? How would we know? The fact that it is widely available and aggressively promoted means little as to whether the book or the author is notable. Your argument is further watered down to: "widely available book (or only book in field) = notable book = notable author". This is not good enough.

How about this: Look at her co-authors. She has collaborated with David Feinstein on 3 of her 4 books. Yet he doesn't have an article. How do we know the ideas presented in these books are Eden's and not Feinstein's? Maybe Eden is a ghost-writer? Maybe Feinstein is? We don't know anything about this person because reliable references to her are so scant. What about her other co-author, Gary Craig? He doesn't have an article either and his name simply redirects to Emotional Freedom Techniques, the particular subject with which he is connected. Donna Eden should similarly redirect to Energy medicine because she is a proponent of that (possibly notable) idea, but not seemingly notable in her own right. Famousdog (talk) 12:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If some hack were to write a book about a quite obscure topic about which there were few books available, it would undoubtedly become "seminal" in that field
Not at all. Books written by "hacks", regardless of topic, seldom get endorsements in reliable sources. And right now, I am still finding endorsements of Eden and her work in reliable sources which indicate she is a widely recognized figure in her field. I will try to find time to post a list of them in the next day or two assuming this AFD is still open. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Gato, all this hoo-hah could have been avoided if only we were able to provide a decent set of reliable sources as to this author's notability. I think if these sources actually existed we would have found them by now. None of the sources we've presented so far amount to more than a random mention (e.g. Seattle Times) and a bunch of advertorials. Her books have never been reviewed by the mainstream press and her opinion does not seem to be often-cited, even amongst her own community. In summary, a minor figure in a minor discipline. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology lists her works among its "major references".[53] Gatoclass (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ACEP's board appears to be made up of qualified psychologists and other health professionals.[54] So why wouldn't this organization be considered reliable - because they have an approach to their discipline you happen not to like? Gatoclass (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'fraid you're Barking up the wrong tree again. Whether they're reliable is irrelevant because (see numerous arguments above not worth repeating yet again). Agricola44 (talk) 16:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Gato, you can answer this question yourself. Simply apply the usual standards: WP:N, WP:RS. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ACEP Qualified psychologists? Don't make me laugh. A search of WP only turns up four pages mentioning ACEP. Nobody notable. Non-notable organisation with non-notable members in the business of promoting quackery. Unless you can turn up those reliable sources you don't "have time" to post I think we're done here. DELETE Famousdog (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you appear to have misinterpreted my reason for posting that link, it wasn't intended as a source for the article, but as a response to salimfadhley's claim that Eden "does not seem to be often-cited, even amongst her own community ... a minor figure in a minor discipline." The ACEP list demonstrates that in fact her works are regarded as seminal by what appears to be the most reputable organization working in the field of energy medicine. Gatoclass (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I move to close this discussion. I think we have plenty of time to review the available sources. The majority conclusion seems to be that there are insufficient reliable sources to show that this subject is notable. I do not think it's likely that any new information will come to light given the time we have already spent. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I second the motion. It's safe to assume that, at this point, everything that can be found has been found and that it's now time for an admin to weigh the evidence either for or against. Agricola44 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Um, excuse me, but you don't get to "move to close" an AFD, it will be closed by an uninvolved admin at the appropriate time. Apart from which, I already signalled my intention to present more sources in support of this article, which I intend to do shortly, and I request that the AFD not be closed until I have done so. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further references:
    • Two of Eden's books cited as references for the Psychosensory Therapy chapter of When the Past Is Always Present: Emotional Traumatization, Causes, and Cures by RA Ruden, published by Routledge as part of the Routledge Psychological Stress Series. Includes a profile of Eden. Note that this source also profiles ACEP, describing it as an "international nonprofit organization of licenced mental health professionals and allied energy health practitioners" with "international scope" and "members from 50 countries".[55]
    • An endorsement of Eden's work in The Trauma Treatment Handbook by Robin Shapiro, published by Norton.[56]
    • The Handbook of Humanistic Psychology: Leading Edges in Theory, Research, and Practice, published by SAGE - includes a chapter by Eden's partner David Feinstein describing Eden's work.[57]
  • Routledge, Norton and SAGE are all highly reputable publishing companies. In addition to the three refs listed above, I also found perhaps a hundred books in popular psychology or alternative medicine citing Eden and her work, a number of them written by medical practitioners or other health professionals, many of them testifying to Eden's prominence in energy medicine. While many of these books may be of questionable notability, I think the sheer number of them testifies to the recognition factor that Eden enjoys in the field. Gatoclass (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a sign of notability. We already knew that a small group of proponents of fringe medical ideas were citing each other, but just saying the publishers are major ones doesn't show the books are notable, or even necessarily mark them as reliable sources. If you could show that anyone outside this rather incestuous circle has taken the slightest interest in Eden, that would do more than showing short mentions in nonnotable books, by non-notable people. 86.** IP (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your attempts to defend those referemces are kind of bizarre - She gets a short mention in a couple books by fringe proponents. The books aren't notable; the authors of the books aren't notable, but because the publishers are, apparently that sends notability back all the way to Eden. 86.** IP (talk) 05:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it's your own reasoning that is "kind of bizarre", given that you are now claiming a source cannot be reliable unless it is also notable, an assertion nowhere supported by WP:V. Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gato, you're the one arguing that reliability or reputability also mean notability and this is patently false, as has been pointed-out quite a few times above. Please stop, as this is wasting lots of time and cluttering the discussion. Please hear me one final time: It is irrelevant to an author's notability whether her publisher is "reputable". Agricola44 (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There are unsupported assertions here that give a false impression. For example, " ACEP Qualified psychologists? Don't make me laugh. " followed by a running down of ACEP by saying ACEP is really mentioned and then saying it is promotion of quackery. I looked at the actual people listed in the reference: There are people with PhDs from respected US universities. so, yes, the people listed are qualified psychologists. The rest veers off-topic as a means of supporting the assertion. A second example is the assertion that Eden is essentially only [if at all] of significance in America ["I searched WorldCat for copies of Energy Medicine in the UK, Germany, New Zealand and several other countries and found only a handful of copies. Literally countable on the fingers of one hand. This woman is only known in fringe circles, only cited by fringe authors, only written about in local (American) rags and only when she's promoting a book or a workshop. "]. I already gave a German book review above. In addition, using a German search engine [Allesklar], I found a Swiss psychologist and practitioner of alternative medicine commenting on Eden [58], including quoting a founder of the American Holistic Medical Association touting energy medicine. [59]; there are translations into German of two books by her listed at Amazon.de [and two Spanish translations at Amazon.es]; A quick search in KVK [a German tool rather than WorldCat, which is American] of European academic libraries came up with more than ten copies in just Germany, with more books in Italy, Spain, Scandinavia, Poland, and the Netherlands [including Dutch, Danish, and Polish translations]; there are also some "practitioners" who say they base their work on Eden, and a forum that discusses one of her books. Now, this is not massive and not the sort of sites we use for citations, but it does discredit the assertions I quoted.Kdammers (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a psychologist, I find the idea that ACEP has any credibility as an association representing psychologists totally laughable, but you're right, it was unsupported, I'm just venting my frustration at how this AfD is getting dragged out unnecessarily. If you make this article about Eden & Feinstein's book or energy medicine generally and I have no problem with it. Lets look at the new evidence you and Gatoclass have presented: You have found a website of a Swiss psychologist (and some other websites of alt-med practitioners, apparently) that are no doubt all promotional, the "German review" you point to is in an Applied kinesiology magazine and says that Eden's book contains too much criticism! Hardly an RS in this case. The fact that her books are reviewed or translated makes the same "notable book = notable author" mistake previously discussed. Translation of books is more about the business of selling books by expanding into new markets than any notability on her part (again, I'm not saying her book(s) aren't notable, just her). Gatoclass has produced some (mainly fringe) therapy manuals that cite her, one of which (Ruden) actually mentions her specifically but is written by a practitioner of EDMR, Energy medicine and Emotional Freedom Techniques (google him). More fringey fringeness... The chapter by Feinstein that mentions Eden raises COI issues because he's Eden's long-time collaborator. So to summarise: Find "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" that discusses Eden specifically that is not promotional and does not involve a conflict-of-interest and she can have an article on WP. Otherwise, I can too. Famousdog (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Feinstein is a collaborator of Eden's, but the publisher is an independent third party which presumably reviewed Feinstein's contribution and approved it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]. 86.** IP (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Publishers publish. Reviewers review. Editors edit... and books are not peer-reviewed in the way that journal articles are, so this is yet another attempt to argue that because a reputable publisher has printed out lots of copies of a book in order to sell it, that their notability somehow trickles down and confers notability on a person who gets the scantest mention in a chapter written by a mate of hers! Famousdog (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are reliable sources, regardless of how you spin it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too am finding this frustrating. All the keep-proponents have to do is find some sources that match Famousdog's sensible criteria above. Vague promises that one day these high-quality references will be found do not cut it. We apply the same standards here as we would do for any biographic article. The fact the subject is involved in fringe topcs does not change the requirment a jot. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because this discussion has been so long and rambling, I am a tad concerned that my reasons for supporting the inclusion of this article may not be entirely clear. Per WP:AUTHOR, a person is considered notable if they have 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. Given that multiple sources describe Eden as a bestselling author, and that multiple periodicals have reviewed her books, it seems to me that Eden passes this test. I concede that her status as a bestselling author is not as well reflected in reliable sources as one might expect, but she appears to pass the test nonetheless. WP:AUTHOR also states that a person can be considered notable if he or she is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. One can interpret "peers" in a number of ways but it does seem to me that in the field of energy medicine at least, Eden is very well known and indeed regarded as a seminal figure. So she arguably meets not one but two separate criteria under WP:AUTHOR. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your rationale is clear. I believe that it's based on a misinterpretation of the above policy. Eden's work is neither significant nor well-known. Her collected work is mostly ignored. She has not been the subject of any notable books, reviews or films. None of the sources that say anything about us pass the tests of WP:RS, WP:N. Sources which are themseles WP:QS or WP:FRINGE in nature cannot be used to establish notability of a subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me again put Gato's claims in context. Per WP:AUTHOR, "...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", with emphasis added on the operative word independent. The routine trade publication reviews that are executed for umpteen thousand books per year in order to promote their sales to bookstores, libraries, and other outlets is emphatically not what this requirement refers to (as discussed at length above). Per citations, "...is widely cited by peers..." means that one can check in the various standard databases and count citations. This was already reported above: she has published only 1 paper (Feinstein and Eden, 2008 Alt. Ther. Health Med.) that has only 5 citations. What Gato is basically doing is Special pleading to hold Eden's notability case to a different standard than all the other author/professor/researcher/medical BLPs that come through AfD. Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Normally, I state my POV in a debate and have little else to say; on this page however, my remarks have been misrepresented with such regularity that I've felt obliged to respond simply in order to defend myself. Now I'm being accused of "special pleading", which is absolute nonsense - I quoted the relevant policies and stated why I believe those criteria have been met, nothing more. With regard to the other comments - salimfadhley states that Eden's works are "neither significant nor well known", but a bestseller by definition is "well known", and Eden's book Energy Medicine is routinely referred to as a bestseller, made it to #5 on the LA Times "Healthy Bestseller" list, and is still just outside the top #1000 bestselling books on Amazon four years after publication of the latest edition. It has also gone through five editions and been published in at least five languages.
Agricola's assertion that Publisher's Weekly and other "trade publications" are not "independent" was refuted by DGG, one of the most experienced contributors to AFD. DGG also refuted Agricola's attempt to marginalize Eden based on standards applied to medical researchers, stating that The standard of notability in a field like hers is not to be compared with that of medicine, an opinion with which I concur. Bottom line: she wrote a bestseller. Doesn't matter if the book is utter tosh, if it's a bestseller it is "well known" and if reviewed by multiple reliable sources, which it was, then the author qualifies under WP:AUTHOR. Gatoclass (talk) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me see if I have this straight. We're going to accept that this woman has published medical research in the peer-reviewed literature (Feinstein and Eden, 2008 Alt. Ther. Health Med.), wrote a book which gives medical advice (the book "...promises to teach you to help heal yourself and others...", Amazon.com review) and which is called "Energy Medicine" and then we're going to turn around and assert that she should not be held to the same standards as those in the (presumably allopathic) medical field? I can't fathom this as anything else than baldface nonsense. She could have garnered numerous "keeps" and passed under GNG if acceptable sources about her could simply have been tendered. They were not, because they don't exist. (Assuming we're not mixing up "sources" in this context with "citations" by others to her work --- there are a few of those, but not many). No. Instead, Gato wants to basically go the route of PROF, which hinges basically on demonstrable impact of one's work. That's the argument being made by asserting notability of her books, her reviews in Publisher's Weekly, etc. However, the impact is not there, either. So, here we are at an impasse: Gato asserting notability by the impact of her work and others pointing out that this impact is far short of the usual levels we agree on for author/prof/researcher/doctor-types. All the information is in and everything beyond this is nothing more than repeating these distilled arguments, and therefore a waste of time. Could a disinterested admin please take over? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 05:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn in light of new evidence--with thanks to Dirtlawyer Drmies (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Thieneman

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

Puff piece for a non-notable mayoral candidate and real estate developer. His jobs and aspirations do not make him notable, and neither does the coverage he generated. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This AfD nomination is flawed because it is not supported by proper due diligence. Although the subject's pro football career is not properly sourced in the article per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP, Thieneman played in the Canadian Football League (CFL) for three seasons with the Saskatchewan Roughriders (1991) and Sacramento Gold Miners (1993–1994) (see CFLapedia, Players A–Z for quick confirmation). Per WP:NSPORTS, specifically the WP:NGRIDIRON section, "American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they . . . have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the third American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." [emphasis mine] Thieneman played three seasons in the CFL, therefore he's presumed to be notable. Game over. I ask the nominator to withdraw the AfD nomination or that an administrator immediately close this AfD as a speedy keep. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reversing my previous position in favor of deletion, per comments of Dirtlawyer1. Football career needs to be properly sourced in the article, however.--JayJasper (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In fairness to the nominator, I spent an hour searching for news articles, etc., on Theineman last night, and was frustrated when I could only find articles like the second-page sports news "transactions" columns where he was signed, activated, placed on injured reserve, released, etc. Bottom line: a much lower percentage of regional Canadian newspapers have been scanned into Google News Archive, and very few of them have their own on-line article archives, free or pay-per-view, and the CFL itself does not have an on-line history of all former CFL players. A private site like CFLapedia partially fills a big hole for CFL football players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:18, 17 March 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 Lobster Johnson#Bibliography. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lobster Johnson: The Iron Prometheus

[edit]
Lobster Johnson: The Iron Prometheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

several templates, but no significant content Night of the Big Wind talk 22:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 28 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:47, 6 March 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, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:18, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forestweb Inc

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

Non-notable company. Appears to be part of an overall promotion campaign related to all of founder Rami Ghandour's enterprises. The only glimmer of independent coverage for this company is a minor lawsuit that was eventually dropped prior to trial. All other citations are to company-released press releases or business directory listings. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have removed a long section on a lawsuit, which was totally disproportionate coverage in an article supposedly about a company, and which seemed to be use of the article as a WP:COATRACK. I have also removed a couple of spam links masquerading as "references" but not mentioning Forestweb Inc, let alone supporting any statements made in the article about Forestweb Inc. What is left is an unreferenced article about a company with no indication of significance or importance. In fact, it could be speedily deleted, in my opinion, but I am willing to let the AfD run its course. All the evidence suggests that this article was created for promotional purposes, in common with other articles created by the same editor. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 21 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amin Affane

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played for Swedish youth national teams, which of course does not provide notability per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons:

Ismail Seremba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 14 March 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. Bmusician 07:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis James (missionary)

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

Unsourced article. No existence confirmed.

Willy Weazley 15:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article actually does have sources, though it appears the article creator is not familiar with Wikipedia referencing practices, since he uses raw URLs and cites some other Wikipedia articles. To verify there was such a missionary, see a book in the Stanford University library which says "Xiu Yaochun (秀耀春, Francis Huberty James, 1851-1900), missionary from Britain, taught in the Imperial University, Peking (京师大学堂)." Substantial coverage in reliable sources is needed: see a book on missionaries in China, which has extensive coverage of this person. (check for copy/paste, might need rephrasing in Wiki article). His martyrdom in 1900 is verified by [60]. He is also covered extensively in [61]. In sum, the subject satisfies WP:BIO and the article needs editing rather than deletion. Edison (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too have searched Google Books. Seems to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI have generally revised the article, improved the form of referencing, and have added a number of references. Edison (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 15 March 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  20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of most common surnames in Africa

[edit]
List of most common surnames in Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Man in the street (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that's one source only and does not apply to the whole of Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:58, 15 March 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Lam

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

Unreferenced BLP, created by editor with conflict of interest (website developer for Lam's dance school), non-notable dance instructor, functions primarily as advert for dance school. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Some coverage in a local arts paper exists that cover the dance company / school with some minor coverage of Lam (see [62], [63]) but I do not see this as being sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:54, 15 March 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 François Sagat. A lengthy discussion that has led to fairly standard result. No one in the discussion challenged the director's notability, while there has been no convincing evidence that the sources prove notability of the film itself. While the discussion waxed and waned, I think that the ultimate consensus was the reliably sourced material be summarized at the director's article. Since that has occurred, I have simply closed this as redirect. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

François Sagat's Incubus

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

Fails WP:NFILM, text borders on the promotional. Negligible GNews coverage, and what's there is mostly presskit rewrites. All sourcing, referencing, and external links are promotional. Porn puffery if not outright spam. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Incubus is significant film because it is the directoral debut film of a well-known porn artist François Sagat who with this film started working behind the camera as film director, producer and creative director. These phenomenon should be taken if significant specifically to the gay porn or general porn industry rather than as a general film release, particularly as it signifies a whole new career direction for this truly iconic artist -now director. This is also evident in the producing company promoting it with the director's name in the title calling it François Sagat's Incubus rather than just Incubus for example. Meanwhile I have added more mainstream references to reinforce Incubus' significance as a valid Wikipedia article. werldwayd (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's all very well to claim that coverage exists, but the fact is that there's negligible independent coverage in reliable sources. While nine sources are provided in the article, seven are overtly promotional, provided by the film's producers or others associated with it, and the other two are fancrufty blogs whose content borders on the promotional. Significant xhunks of the article text are barely disguised repackaging of PR material; compare the article's

    a 2-part gay pornographic film co-directed and produced by French iconic pornstar François Sagat, his first as a film director and producer. Incubus, conceived, written, costumed, creatively directed by Sagat and co-directed and mentored by Brian Mills was shot in San Francisco for release in two parts by TitanMen.

    with the press release's

    The film is Sagat’s first foray behind the camera in the role of Creative Director. The first of the two part series of films will release mid-December as TitanMen’s holiday blockbuster film. Incubus was conceived, written, costumed, art directed and stars the world’s most iconic gay pornstar, Francois Sagat.

    Not to mention that the article's

    The film is an artistic, hypnotic journey that follows François Sagat's journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it's real or just the result of tormented dreams he has. Half-man, half-satyr, the two realms of Sagat's psyche battle it out on the screen

    is virtually a verbatim copy of the same press release's

    The film follows his journey into a macabre world, never knowing if it’s real or just the tormented dreams within his head. Half- man, half-satyr the two realms of Francois Sagat psyche battle it out on the screen.

    Not quite bad enough to speedy as a copyvio, but more than enough to establish that this is just warmed-over hype for a commercial product with no significant, independent coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These excerpts can always be edited further or removed outright from the article in a clean-up that can take 5-10 minutes of a fellow editor's time and leaving the more essential elements. In fact I will reword those offending excerpts so that they are not grounds for deletion. What we are interested in is the subject matter after all, not some "promotional" detail. To address this I have voluntarily removed the objectionable texts from the article werldwayd (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased promotional content is still promotional, and you've acknowledged that you created the article from promotional sources that fail WP:RS. And rather than genuinely fixing the article, you've just toned down the most egregious examples and still haven't provided any RS references. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (strinking my "keep". See my agrument toward "redirect" below) as verifiably the directorial debute of an iconic porn personality. I dislike the topic, but removing and/or toning down of problematic language and format is quite often an adressable issue.[64] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense. That argument has nothing to do with applicable policies and guidelines. The claim of the director's "iconic" status is sourced only to press releases promoting the film. An article that began as a barely disguised cut-and-paste from press releases can't be salvaged if you "address" the problem by tinkering slightly with the language and pretending that press releases are independent coverage. You don't make any argument that the film staisfies NFILM or the GNG, and tracking down a few passing mentions in unreliable sources in languages you don't read hardly demonstrates that reliable-source coverage exists. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More nonsense and deliberate evasion. For all that you natter on about censorship, porn and feelings, you never actually address the notability of this just-released porn project. There's no significant, independent coverage of the release, and you don't cite or identify any; just adding different iterations of a press release to the articles as "references" doesn't cut it. And the closest thing to "hubris" (a word you clearly misunderstand) is your own citation of an essay you wrote yourself a few weeks ago, complete with shortcut, as though it represented the consensus of community opinion. Wikipedia doesn't shill for porn studios, and that's all this article amounts to. You don't address that problem, or improve the article, or provide a shred of genuine evidence that this video is notable. Just pointing to a list of Ghits doesn't count, as you well know. The video fails NFILM, and has no significant coverage beyond promotional sources. The article began as little more than a cut-and-paste copyvio from press releases; putting lipstick on that pig doesn't affect its essential nature, And not all your handwaving and tossing tacky innuendo in my direction can change that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you assert that it being Sagat's directorial debut is somehow not significant involvement by a notable person? The essay section I linked takes most of its text directly from the guideline it seeks to explain. You need not agree with it, as it is only a essay after all, but it does seek to offer clarity where clarity is lacking. And I most specifcaly did speak toward this film's meeting notability as it being the debut work of a genre-notable actor, even if a new release. Getting past the first few paragraphs of WP:NF we find that guideline specifically stating "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:" and then number 2 following that instrucstion is "The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career" and is itself follwed by "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there,", which is why I also spoke above toward a merge and redirect. So please please do not claim I did not speak about how this topic might meet WP:NF, as I most sepecifically did do so. And correcting the perceived problems of the article's original version through regular editing is exactly as editing policy instructs, and not nonsense. I have pointedly avoided almost all of your recent AFDs of porn topics because you tend to make actual dicussion most difficult unless someone agrees with you... but in this instance, you are too incorrect to simply let it slide without addressing the issue or offering a guideline and policy supported opinion of my own... even when I dislike the topic under discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another round of nonsense and evasion, with a signal-to-noise ratio approaching zero. The article remains bereft of reliable, verifiable sources on every salient point. Your insistence that the third-level, maybe-this-might-still be notable criteria trump the failure to satisfy NFILMS, the failure to meet the GNG, and the complete absence of reliable sources regarding the video itself is incompatible with relevant Wikipedia standards, and in particular the NFILMS caution that "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage." Community practice and consensus in this area have been long-established, durable and, until now, unchallenged: the mere fact that a person notable enough to merit a WP article was involved in a porn video does not make that release notable. There are no reliable sources, just promotional puffery, supporting the claim you've parroted that Sagat is an "iconic" figure; in fact, there aren't even any reliable sources cited that the video is his debut directorial effort -- perhaps it is, but given the hardly unknown, extensive use of pseudonyms in this industry we can hardly be sure. Given the lack of RS coverage on this point, it's clearly inappropriate to claim that a fact(oid) considered beneath mention in reliable sources somehow establishes Wikipedia notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect In looking beyond current states, I still contend that article issues are more often addressable than not, but as pertinant non-crufty, non-hype, neutral and sourced information that does not contain any of the words or phrases or sources to which the nominator here has taken issue, have now been added through regular editing to the Sagat article, I would be okay with a result of redirect of the current article. As preserving the pertinant information has now been done, I would but qualify my refirect with a proviso that there should be no prejudice toward a recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. While the noise ratio in porn article deletions often becomes too high, the nominator and I can agree on some things after all. And in a sidenote, and as a result of this edit, discussions of post-AFD merge has been rendered moot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, its simply not noteworthy,no coverage in independant media 125.239.109.92 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC). — 125.239.109.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As noted by the nominator, sourcing is inadequate as it either uses press releases or sources that only paraphrase the press releases. As for the "significant directorial debut film" argument, I find this unconvincing. If there were better sourcing or notability possibilities elsewhere, it may tip the scale towards a keep, but on its own? He's not that significant. Being talked about in one sub-genre of movie-making does not equate to general notability. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I think this content should be merged into the artists article, as the content is not too long as to dominate the subject, and is notable primarily for its association with the artist. This is in accordance with the notability of films criteria "The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." I do not believe the "clutter" criteria is met in this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this isn't a subject that I care to read about, I agree with Schmidt that NF supplementary #2 is met here. A merge may also be possible, I'm on the fence about whether it would fit well with the parent article. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with this argument, which appears plausible on the surface, is the utter lack of supporting evidence that the film "is a major part of his/her [ie, Sagat's] career." The applicable section of WP:NFILMS stresses that the claims must be "supported with reliable sources" and that "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant". Neither the article nor the previous keep !voters have presented anything other than promotional sources, PR copy, and the occasional individual pornblog as evidence of notability, grossly failing WP:RS and fundamental principles of notability. It's also important to keep in mind that NFILMS provides that even meeting primary criteria "is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film." and that consensus practice with regard to porn releases has been not to create articles on individual porn videos simply because a person involved with a video is notable enough to merit his/her own article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the actor's bio page exists, would you support a merge? I think the sources (while definitely weak) would support a section in his bio page. (This would obviously be dependent on the "keep" editors not expanding the content past what would fit on the page - if it were expanded to the point that forking were neccessary, then I think the source/notability arguments are entirely valid. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about it some more, a Merge without prejudice toward a future split sounds good to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@HW I took this as a reliable source, though I had to read it on google translate.
@Gaijin, not sure, but that's definitely something I'm open to. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

attempt at counting consensus obviously not binding, and not an actual vote count, but the discussion above is somewhat convoluted, with people offering different opinions at different times. try to keep reasoning short here for readability, and post full discussion level stuff above?

  • Comment - What is this "counting consensus" crap? This is not a vote, it is a discussion of the merits of sourcing, as to whether a given topic meets notability guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you voted keep above, and object to a merge result (keep only), sign here

[edit]

Keep only werldwayd (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you voted delete above, and object to a merge result (delete only), sign here

[edit]
  • I object to a merge result because none of the significant content in the article is reliably sourced, but instead is derived (some cut-and-pasted) from overtly promotional sources. The subject is already treated more than adequately in the Sagat article. Delete and redirect is the appropriate way to deal with a article whose history includes no reliable sourcing, but extensive copyright violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In looking beyond current states, I still contend that article issues are more often addressable than not... but as pertinant non-crufty, non-hype, neutral and sourced information that does not contain any of the words or phrases or sources to which the nominater here has taken issue, have been added through regular editing to the Sagat article, I would be okay with a result of delete and redirect of the current article. As preserving the pertinant information has now been done, I would but qualify my agreement with a proviso that there should be no prejudice toward a neutral recreation of the article if/when more sources become available AND as long as the returned article be properly sourced and maintain a properly neutral tone. (See HW, I think we can agree on some things, after all) And, as a result of this edit, the discussion below of post-AFD merge has been rendered moot.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I hardly think that inserting paraphrases from a press release into an article, as you did here, is anything resembling appropriate editing. Second, your distortion of NFILM, removing the essential qualifying language "and is a major part of his/her career," is inconsistent with both policy in general and well-established community practice regarding this genre. And you didn't even represent your (inadequate) sources accurately, since none of them say that Part 2 has been released yet (a claim that not even the studio's own website doesn't seem to make). Slipshod all the way around. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about a cup of tea and relax? Stop this personal war against MQS, now it is getting increasingly specious and boring. If there are inaccuracies (as we all are humans) you can correct them by regular editing, no need to come here and personally attacking the good faith contributions of another editor... I just note our policy does not preclude the use of primary sources (as press releases are) for descriptive statements of facts that does not require different interpretations, even if obviously prefers secondary and tertiary sources (see WP:PRIMARY). Thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • His point of no actual confirmation of Part 2 being released (yet) has been (easily) addressed by through regular editing. And to avoid running afoul of copyright issues it would seem that all content in Wikipeidia is a paraphrasing in simpler terms that which sources elsewhere offer. If it were "reinterpretation" of a source to infer a meaning that is not explicitly evident in the source itself, then we would then have "original research," and not a paraphrase. And if a source dealt with a film in a promotional manner, our removing the source's puffery and reporting in simple non-promotional terms what the source offered is how we build an encyclopdia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know, that's a remarkably demeaning and dismissive attitude to take towards the many Wikipedia contributors who take the time and effort to write genuinely good articles, and shows how far your ideas about what an encyclopedia is depart from consensus and policy regarding what Wikipedia should be. Wikipedia should not be, or include, a collection of thinly paraphrased comments from press releases, PR copy, and other promotional material. If that were its standard mode of article writing, it would be worthless junk. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought this voting area of the discussion was created to count voting, whereas it is now being used for rekindling discussion with the same acrimonious wording regarding the work of other editors. Discussions are not meant to be "either my way or none.." This is not a "one way street". You should be welcoming and receptive to other comments and huge number of contributors who have expressed positive opinions about the relevance of this film. Their opinion also counts for something and more than a dozen editors think this is a relevant film. This is not a crusade against pornographic films. I have gone back to many other of your selective AfDs and I don't feel comfortable at all with your attitude about pornographic films. This is crystal clear for me after reviewing your other AfDs in this regard and your comments there. This intransigency and persistently dwelling on one particular subject only leads to a poisonous tit-for-tat comments as we have unfortunately witnessed here and elsewhere. No comment passes by you and you have to respond with more zeal every time. I simply admire MichaelQSchmidt for continuing with the argument and taking the brunt of such comments. Enough. Let an independent administrator decide on "keep", "redirect" or "delete" and let's get over with this. werldwayd (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object to this entire non-standard process. An independent administrator, at the end of debate, should rule DELETE, KEEP, MERGE, or REDIRECT. Fuck this idiotic vote-counting, this is not an election. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you approve of a merge result, sign here (feel free to indicate if you lean to keep or delete but would accept merge)

[edit]

merge or delete notable only through relationship to director, marginal sources, and would not clutter artist's pageGaijin42 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gapyeong UFO incident

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

Extremely little information available on this incident, if any at all. It is only mentioned in a couple of blogs that list hundreds of alleged UFO sightings without any details whatsoever, besides from the picture uploaded by the article's creator. Even conceding that the episode itself might have existed (which is impossible to corroborate as there are no reliable sources of it anywhere that I could find), it doesn't appear to have any degree of notability beyond the thousands of reported UFO sightings that take place every year, let alone enough significance to warrant inclusion at List of UFO sightings or its associatted UFO template, alongside highly notable events such as those detailed at the Mantell UFO incident or Roswell UFO incident articles. Athilea (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:34, 15 March 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.

  • Valid (and completely invalid) arguments are made by both sides.
  • There is an unacceptable amount of ad hominem/personal attack comments in this debate, please cool it, all of you. You know who you are.
  • The idea to merge all these into a main article is something that should be explored further, that would resolve the issues with the notability of the individual events rather nicely.

Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BAMMA 9

[edit]
BAMMA 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable MMA event, no lasting historical significance, fails WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:ROUTINE Mtking (edits) 10:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 10:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep par WP:GNG, and WP:EVENT. [sigh] Here we go again, another pointless nomination of a clearly notable MMA event being made by the usual user. This event is being headlined by the promotion's World Middleweight Champion and their British Middleweight Champion, both of which are extremely notable fighters and hugely popular within UK MMA. This event has been receiving loads of attention over the last few months, at one point Nate Marquardt was linked to this event. The fact that this page is being nominated for deletion is a complete joke. BigzMMA (talk) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another MMA event article that fails WP:EVENT and whose coverage will be WP:ROUTINE. I'm not sure what part of WP:N thats says routine sports coverage is not notable is unclear to those who want to keep these articles. When articles fail WP:N, WP:EVENT, and WP:ROUTINE it seems pretty clear what the correct answer is. If the biggest thing about this event is a person who won't be there, I think it speaks volumes about the event's notability (and not in a good way). Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks "well-sourced prose" that is required by WP:SPORTSEVENT for article about notable sporting events. The potential sources for the article appear to simply contain WP:ROUTINE fight announcements. WP:GNG says that there needs to be "significant coverage" of the event for it to be notable; at best "significant coverage" of the event is debatable at worst lacks significant coverage, thus fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it confusing that all the other MMA events have been categorised, yet this one hasn't and yet the votes for delete are rolling in? A bit strange that? If someone tells me how I will add it to the same one the other MMA events use. BigzMMA (talk) (tag added by dennis brown for clarity)
  • Delete Actually, the only reason I found this is that BigzMMA was advertising/canvassing for people to come here [67], so I did, did some research, and I guess it boomeranged on him because I can't find quality sourcing and no one has provided them in this discussion or the article. In this instance, I just don't find any references from sources that are INDEPENDENT from the subject matter. WP:N clearly requires verification from sources that are independent of the subject matter, and that isn't satisfied in any way here. If a dog fight happens, and only dogfight.com and dogfighting.com cover it, that dog fight isn't notable. Once it gets multiple coverage in the New York Times, CNN, a well known biographer, ABC news, or at least a newspaper that isn't about only fighting, then a case would have been made. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I got to say about that is LOL, you don't seriously think that everything that is notable must be on a paper like The New York Times, or a news programme like CNN? If that was the case, then most things on Wikipedia would be put on AfDs right now, what you are asking for is beyond impossible, especially in Britain, a country which our government, media and majority number of the public has slammed MMA more times than Rampage in slammed opponents in PRIDE for being 'barbaric'. I really do wish that the BBC, ITV, and Sky News teams covers MMA more in a good light, and hope that it will do soon, but until then the fact that the event is showing the biggest main event fight expected for UK MMA this year between Tom 'Kong' Watson and Jack 'Hammer' Marshman means that this event is already notable, and with the articles already out along with the articles that will definitely be released next week (which is the fight week) and after the event, no-one will question notability after this. This AfD, just like the many recently on MMA events, is nothing more than just the nominator's opinion that MMA events don't belong on Wikipedia. BigzMMA (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct in that many, many articles on Wikipedia don't pass this criteria and need to be deleted, but there are only so many hours in a day to research and delete them. They are getting created faster than they can be deleted. But the criteria at WP:GNG and subsets is pretty clear about what it takes to be "notable", thus eligible for inclusion if you bother to read them. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Well, come to that, the MMA Wikiproject's opinion is that MMA event articles don't belong on Wikipedia, given the section of WP:MMANOT explicitly declaring individual events to not be notable.

That being said, let's assume your charge is true, and MMA events aren't covered in Britain because the British government, media and public uniformly hate them. So stipulated, so what? The GNG requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't get to say that the GNG doesn't count so long as a subject "deserves" an article. The answer to a lack of reliable, significant coverage isn't that we let a subject have an article anyway. The answer is that the subject doesn't qualify for an article. Ravenswing 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Wikiprojects' opinions are just that: a general, unofficial guideline. We all agree on that. Yet the persistance in asking for sources that comply with WP:GNG as if they had not been provided at all, when they already have at this very debate and your objections addressed (before the two comments above were made), is rather puzzling and strange. Athilea (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the fact that it meets no guidelines or policies is why it should be deleted. Mdtemp (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another invalid reason to keep. Mdtemp (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOlWUT!?! --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another invalid reason to delete. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Mdtemp's edit history consists entirely of spamming MMA related Afds with copy and paste boilerplate votes rather than arguments. The account has made no actual contributions to this website. It is clearly a single-purpose, disruption-only account and a likely sock or meatpuppet. --63.3.19.130 (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find arguments in favor of keeping this article like "do it for the fans" or "keep by default as it does not pass Wikipedia's guidelines" to be slightly amusing but entirely irrelevant, and I think that the article itself could use better prose and sourcing. However, I also think it does pass WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE.
  • The BAMMA events are not routine in itself: they are a set of out-of-ordinary championship fights, scheduled long in advance for an outstanding event well above ordinary or routinary bouts or matches, by a sports organization whose notability is beyond question. The best comparison would be between a regular NFL match and a given Superbowl game. This is also the reason why each and every BAMMA event, from its first edition to BAMMA 8, have received considerable attention and coverage from the media [68] [69] [70], enough to warrant their uncontested inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • User Dennis Brown accurately stated above, regarding the merits of the event when confronted with the requirements outlined at WP:GNG, "Once it gets multiple coverage in the New York Times, CNN, a well known biographer, ABC news, or at least a newspaper that isn't about only fighting, then a case would have been made". Such case exists. Leaving aside the somewhat unrealistic list of desired sources (which is clearly made merely for illustrative purposes), I'm surprised that nobody so far (not the advocators for this article's permanence, nor its detractors) has stumbled upon the many reliable, high profile and independent sources that do exist on this event.
  1. Yahoo! Sports: [71]
  2. Zimbio: [72]
  3. Opposing Views: [73]
  4. The Daily Mirror: [74]
  5. Luton Today: [75] (used uncontestedly as reliable source at a huge number of unrelated articles; see here)
  6. Dunstable Today: [76] (used uncontestedly as reliable source at many other unrelated articles; see here)
On top of that, I've been able to count no less than 15 different, unrelated, independent online magazines or specialized websites dedicated to this sport that grant significant coverage to the event, most of which could pass WP:WEB. While the reasoning for disregarding them could be debated (as they are proof of the high profile of this event among followers of this sport), the point becomes moot when independent and reliable sources as those detailed above are available. It is nevertheless a strong indication of this event's significance among those familiar with the subject, akin to the coverage given to a championship boxing match by that sport's specialized press.
  • I believe the statement made by user BigzMMA regarding Nate Marquardt's link to this event has been misinterpreted by other editors, who have insisted on the absence of this athlete as proof of unnotability (and this is both attributable to the ambivalence of such statement, and to the unfamiliarity with this sport of those who commented on it). That is a logical fallacy. Reversing the example given by one of said editors, the absence of the President at a Superbowl game does not make such event unnotable. As repeatedly shown above by the quality and quantity of reliable, independent sources, the notability of this event does not stem from the absence of this athlete: on the contrary, the fact that he was to take part in it is merely another indication (albeit not proof by itself) of the event's inherent notability (even tho he's ultimately absent from it due to unrelated circumstances that do no act in detriment of the event's high profile). Following the line of reasoning of the users who commented above on this particular issue, we would be able to say that BAMMA 9 is notable merely by the presence of other athletes who have confirmed their participation (i.e. Tom Watson, Jack Marshman, or Jason Jones, to name a few), whose own notability is beyond question. Notability is not inherited, and neither is unnotability.
  • Please take note that I don't endorse indiscriminate inclusion of MMA related articles, as some of the participants in this debate do (and at other MMA related AfD discussions, where lack of notability is a clear issue, like here). However, I do feel compelled to disagree with the opposite attitude of "nothing that is related to MMA is notable" that is so evident here, when we do have enough RS that show otherwise.
As a side note, and foreseeing the possibility that the good faith of my comment may be questioned by scrutinizing my edit's history, allow me to swear that I have never, ever, been involved in any way nor at any time with any martial arts related article, not under any other username nor as an anonymous editor. I only saw this AfD's entry at the log when nominating another article for the deletion process and got intrigued by it, so I tried to do my homework... whether I'm right or wrong. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A very similar IP (63.3.19.130) has already !voted in his AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In reviewing Athilea's links, I'm not at all convinced (not least at our natural suspicion when a SPA's first and only edits are on AfDs). First off, those links which could be considered reliable discuss not this event, but one or another of the various fighters scheduled to appear. Since notability is not inherited, their own prominence has no effect on this article. One links that does mention the event has "PRESS RELEASE" blatantly printed on it, which anyone knowledgeable in Wikipedia policies and guidelines would know isn't acceptable as a source. Nor is Athilea's "Nothing MMA is notable" smear either civil or helpful; no Delete proponent has said anything of the sort, and some are active on the MMA Wikiproject. Ravenswing 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I expected my comment to be taken with a pinch of salt for my very recent edit history, which is the reason why I said I was aware of it and tried to clear any doubts in that sense. What I didn't expect was to be so openly told that said fact is per se a negative factor when analysing my arguments themselves. This is specially true if being acussed of breaching WP:CIVIL at the same comment! However, I wish to make it very clear that I don't blame you, Ravenswing: been there and done that, many times, a long time ago. Guilty until proven innocent, but that's not your fault nor mine: the things that can be witnessed at AfD can surpass imagination, so that's the way it is. I understand and I accept it.
I am however somewhat baffled that the sources listed above are dismissed so quickly, and my knowledge of policies and guidelines elliptically put in question when in fact it was me who brought up WP:NOTINHERITED here in the first place. But let's stay focused. Regarding the arguments used to disregard the significance of the afforementioned sources.
  1. Those links that discuss the various fighters scheduled to attend, do so only in their role as participants of this event, not in their role as prominent MMA fighters. Not a single one of external articles linked above fails to mention BAMMA 9 as the reason why they are covered, and the main aspect discussed at them is the event itself first, and as result of it, the athlethes in question. It was me who said it first: if they event was not mentioned at all, or merely passingly, that would fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. However, this is clearly not the case.
  2. The link that "blatantly" prints "press release" is not from the BAMMA site, nor from any source primarily associated to this event; but from a well know, reliable and secondary source that has picked it, reviewed it, reprinted it and distributed it via its own website as part of their coverage of this event, along with several other announcements [77] [78]. It is the editor staff of Zimbio that has considered the event notable enough to do so, not its organizers or fans.
  3. I can't help but to observe the silence regarding the coverage given by other sources I've linked to, which gives the impression that they all fall under the two arguments above. Alas, this is not the case, as can be seen by examining them thoroughly. I also take note that other points I raised (i.e. notability established at other BAMMA events by significant coverage by sources such as ESPN and Sports Illustrated, the Nate Marquardt issue) have not been addressed.
I'd also wish to apologize for the "smear" above (small point aside, as WP:CIVIL is brought up by you, perhaps a choice of words on your part would have been in adviseable?). It would have been more accurate for me to say that, "second tier MMA related articles are questioned on a regular basis" (amazing all you can learn about a topic in mere four days of investigation, isn't it?) And of course nobody would openly say that: you don't see anyone running around at AfD debates screaming "Delete because I don't like it!" Yet it is the attitude that speaks for itself. I'm the first to say that, indeed, judging from my investgation, there are/have been many articles that deserve/d that fate, as they are/were nothing but fancruft. It is however the duty of everyone responsible to analyze case by case, with all the information and circumstances that surround it, and not let a blanket belief be your main guide. The fact that so far only you, of all participant at this debate, has taken the time to at least comment on the many reliable sources that exist seems to be an indication of this. I appreciate that, and I thank you for it, even if I believe your own arguments regarding said sources to be wrong. Athilea (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, I'm happy to welcome a new editor who believes in doing research. I do have issues with your sources. The Yahoo article is from the contributor's network, so there's no indication of how reliable the source is. Zimbio is a press release (regardless of who issued it) so it's not reliable, Opposing views seemed to be the usual pre-fight coverage, the short Daily Mirror article was on Jack Marshman with a cursory mention of BAMMA 9, the Luton article was a daily training diary of one of the participants (hardly independent coverage), and the Dunstable "article" was a the same diary as the Luton one. Hence, IMO there still seems to be a lack of independent sources covering BAMMA 9. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In addition to my above comments about sources, there's no indication that the coverage is anything but WP:ROUTINE. There's nothing to show that this event will have the "lasting effects" or "duration of coverage" required to pass WP:EVENT. I also think it would be better to not create articles on events that haven't happened yet. Papaursa (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm happy that someone has at least taken the time to review the sources I've provided with a constructive attitude, instead of shooting the messenger or refusing to discuss alltogether. I truly appreciate it and I thank you for that; and I concede that although said sources are good, they're not as perfect and uncontestable as to pass WP:RS without discussion. I tend to agree with you and Dennis Brown that the main flaw of this series of articles is that they tend to fall into WP:TOOSOON to receive actual attention and coverage, which would eventualy give them enough factic support to pass WP:GNG without these inconvenients. Such is the case of at least BAMMA 1 [79] and 6 [80]. The myriad of articles that consequently result are far easier to challenge on the grounds of WP:EVENT and WP:GNG.
Following an exchange with Dennis Brown, I have personally come to the conclusion that the best solution would be to at least temporarily merge all the events series into the main BAMMA article in order to compile the best available sources in summary style, leaving the possibility of eventually moving such content into a potential and unified List of BAMMA events that unequivocally passes WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:GNG and WP:ROUTINE. All the credit for this sensible idea goes to Dennis, and as far as I'm concerned I'm willing to work in order to see it come to fruition. That is, of course if both the proponents of the keep and delete alternatives are willing to assume such compromise. Best regards, Athilea (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep par Why on earth would it be deleted? I think the people campaigning to get it removed are from rival MMA groups. There are plenty of articles on far more minor sports and entertainment events that are on wikipedia. BAMMA is the biggest MMA promotion in Western Europe, and its events are well-attended, more so than many UFC events. Of course the article should stay up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappHazzard (talk • contribs) 03:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not address the issue of the events notability, and as a WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT based !vote will likley ignored by the closing admin, if you think it should be kept you need to address how this article addresses the lasting historical significance of the event. Mtking (edits) 03:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help but to notice the sharp contrast between the 14 minutes it took you address the !vote above and your seemingly entire lack of interest in engaging in constructive debate for 9 days (as some of the proponents of the deletion of this article indeed have). Perhaps this is an indication that you will deign to do so now? Athilea (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FINALLY, someone who sees it as well. so Mtking, are you going to engage in properly sorting this out or continue to show yourself up like this? BigzMMA (talk) 16:30, 25 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Nakanishi

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

No references of notability. Johnduhart (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 January 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 09:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 11:38, 14 March 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  20:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Sahar Daftary

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

Possible BLP issues related to implying the husband killed her, relatively small news item as far as deaths go. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no idea how unsourced allegations of murder remained in the article for eight months. I have just removed them. This source says an inquest has still not yet been completed and that "police inquiries suggested the incident was either an accident or that Miss Daftary committed suicide". --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. Seems to have won some sort of award. Has recieved atleast some press when she died which tells me she wasnt an unknown model.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would we have an article about her if she was alive - would she meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines? I think the answer to that is a no - the award she won is not notable. So, we need to be looking at the notability of the death event - does this event satisfy WP:EVENT?--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:32, 15 March 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 per WP:CSD#G12 SmartSE (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing International MBA (BiMBA)

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

1. Notability not established 2. Advertising 3. Cannot verify claims Widefox (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of wp:notability. May merit rebuilding from a stub later. No suitable content to be lost because the article looks like somebody just pasted their website into an article. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - as a copyvio. The entire article is composed of bits and pieces pasted from the program's web site. Even teh lede is copied from [81]. I've removed large swaths of it and if I continue, we will end up with a blank page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 15 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown 3D

[edit]
Unknown 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very short film on YouTube by non-notable who appears to be the whole team in one person. Unreferenced. PROD removed by IP - presumed to be the author. Peridon (talk) 08:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:26, 15 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Levy (actor)

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

Vanispamcruftisement. This Autobiography is a puff piece advertising an actor who lacks significant roles in multiple notable productions. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search brought up absolutely zero usable references aside from an interview that I'm not sure meets reliability guidelines. [83] Even if it did, this was the only reference I could find for Levy and we need more than one reference to establish notability. As far as WP:NACTOR goes, Levy has not held any significant or memorable roles that would meet criteria number 1, he doesn't seem to have any sort of fan/cult following per criteria number 2, and he hasn't made any unique/prolific/innovative contributions to his field. He's pretty much "just another actor". This barely squeaked through on the old guidelines but it absolutely fails the current ones.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Can't find any references. Seems to have largely been written by its subject, which means not even 1 other WP user thinks he merits an article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 15 March 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 JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newland Musical

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

non-notable musical, no reliable reviews, only claim to notability is inclusion in Edinburgh Fringe Festival (which has over 2500 shows). Google news search turns up nothing. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 28 February 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 6 March 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,  Gongshow Talk 07:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure why I bothered to clean up the article, given that there are no reliable sources for the show. The sources on the article were completely unusable, being non-notable blog reviews, notifications of past and present performances, and casting resumes. The entire article had such a strong promotional vibe to it that I'm going to nominate it for a speedy delete under G11.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I wish them luck, I don't feel the time has come yet for an article. It seems to only have been performed in showcase form so far, and the Fringe booking is a bit WP:CRYSTAL. The plot is no more ridiculous than other musicals (or operas - thinking of La Fanciulla del West which is also set in the American West), and if the music is good, it may well have a golden future. When the time comes, I'll welcome an article. But not yet - unless very much improved references are produced. Not for the cast or the creators - for the show. As it stands, there's one ticket sales site and one brief mention. Peridon (talk) 10:06, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petaurista mishmiensis

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

The description is in a rather unknown publication and there is no indication of a holotype being designated and no secondary taxonomic databases seem to have included it either as a taxon or as a name. Also see Petaurista mechukaensis. Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 16 March 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  20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petaurista mechukaensis

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

The species does not appear to have been formally described with a type designation or published in a peer-reviewed journal of standing. In the 5 years since this supposed description, there is no other major taxonomic database that includes the species. No hits on Google Scholar either. Also see Petaurista mishmiensis. Shyamal (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 19:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 16 March 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Type C6 ship

[edit]
Type C6 ship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete for WP:Notability Delete for WP:Notablity. Standard constuction of the day that had no influence on future designs. None of the vessels had a service career or incident that would rise to the level of a stand-alone article. Much of the inline citations refer to different vessel lists from the same web site. While the author has done considerable research in good faith other articles from this editor all lack the comprehensive criteria of B class.Mariepr (talk) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 14 March 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. joe deckertalk to me 06:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Higashi

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

Page was previously speedy deleted as a promo under G11, and the author, User:ParanoiaMethod was given a block for repeatedly removing the speedy template. In good faith, the editor in question is a) new and b) seems to speak English as a second language, not fluently. When block expired, the author recreated this page. It was PRODed as an unsourced BLP. Author left PROD up for a time, and added sources. Author now claims that sources are sufficient and has removed the PROD tag. The sources fail WP:RS as nearly as I and a WP:BEFORE search can tell, so I'm nominating for deletion. The sources include such wonders as the subject's Myspace page and Deviantart page. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Jorgath beat me to the nomination, which I had to delay because of a computer crash. The sources listed by the creator to address a BLP PROD were all primary sources and blogs. Google News returns only false positives. In contesting the speedy G11, the creator stated an intent to introduce, not advertize this artist, but there's not much of a difference to us if the artist doesn't meet our notability guidelines already. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of reliable sources, at least in English. It's possible that sources exist in Japanese, and I'm open to reversing my vote if this can be demonstrated. My own attempts to seach in Japanese are limited by my lack of facility with the language (and Google Translate doesn't speak Japanese very well either...), but I haven't found anything so far. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For clarification, I too am open to reversing my !vote if adequate Japanese sources are provided by someone other than the original editor. This is not meant as a criticism of that editor's good faith, but rather an observation that he/she seems to be misunderstanding some of our guidelines due to translation problems. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 10:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would help a lot if we could see how this artist's name is written in Japanese script. Google may not do a good job at translating Japanese to English, but we could at least take a look at what the Japanese Google returns. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try the same characters, but in a different order: it's 東 陽子 ("Yoko Higashi" rather than "Higashi Yoko"; Japanese naming conventions are often variable)Yunshui 雲‍水 08:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, actually don't bother; there's still bugger-all on Gnews... Yunshui 雲‍水 08:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing any in-depth third-party coverage to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would also like to point everyone to the article's talk page, where ParanoiaMethod has made his/her comments on the subject, most recently:
About the "reliable source" which you say.
As long as I investigate on a web, it has only a sauce portion of a report page!
Please do not trouble me more.............!!
I'm not sure that this editor understands the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, but I felt it necessary to provide the discussion access to his/her opinion on the subject. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 12:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had also looked for sources and couldn't find any. I was a bit concerned that there might be some in Japanese that I couldn't find, by Yunshui has cleared that up. Considering that it's clear WP:ARTIST isn't met. SmartSE (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --• Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 16 March 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. I have redirected the article to the relevant section of the main iPad article where this topic is already covered. Any further content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of the iPad

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

I think anyone's initial reaction to this AfD is likely to be "Of course this article merits keeping! It's common sense!" Without reviewing the article and its history, I too would have agreed with this sentiment. But I now believe differently.

This article was created over a year ago, apparently in the belief that there would be such a crush of information regarding public reaction to the iPad, that an article separate from iPad would be necessary. Good reasoning, but the past 13 months have demonstrated otherwise. Here is the status right now:

  • The significant information in this article is already included at iPad, rendering this article redundant.
  • Over a year after its creation, there are still zero articles linking to this article (with the exception of the "Main article" link created within iPad over a year ago).
  • The title of this article is NOT something that anyone would type in while trying to learn about the public response to the iPad, so no one is going to come here except by first being at the main article, where the information is already included.

Those are my reasons supporting deletion of this article, but two other editors have advanced two straw men that I wish to address.

  • One editor has pointed out that Notability is not temporary. True, but this has nothing to do with my argument. Yes, the information is notable. But it is already included, and in fact is included in a place much more likely to help our readers--namely, iPad.
  • Another editor has pointed out that the article's outdated nature is no reason to delete it. I never advanced that argument, rather, that editor him/herself was the one who pointed out that the article had problems with being outdated, and then they mistakenly took my desire to delete the article as a response to the fact that they pointed out that it is outdated. I never said any such thing.

However, as long as the topic (of being outdated) has been brought up by others, let me point out something about the article that is informative to its ostensible importance. Before I came along here, this article--an article on the reception to the most popular computer in history--had only been edited only 27 times in over a year. I think it's clear that this article is outdated because it is so inconsequential. If it served any purpose at all, editors would be updating it, but they are not.

Deleting this article will not result in the loss of content, it will simply mean reducing the orphan load by one. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I have offered several specific reasons that this article's existence serves no purpose (and, more importantly, that its deletion will cause zero harm). All I am hearing from others is WP:ILIKEIT . HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of replies to the above:
  • The notion that The nominator seems to be suffering from a case of WP:RECENTISM would seem to indicate that someone has not read the very essay they are citing. A desire to keep this article would be a much more "recentist" viewpoint.
  • Let me say to the kind editor that he again is setting up a straw man when he notes the non-temporary nature of notability. I state quite clearly in the nominating post that the Notability of the subject is not being questioned. (It would be helpful if you would limit your refutations to arguments that have actually been advanced, rather than ones that you create just for sport.)
  • The size of the article certainly could be an argument advanced, if this was truly an example of an excessively long article. But I think that neutral editor Eraserhead has shown how this argument is inapplicable in this situation.[86]
  • You are correct in stating that having only 27 edits in a year is not an argument for deletion. I did not intend that comment to be an argument for deletion; if you read carefully I hope you'll see that all I was saying was that this gave some insight into the utility of the article. But, just to make it clear, I do recognize that the editing history of this (or any) article does not constitute grounds for deletion. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The iPad was a product that no one expected, thus an article on its reception. Now this is a specious argument for keeping the article, and to me indicates a failure of logic. Where are the separate "Reception" articles for the Wii, the Camera phone, YouTube, and the Segway, all of which burst onto the market with little to no public anticipation? Most of them do have additional articles split off because they got too large, but none of them have a separate "reception" article despite the fact that they were unexpected. Making the iPad's unexpectedness a part of the foundation of your argument here makes no sense that I can see. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Delete The article included within the main iPad article is not as detailed as this one, but the notability of this is an issue. Merge important content into main article and delete. Tonyxc600 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support Tony's position here; indeed, I had thought it was implicit that any material here that was not already included at iPad be moved there. I'm glad Tony has made that clear. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to iPad. The reception of the device is an issue that should be covered, and is covered, in the main article. I agree that there is little information concerning the reception of the iPad2 and iPad3, and having this separate article may actually hinder the development of this section in the main article. The main article is not large enough to require a split, and even if it were, it is far from intuitive to me why the reception section would be the part split out. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge since information is mostly all covered in the main iPad article anyway. Brambleclawx 22:41, 25 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DameWare

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 February 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, BusterD (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because, unlike most other nominations AQ recently made, I've heard of this company. I don't particularly feel like digging up citations at the moment, though. —Ruud 23:33, 26 February 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, Bmusician 04:03, 3 March 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, v/r - TP 01:38, 14 March 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 Microsoft Expression Studio. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creature House

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 17 February 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, BusterD (talk) 13:46, 25 February 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, Bmusician 04:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft Expression Design or Microsoft Expression Studio, the company is notable only for having created a Microsoft product. Diego (talk) 15:51, 13 March 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, v/r - TP 01:36, 14 March 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lipe

[edit]
Mike Lipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Response Actually it is "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He seems to have some coverage in guitar-related press. We don't have official notability guidelines for guitar luthiers, but he seems close to the top of his profession and he or his company appear "significant", "interesting" and/or "unusual". --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried a Google news search on this person typing "mike lipe guitar" but I couldn't find any reliable sources. This means that he doesn't pass the notability guideline and therefore that's the reason why I think it should be deleted. Minima© (talk) 06:50, 2 March 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, Bmusician 03:42, 3 March 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, v/r - TP 01:33, 14 March 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. Article has been substantially changed; a new AfD would be necessary it it's still considered problematic.  Sandstein  06:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safevote

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

The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for organizations. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:05, 5 March 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, v/r - TP 01:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. None of these reference actually make reference to anything notable. Being mentioned in something else notable doesn't seem to meet the standard. I don't even know what would be valuable to mention here. Their claims of legally binding elections would be useful in the examples of evoting article, but that's completely unsourced and moderately dubious. Electiontechnology (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is based on my review of the references posted by others as well as my own personal review. There is one source in this article for one moderately notable event, the parent company, Módulo, won a contract for electronic voting in Brazil (no mention if it is the same technology as Safevote or even what the result was). I'm not even certain these are the same organizations. The rest of the sources either briefly mention the organization exists. The current references in the article mention they exist and quotes CEO/CTO/Founder/President Ed Gerck. The article was full of unsourced or inaccurate claims. Other than just putting in links from Google search results, can someone actually give ANY evidence of what notable this organization has done? Are they even still in existence? Electiontechnology (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources:
  • Manjoo, Farhad (January 12, 2001). "Make Your Vote (Machine) Count". Wired Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  • Brandt, Andrew (January 19, 2001). "Privacy Watch: Can the Internet Save Democracy?". PC World Magazine. Retrieved March 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help) (Links to where coverage begins on page 2 of this article; click on "page 3" in the article for the rest of the coverage)
 – Additionally, here's some coverage from The New York Times, not quite significant, but more than just passing mentions, which may be used to verify information:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 12:19, 18 March 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Attig

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

Selfpromo Night of the Big Wind talk 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 29 February 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, Bmusician 15:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It's rare to see an article with 39 references at AfD... Probably half the references in the article do nothing to establish his notability, but the other half make a strong argument for notability. They're all offline, so we have to AGF here, but this one passes the N-test for me. The article is a mess and would be better off with a complete overhaul, but it's not a deletion. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It certainly requires some extensive edits to improve its quality and to resolve its outstanding issues, but it, at the very least, appears to satisfy the general notability criteria and is not an obvious case of pure promotion. Rorshacma (talk) 22:28, 13 March 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) 00:54, 14 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenga (masturbation toy)

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

1. no indep. ref. 2. no indication of notability 3. after several years 4. Advert Widefox (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The article is crap and for years its "external links" area in particular has been a battleground among agents and vendors (actual or purported) of the product; I think you'll find that the spam blacklist contains at least one of these websites. However, even as it is, the article does have one indicator of notability: it mentions a book on the subject, which verifiably exists and has even got mixed reviews in its page (SFW) of the Japanese branch of a certain book monopolist. (It comes from what WP surprisingly calls "a major publisher": major in terms of sales rather than contribution to intellectual life, I think.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable spam magnet; will be blocking one of the editors involved. Daniel Case (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently it really isn't an article. There were some edits in the past that were neutral but the article never gain much momentum as it is constantly being vandalized. This article needs a major reset--PrinnyGod (talk) 03:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real, notable, and innovative brand in Japan, as evidenced by http://www.amazon.co.jp/x/dp/4812439051/ . Note that Beat Takeshi contributed to the book. Shii (tock) 04:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill the rats but don't nuke the house. No straight delete, but probably page protection to keep vandalism at bay. Keep(speedy?) and merge with a broader article (masturbation? sex toy?), at least it's one, not two vandalism targets then. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 11:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Product list of a non-notable company. Whether the company is "real" or "innovative" is irrelevant, the question is whether they are "notable" — meaning the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources. And this answer, it would seem, is no. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redirect, or merge, not notable enough for its own article.

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have some solid sources that adequately demonstrate notability, then please add them to the article. Note that retail sites and references that simply mention the product in passing do not really count for anything. --DAJF (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , but possibly remove the list of products. The company as a whole is notable. Removing spam magnets is not a reason for deletion: better to remove the spam and the spammers. A widely distributed product is notable, by common sense if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just looked this object up after I saw a reference to it and was glad to find an entry here. I suspected what it was, but I needed a SFW source. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:50, 22 March 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 current article has sourced commentary whose deletion would be a detriment to wikipedia, and Rename is a variation of Keep. In particular, since the franchise does not have a series article yet, I will also go ahead and Rename the current article to Well World series, which would have been my recommendation if I had participated in the AfD. Such a rename allows for more fictional material (balanced with real-world information) to be added to this franchise's wikipedia coverage without having to create new articles for such. – sgeureka t•c 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well World

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

No real world notability shown. No sources other than the fiction books it was created for. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real world references are required? What about Pern or Stargates? Both of them are only (or primarily) referenced in fictional material. Well World simply had the unfortunate lot to have been written in the 1970s, before the internet, and being niche science fiction it never achieved the public awareness of other literature (such as the Lord of the Rings) and as such was never referenced outside of its own novels. If anything is to be done with this page, merge it with something. --Draco18s (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 7 March 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) 00:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't have any analysis that would meet WP:GNG (did you miss the part about "significant coverage, in detail and not trivial mentions") ? And since when essays are valid justification for conservation ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:44, 22 March 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 without prejudice. When he plays for a senior team and a source can be provided for it, the article can be restored or recreated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alieu Darbo

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

Non-notable footballer who is yet to play in a fully professional league. Hasn't played for Le Mans first team despite what the article says having checked the comprehensive French football databases here and here. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best redirect target would be that national team, at least in the near term. Trouble is, which one? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 16 March 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. Already done a week and a half ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Pratt Family Association

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

The association is not notable - the sources include the associations own pages, and an LDS article only affirming that the organization exists. And a broken link as well. There is zero actual notability for this "association" Collect (talk) 13:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Note that Jared Pratt is the father of 19th-century scientist Orson Pratt, who founded the family association and also was a famous Mormon theologian; another of Jared's sons, Parley P. Pratt, is considered the "apostle paul" of Mormonism.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With over 32,000 known Pratt descendants - it would seem that this "tree source" family association has no value other than to show Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, Sr. are among 5,000 to 10,000 fourth cousins. And the article sources show the exceeding non-notability of the Association. Mentions in any major works? Nope. Newspapers? Nope. Note that "notability" on Wikipedia requires non-trivial mentions in outside reliable sources, which this "family association" does not meet. Collect (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A claim the organization has not been mentioned in newspapers would appear to be a bit donald trump.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed the chart to its bottom-banner "navbox" state.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:42, 8 March 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) 00:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: HSG added "merge discussion" templates to the association page for a merge to Pratt family, and also on the Pratt family page - directing people to this page for a "merger" discussion. And later comments based on that new notice should be weighed accordingly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:51, 14 March 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 Celebrity Cricket League. The discussions appears to established that the subject currently doesn't have enough coverage in reliable soruces in order to warrant a seperate article. However, consensus has established that the subject is a plausable search term, and a redirect is warranted. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Rhinos

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

Non-notable cricket team. This team isn't a professional sports team, nor does it play at what could be deemed the top level of amatuer cricket in India. It plays Twenty20 cricket, though not officially sanctioned, so fails one element of WP:CRIN. Just because actors make up its rank doesn't mean it automatically qualifies for notability and inclusion. Details about the team in the main Celebrity Cricket League article would be fine, but to give each team an article, when both historically and sportingly, it doesn't warrant it. Sometime ago WP:CRIN guidelines for clubs were revised, by my reckonking this team for celebrities to have a jolly falls quite short of them. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject meets WP:GNG [93], which is superior to WP:CRIN. It is possible to write an interesting article about the team. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's also possible to write an interesting article if the celebrities in this team all farted in tandom, I'm sure the celebrity cult obsessed Indian press would cover it en-masse. I can't see how a team which has no historical note, or sporting only notability could possibly become an interesting article. They're celebrities having a jolly; that doesn't make this team notable!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The celebrities do not fart in tandom (what is tandom, btw?), they play cricket in a celebrity league. The coverage in the major Indian newspapers suggests that this activity constitutes an important element for the Indian pop culture. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:07, 9 March 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) 00:07, 14 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This failed television pilot fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Neelix (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROFESSIONAL, there is a well-sourced reception section. Diego (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found more independent sources referencing the program. It required a more targetted google search, but there's established notability. See [94] (significant direct review with critical commentary), [95] (selected for a pilot competition), [96] (interview with David Cross). Added to the article. Diego (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second link you indicate (the pilot competition) appears to describe another unrelated television pilot with the same name. Neelix (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, I deleted it from the article and kept the other two. Diego (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 8 March 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) 00:06, 14 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_March_14&oldid=1142634591"