Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close . This is a 6-year-old malformed AfD. Retaining this page only because there is a 2nd nomination; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhijeet Kosambi (2nd nomination) —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Cannot establish notability as per WP:MUSICBIO - meets none of the parameters listed. WP:SIGCOV - There is no significant coverage of this artist. Cannot add any reliable reference. All Google search results list one event or music download sites --Wikishagnik (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was Withdrawn. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Big Gay Musical

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/The Big Gay Musical
• Articles for deletion/The Big Gay Musical (2nd nomination)

The Big Gay 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)

Not seeing any significant sourcing. Per WP:NFILM the only real coverage we get from multiple sources are some flash-in-the-pan reviews and that only from less-than-prominent sources. No indicating of notability. After doing some of my own sleuthing I found a non-review that addresses my concerns. Withdrawing nomination.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per multiple in-depth reviews being available. For example, one of the many easily found sources available to improve the article is a quite decent full-legth review and analysis in Variety... and we have significant coverage in Afer Elton and New York Cool and DVD Verdict and DVD Talk and Theater Mania and Eye for Film and Twit Magazine and Rich Cline and Out Impact and others. We expect such sources, even the less-than-mainstream ones, to review films or genre-specific topics... and the ones I listed by name are not simply capsule reviews nor trivial mentions, but are instead in-depth and significant coverage of this film. WP:GNG and WP:FILM are soundly met and addressable issues of an article needing improvement are rarely sufficient cause for deletion of notable topics, despite their subject matter. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per multiple in-depth reviews being available. Too many mainstream sources review the film. Stubby or Start-class status does not mean it should be deleted. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Ignoring that most of those sources are exactly the kind of sourcing I was saying is not valid for proving notability (reviews shorter than your average letter to the editor on some obscure sites are not enough) one of the few that just barely goes beyond is rather revealing in this comment: "DVD Verdict was sent a promotional copy for The Big Gay Musical . . ." So, what are the chances most of these reviews are also the result of them being given a free copy of the DVD? Notability does not mean, "I managed to find sources" as quite a large number of non-notable things could be kept on that basis. I think what is most telling are the lack of reviews prior to the apparent flurry of promotion before the DVD release. So, just tack on to my rationale WP:SPIP. Of the only remaining sources one is an obscure local magazine doing a review around the time of the film's premiere in the city. So, After Elton is really the only decent source in the bunch provided above that goes beyond a trivial or routine mention. Now I think this should be deleted even more.-The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  By their being significant, in-depth, and independent, most of the sources you dismiss are quite the opposite of what you claim, and are indeed both significant in coverage and substantial in content. Read WP:NRVE. Notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not their immediate inclusion in the article. And it does not matter one whit if a reviewer goes and sees the film in a theater or watches a screener copy. My finding and offering sources during a deletion discussion is a perfectly proper service to others who may visit this discussion. You are incorrect to assert that significant coverage in multiple reliable sources fails the instructions for determining notability as defined at WP:NF, and incorrect to assert that the in-depth sources as I offered above are somehow brief and inconsequential, when in fact the opposite is true and others joining this discussion will be able to esily determine this for themselves. And you are further incorrect to dismiss pre-production and post-release multiple commentary and review of this film in multiple reliable sources as simply a "flash-in-tha-pan, as that mistaken concept runs directly afoul of WP:Notability is not temporary. No matter the film's topic, we do NOT expect continued and ongoing coverage of a film.... just so long as it can be determined that it did have such coverage in the first place... and this one did. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  If you read my comment fully you would see that the "independent" part is actually in question per WP:SPIP. Also, WP:NFILM specifically mentions "capsule reviews" as being trivial coverage and a capsule review doesn't have to be a single sentence. That the sources you are citing are all reviews, save for one brief bit of routine/trivial coverage, is itself disconcerting. Were it truly notable I would expect more than that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

  I read it, fully. As the article has been built through the efforts of multiple editors over several years, it is not "self-promotion", nor is its direct coverage "indiscriminate". As the reviewers did not finance nor have part in the film or its production, they are independent of the topic, and it does not matter whether their reviews stemmed from their having seen the film in a theater or from their having been sent a screener copy. Had their been but one minor review of the film you might have a point, but as it has been the recpient of coverage by multiple independent reliable sources, WP:SPIP is inapplicable. How we determine reliability of a source is set at WP:Identifying reliable sources and, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the lengthy, in-depth, substantive coverage I found are are NOT "capsule reviews". By way of an ignored example, Variety offers the analysis and comentary that we expect in a long-acepted reliable source. Wikipedida does not kowtow to or offer coverage of "only" the big-studio, major-financed, highly-touted blockbusters and, as not every film gets a headline in The New York Times, we quite reasonably look to those reliable sources whose self-accepted task IS to review those smaller-budgeted, widely-seen films not made by the big boys. What is "disconcerting", is your possible misunderstanding of the intent of WP:N and WP:NF and your expectation that a lessor film "must" have the same level of coverage as major projects such majors as Harry Potter or Star Wars. If you wish to propose elsewhere that WP:N and WP:NF be rewritten to align themselves with your viewpoint, fine... but as written WP:GNG and WP:NF are both soundly met. Coverage of the topic meets policy and the applicable notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions about what I think is worthy of inclusion. I think independent films no one has heard of are worthy of inclusion should they be notable. This is not notable. Not every gay indie film should get its own article. Your reasoning would basically make that the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course not "every" film merits its own article, but that's an attempt to run off on a tangent about other topics. My reasoning as to why this one has met the criteria for notability is that the proffered sources are indeed both significant in coverage and substantial in content, no matter you dismissing them as if they mere capsule reviews, when they were in fact significant in coverage and substantial in content. Read WP:NRVE.

The nice quantity of quality significant coverage found for The Big Gay Musical as a topic may not be available in all cases and for other topics... and while not applicable to the the topic being discussed, the lack of such in other instances is why I quite often opine a delete for topics that fail the inclusion guidelines. However... and dispite your protestations, this instance is not one of those meriting deletion. Read WP:NRVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Per The Devil's Advocate. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep sufficient to meet WP:Notability (films). Fæ (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per multiple in-depth reviews being available and enough to meet WP:Notability (films). ~dee^(talk?) 08:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep These reviews are all fairly lengthy. I'm pretty anal when it comes to the "significant" criterion and...I mean, this passes, with flying colors (IMO). Additionally, it is standard practice for reviewers to review promotional copies of movies sent to them, just as it's standard practice for reviews of major films to be conducted after free, invite-only press screenings -- the major release equivalent of a free promotional DVD. That in no way violates WP:SPIP. Indeed, for all implications of a sullied review by sending a promotional DVD copy, I note with interest that the DVD Verdict review is negative. Not that that matters, either way. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ginseng, from what I can tell, the director is all about self-promotion. If it is truly "standard practice" to review a promotional copy sent to them, then that just makes this routine coverage. Reviews from third-tier sites that rarely exceed the standard length of a letter to the editor after being sent a promotional copy of the DVD screams WP:SPIP and WP:ROUTINE. The only coverage we get that is not from a review is some routine coverage of screenings. Were this truly notable I would expect some significant non-review coverage of the film by a national indie or LGBT news outlet independent of a local premiere.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I think. While it's standard practice for reviewers to review films that are promoted to them, that does not mean that all reviewers review all films that are promoted to them. They select which ones to review, making the coverage non-routine. The same practice is present in the music criticism world. Music critics receive zillions of promotional CDs every month. They don't review all of them (indeed, they generally review a tiny fraction of them). And reviews are, per WP:NFILM, perfectly acceptable coverage. That you'd prefer to see non-review coverage of a premiere is essentially immaterial if the relevant notability guidelines have already been met.

(Note: I understand that you dispute whether the reviews meet the first criterion of WP:NFILM -- please don't interpret my last comment above to mean that I think you are objectively incorrect) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't presuming they review all films that are promoted to them, though we don't know anything about the indivdiual credentials of these sites so we can't say how comprehensive they may be in reviewing films and only one of the in-depth reviews comes from a nationally-known critic. However, if someone asks you to review a movie called "Big Gay Musical" you may feel more inclined towards reviewing that than a film with a less ostentatious title.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

All more or less true :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As the nominator has no way to crawl inside a reviewer's head to determine their thought processes, his suppositions are immaterial to the fact that the film WAS reviewed by multiple independent reliable sources. He might go to the reliable sources noticeboard to seek having such as Variety (magazine) declared unreliable, and there question thier independence and editorial oversight and expertise for reviewing films... but he will be hard pressed to have such long-standing consensus overturned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Here is what DVD verdict says about their reviews: "The majority of our reviews are for product sent to us by studios, distributors, and PR firms . . . It's true, there are gaping holes in our review catalog, but trust me when I say if we had the monetary resources, we'd cover everything that comes to market." So it seems they pretty much do review whatever comes in to their people. DVD Talk doesn't have anything quite as blatant stated on the site, but they have over two dozen people doing just DVD reviews and a significant chunk have between 1,000 and 2,000 reviews, with one member of the staff having done nearly 3,000. Looking at just the three who do Blu-ray reviews exclusively (some of the people review both) they have already gotten at least 3,500 reviews combined. I think DVD Talk and DVD Verdict are basically just generating as many reviews as they possibly can and shouldn't be considered when gauging notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite nice that the one particular reliable sources tells us that they'd love to be able to review more films. Almost any reliable source would tell us they wished they had the resources to do more. But so what? Go read WP:RS to understand how a source may be considered reliable enough even without their being all-inclusive. Your choice to omplain on the non-issue of a source's wishing to be able to review more films does not translate to the others nor make either their review or the reviews of such as DVD Talk and Variety et al, somehow disamissable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that it merely wishes to review more films. They seem to be saying that they try to review everything they get, something that suggests there is no real selection going on at all. Seems a significant number of the sites provided fall into that category, and all but two of the remaining sources being significant reviews, i.e. not a capsule review. It would be like someone citing Wisegeek to demonstrate notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The simple fact that they say they'd like to review everything indicates that they don't review everything and must instead select what to review. Ipso facto, they are selective. Concluding that there is "no real selection going on at all" in response to a site saying that they don't review everything they receive doesn't make any sense. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the purpose of requiring "selection" was meant to apply to sources where their "selection" is only based on time considerations and the need for additional funding or employees. Just because they don't literally review everything doesn't somehow mean they would not be invalid under WP:NFILM as comprehensive review sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view... and THAT is excatly what we have. Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether or not a source admits they wish they had more resources so as to be able to review more films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Significant amount of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Strong keep You have got to be kidding me. One of the claims is that the only reason this film was ever reviewed was that the studio sent out promotional copies? Son, if you ever worked in the media, you'd understand that this is how virtually all small indie films (and even some major films) get reviewed. Have you ever noticed that movies are often reviewed before they are released in theaters? Do you think that happens by magic? Also, do you think music critics have to wait for all of the songs on a CD to be played on the radio before the critic reviews the album? Ridiculous, and ignorant. The only reason why I can imagine this particular film being targeted, given the many mentions in the media, is homophobia. Wikipedia is not censored. I regret having to play that card, but this nomination makes no sense whatsoever. PorkHeart (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You are way, way out of line with your homophobia comment. Please assume good faith and be civil. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That response about promotional copies is understood, but missing the point. If the only reason it is being reviewed is because they got sent a free copy of a film with an ostentatious title then the review in itself should not be considered to satisfy notability unless the review is from a notable critic or major source, I include major niche sources as well. Anyone can watch a movie and then write three or four paragraphs summarizing the plot of a movie and leaving some comments. Hell, someone who gets paid to do it could watch three or four movies a day and write 300-400 word reviews on each one. Seems Eye for Film, another one of the sources provided, also does that whole "review as many movies as conceivably possible" thing just like DVD Talk and DVD Verdict. I think sources like these would be the kind of "comprehensive review" sources mentioned at WP:NFILM as being invalid for demonstrating notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your suppositions and conjectures are not in line with how Wikipedia determines a source's reliability. And that is the point you are perhaps misunderstanding. The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view... and THAT is excatly what we have. Wikipedia does not concern itself with whether or not a source admits they wish they had more resources so as to be able to review more films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS. The reliability of a source is always an issue in this sort of discussion. Even traditionally reliable sources can be unreliable under certain circumstances.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure... there are even portions of The New York Times that are considered unreliable. However, I have no doubts about lengthy and inciteful film analysis and commentary found in multiple reliable sources specifically accepted by consensus as suitable for offering the contextual commentary they do. You are welcome to disagree... but please note though, that editors here are finding the gaping holes in your arguments. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of these sources with regards to notability is an issue. I am not taking a position on whether they are reliable concerning commentary about the film, but whether they are reliable for establishing notability. Only two reviews provided above appear to be clearly reliable in that respect and that is not enough.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You may have a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikiedia's notability standards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per Schmidt: There is significant coverage by multiple reliable sources on this topic.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - The sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. I'll note that being sent a review copy does not necessarily compromise editorial integrity. Major films often have press screenings for critics but we routinely accept movie reviews as evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that reviews can be evidence of notability, but my objection is that these reviews are generally capsule reviewsthat are not evidence of notability and many of the longer ones are in sources that appear to aim at being comprehensive review sites that review as many films as they can. Most of the reviews only popped up during the time of the DVD release in sources that are not even prominent within their niche and it appears to have basically been an attempt by the director at carpet-bombing reviewers to notch up mentions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A capsule review generally is a short paragraph. The links offered above are multi-paragraph commentary and analysis... offering more than a "capsule review" and are in fact inciteful in context and substantial in content. Your continued insistance that a multi-paragraph inciteful commentary and analysis is "capsule" almost makes me think that you have never actually read the reviews. As for you complaint that a fillmaker might be proactive in getting his film reviewed... so what? that complaint is irrelevent, as all filmmakers wish to have their work reviewed (and many are not) and it both anticipated and expected that an filmmaker will promote their work. Just as with ANY topic, if it is not worthy of note, the reliable sources would decline ofering commnetary and analysis. And that a few of the many reviews were of the DVD release is irrelevent. Wikipedia does not expect nor demand that a reviewer must tavel the world tracking down films so as to watch them in theaters. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
      • "Generally" a short paragraph is just it. Capsule reviews can be a single paragraph or they can be a few paragraphs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The general notability guideline stipulates that in order for a subject to be worthy of a standalone article, significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. THAT in-depth and substantive significant coverage in multiple reliable is exactly what we have, and the point you seem to be missing. We do not need all to be substantive, just so long as enough are so that we have enough content to write articles from our own neutral point of view. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
          • It also concerns what Wikipedia is not. A product should only get its own article if it can be established that it is of some lasting relevance, even if that relevance is only in a specific niche. Otherwise Wikipedia ends up being a form of advertising.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
            • A long-lasting social relevance is NOT an inclusion criteria, but IF it were, it could be argued that the film does have relevance to LGBT community. If you wish to discuss a tangent demanding eternal relevance, that discussion might be better discussed over at the various notability boards and talk pages. HERE, we're discussing a topic which has received enough coverage over a long enough period to be seen as worthy of note. It's really that simply. We're not discussing the long-lasting social impact or relevance or Wikipedia "advertising" a Big Mac or a Whopper. If the tone of any article on any notable topic were to become a problem, addressing future issues would then be a matter for regular editing, and not a matter of conjecture over something that may never happen. As EVERY article is expected to be encyclopedic, verifiable, and properly sourced, a discussion here of "what Wikipedia is not" becomes a bit of a stretch, specially when this article does not fail WP:NOT. Articles on ANY topic no more "promote" or "advertise" those topics than do any of the millions of other articles within this encyclopedia. Per both policy and guideline, what this and other encyclopedic articles offer is contextual and sourced information to aid our readers in understanding the topic... and THAT'S "what Wikipedia is all about". As it has been repeatedly explained to you, this topic meets our inclusion criteria... and there is absolutely NO expectation or demand that coverage of the topic in reliable sources be either eternal or have worldwide impact. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
    • The Variety review is significant coverage, as is the New York Cool review, and I do not see these as sites which attempt to comprehensively view every film that they can. These two items in conjunction with the lesser reviews is sufficient in my opinion to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, I wish some more people would express a delete opinion, just to see if The Devil's Advocate would challenge their rationales with such long debate. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

ORGANISATION IS NOW DEFUNCT AND ARTICLE WILL BE DELETED Russianhouse (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 25. Snotbot  t • c »  22:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. The stated reason for deletion would not justify deletion. The fact that an organization is now defunct does not mean that Wikipedia should not have an article about it. Notability is not temporary. If this organization never was notable, that would be a reason to support deletion, but I don't know whether it has or has not been notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Cursory News and Books search shows plenty of reliable sources. DoctorKubla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC).
• Keep. As per Metropolitan90. There are plenty of reliable sources, but I agree that the article needs more of them. ~dee^(talk?) 08:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment' I'll try to source it today, as well as update it with latest developments. ~dee^(talk?) 08:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- Even if defunct, this quango did exist, and no dount had important functions. We have hundreds of articles on defunct bodies. Its abolition is no reason for the deletion of the article. The article certainly needs editing to update its text. I presume the situation is similar to Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corporation, which is to be merged to Thurrock Borough Council. The article needs information as to how the subject is to be wound up and what body is to take over its assets. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep as there appear to be secondary sources on it. I have tagged it as needing secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep but update. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was move to Amarena cherry. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Amerema Cherry

Amerema Cherry (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 this is a hoax. I can find no source that is not a mirror; although supposed to be Italian, it is not mentioned in Italian Wikipedia's list of cherry varieties. The author, user Antco (talk · contribs), has made only this one edit and has not responded to a request for sources. At best, unless anyone can find confirmation, it fails WP:V.JohnCD (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn - see below. JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete It seems to be one of those cases where the absence of evidence does seem to indicate evidence of absence. All the Google hits are mirror sites indeed and if this was a variety of cherry, surely there would be at least one mention on the multitudes of recipe and cookery sites online, whether for the cherry itself or the syrup form that it is asserted to be the more common form. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. Moriori (talk) 02:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep pending move. It's not a hoax - it's an error. The cherry should be spelled 'Amarena'. See http://www.amazon.com/Amarena-Fabbri-Cherries-Syrup-600gr/dp/B000K7NOKG http://www.aliyaleekong.com/amarena-cherry-dark-chocolate-clafoutis-2/ and more. I checked the different spelling on the basis of Amaretto deriving from the Italian for bitter. Peridon (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Now moved to Amarena cherry, hoax tags removed and two rather poor little refs added. Peridon (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn - well spotted. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows that it is indeed real. I shall tag the redirect at Amerema Cherry as {{db-r3}}, though, as it seems too far off to be useful. JohnCD (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Pete Holly

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Pete Holly
• Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Pete Holly (4th nomination)

Pete Holly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Surpassingly non-notable amateur musician, fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, passed away in 2010 without so much as a peep from any music media source of any degree of obscurity. Given that the subject of the article is no longer here to defend his "fame", as he seems to have done during previous discussions for deletion, there's really no reason to keep it around. You give this guy a Wiki entry, you might as well give one to everyone who's ever picked up a guitar, played a single club gig and burned his own CD. Kojiclutch (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

STRONG DELETE AND PROTECT I Googled ""Pete Holly" dead" and found nothing. Googled ""Pete Holly" obituary" and the first hit wasn't even for this subject. Who was this guy anyway? Completely and utterly fails WP:BIO, kill it with fire. Purepanache (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, no assertation of notability at all. The fact that it had previous AFDs does not preclude a speedy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added your behaviour here to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TenPoundHammer. Edit-warring over a speedy deletion is never acceptable (if someone in GF contests it, it's not a speedy), and you're edging even on 3RR with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• delete We need sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Things have moved on here since the last AfD, and we tend to require actual evidence that a subject belongs in an encyclopedia these days. There doesn't appear to be any here. I found this, which is the briefest of mentions, but really nothing else. --Michig (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep According to Allmusic, he has released two albums on The Orchard record label, thus satisfying WP:BAND #5 for multiple releases on an important indie label with a roster of notable artists. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sceptical about The Orchard as it appears to be in many cases an intermediary that puts music on sites like iTunes for a fee. There's nothing about Pete Holly on The Orchard's website.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting point. I dug back further into this, and his old band signed to Bomp! Records and released a 7" on that label. Here there are three reviews for The Wizard of Garage, including one from The Rocket, a Seattle biweekly newspaper. It seems like there might just barely be enough stuff out there to hang notability on, even excluding The Orchard. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Probably Delete. The main possible support for notability looks like The Orchard, but it doesn't look like a conventional record label to me - it's described as "an independent music and video distribution, marketing, and sales company that works with independent artists, labels, and other content providers to distribute content...", which makes it sound like it will distribute anything for anyone. Can't actually find any mention of him on The Orchard site. Another possibility might be that his albums can be bought on Amazon (CD and MP3), so there might be some avenues to explore there - not really sure. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I dont find the person important. There are no notable works done by the artist so delete. Yasht101 :) 00:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and the Orchard is not a major independent label; in fact, it doesn't really appear to be a music label at all. I did find this mention, but that only verifies he was a musician and falls well short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. How do we know the subject is deceased? The only reason to think Pete Holly died is that an anonymous editor changed this article to say that he died. Maybe the reason we can't find any obituaries for Holly is that he is still alive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is only circumstantial, but it looks like he was running two blogs, both of which have no entries past June 2010. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is very likely his obituary; the info all adds up. Purepanache (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete—Non-notable, as evidenced by lack of RS. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 02:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:GNG unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz

List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Copyright issues, looks identical to the situation with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• This could be a speedy delete as it's the same issue (involving the same book) in the AfD discussion that Martijn Hoekstra mentioned. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not comfortable with speedy deletion here. Seeing that the last AfD was controversial, I don't dare to say with absolute confidence that speedy deletion on this article will be completely uncontroversial. None of the CSD criteria really fit (note that it is not unambiguous copyvio as needed for G12, or there wouldn't have been so much discussion on the last AfD), I don't think it can be shoehorned into G6 either. So it would need a prime directive speedy deletion if speedied at all. This issue isn't urgent enough to throw away the process on my own believe that the exact same situation applies. I could have gone PROD though, and notified those that commented on the other AfD, but with all that attached, it's no more of a lightweight process than AfD is. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:CP is generally routine, although there is a week's delay . :) That's where copyright concerns go that are not "unambiguous". Flagging it for {{copyvio}} could have taken it through that avenue. I imagine we still could, if others would prefer, but assuming that we'll go this way, I'll note that my opinion is not changed. I think this probably falls on the side that we need to delete it for copyright concerns, but still appreciate the massive amount of work that went into it. It won't go to waste; I've created two articles so far off of the redlinks, which were transferred to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums. We will fill in missing notable albums of jazz, courtesy of this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: As much as I regret to see either article deleted, it is the same case. I don't see how it would be possible to keep one and not the other. In hindsight, both of the articles should have been included in the earlier nomination, as the exact same issue applied to both. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• WP:JAZZ notified. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete It's the exact same issue as found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz: completely listing the elements of a creative list violates the list makers copyright. This isn't a routine mechanical listing that can be recreated independently.—Kww(talk) 10:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete the issue here for me is independent coverage in reliable sources. There doesn't appear to be any and I'm deeply skeptical that any is likely to exist. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Daniel bessa

Daniel bessa (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 did not had a in-depth google search for any article to meet WP:GNG. But Bessa in fact did not made his professional debut, fails WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:NSPORT. Most of the "footballer" failed both GNG and NFOOTBALL and only a very few fails the latter but pass the former. Matthew_hk tc 21:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or appeared in a fully pro league. As such, this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Forgive me if I'm wrong (I'm a huge football fan), but he plays with his team (that is popular for under-20s, has won 6 League titles) in the Campionato Nazionale Primavera (all Serie A and Serie B teams compete), and was in the Italian national team for under-18s when he was younger. He isn't notable enough for an article? Granted, more sources are needed and the content needs a cleanup, but I think it should stay. ~dee^(talk?) 08:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NFOOTBALL, playing in a youth soccer league is not notable; he also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Lorenzo Crisetig, Andrea_Sala_(footballer), and Marko_Livaja should all be deleted then? From some articles I have found (and I have also asked an Italian friend of mine), I think we can save the article on grounds that he passes WP:GNG for wide coverage, similar to the above-mentioned footballers who play on the same team. ~dee^(talk?) 10:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisetig, Sala and Livaja had made professional SENIOR debut in COMPETITIVE GAME. Matthew_hk tc 12:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of browser display resolutions

Usage share of browser display resolutions (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 clear why this article is notable. If anything, it should be a section within the article on Usage share of web browsers or something similar. Delete per WP:IINFO Karl.brown (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - wikipedia is not a compendium of raw stats. -- Whpq (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Such statistics are an important part of the Web and are frequently analyzed it its development. The article can be expanded.Smallman12q (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this article is a copy and paste of data from a single source. While the subject may be notable, this article presents incomplete data in a way that could be misinterpreted by the reader. This data is based on this one websites logs. If it were a more general website the data might be more useful but w3schools is a site that is trafficed by website designers more than average people. Again the topic might be notable but should be based on more references. RadioFan (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added some stats from W3Counter.Smallman12q (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think piling on more stats are helpful. What is missing is critical analysis such as explanations of why any of this is important as a topic. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment agreed. Even with more sources, it's got to be made clear why this is notable. It's not clear at all from the current article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's notable as web layouts are often optimized for a particular resolution. Smallman12q (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as making no claim of notability, or stubify. Wikipedia could have a page on this topic, but this isn't it and the direction of travel is currently entirely wrong. If the content of the page improves radically, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The most recent information may make for a useful sentence or two in Display resolution or Web browser, but as the article stands, it's just an indiscriminate listing of statistics (which Wikipedia is not) with little hope of progressing beyond that. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Usage share of browser color depth

Usage share of browser color depth (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 clear why this article is notable. If anything, it should be a section within the article on Usage share of web browsers or something similar. I'm recommending deletion of a similar article on Usage share of browser display resolutions. Suggest delete per WP:IINFO Karl.brown (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a compendium of raw stats. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - This statistic is important as it reflects how people have viewed the web over time. Though most displays currently support at least 24bit, Windows 7 will support up to 48bit. The article is currently a stub and other sources should be added to it.Smallman12q (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete this article is a copy and paste of data from a single source. While the subject may be notable, this article presents incomplete data in a way that could be misinterpreted by the reader. This data is based on this one websites logs. If it were a more general website the data might be more useful but w3schools is a site that is trafficed by website designers more than average people. Again the topic might be notable but should be based on more references. RadioFan (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per RadioFan. If the page gets radically improved, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Detroit Independent

Detroit Independent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unable to find news sources documenting the creation of this paper. .Com Domain is down. Some of the articles appear to be directly copied from Myfoxdetroit.com. No listing about where to find the supposed print edition. I've never seen one in the wild. Thestrengthsofcow (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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)} 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment. The publication's site can be found at http://www.detroitindependent.net/ instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Looks like a non-existent or barely-existent publication; in any case, non-notable. Appears to be a free, "lifestyle" type publication, of the type that every major city has a dozen of. The stories on the website have not been updated in more than a month. --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete no sources, not notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Igor Ž. Žagar

Igor Ž. Žagar (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 professor. Does not meet the criteria of WP:PROF. Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep (I changed my mind) Delete Look at the Talk:J. L. Austin's High-importance on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy's importance scale. Therefore you can see Austin is one of the most important philosophers. Why? Because of his discovery of speech acts, which have been discovered in fact (as proved in 2011 Igor Ž. Žagar book) much earlier by a notable Slovene linguist Stanislav Škrabec. If this is not notable, then what is? --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 14:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment First a technical detail: apparently you have formatted your automatic signature in such a way that it is not linked. I'd recommend you change that, if people want to contact you, it is very inconvenient if (at least) your talk page is not linked. As for the rest of your comment above: whatever priority score a Wikiproject gives to an article has no bearing whatsoever on the notability of the subject of the article. (Note that any editor can give such a score, even the article creator). The article on Zagar has not a single reference apart from his homepage. If he is indeed as notable as you assert, it should be easy to find independent reliable sources to demonstrate that he meets WP:PROF and/or WP:GNG. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Stanislav Škrabec, the discoverer, surely is notable. Igor Ž. Žagar is not, at least not according to what has been presented until now. Please, demonstrate with independent reliable sources that Žagar's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Marvin Iraheta

Marvin Iraheta (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 by an IP withouth providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or somebody can be BOLD and just do it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Whittier Airport

Whittier Airport (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 is not really an airport in the normally understood meaning of the word. This is a gravel airstrip outside a small town. There is no supervision of any kind, no monitoring of runway conditions, no fuel available, and no maintenance of any kind during the winter, meaning Whittier doesn't actually have an airport for large portions of the year. Wikipedia is not a directory of airports and there is nothing notable about this tiny, unstaffed airstrip. A single sentence in the main article on Whittier, Alaska would suffice. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Wikipedia serves as a gazetter and airport information of this sort seems comparable with railways stations or other significant transport junctions. The level of facilities offered at this location seems irrelevant. The proposal to condense the information into an entry at the article for the township indicates that this is not a matter of deletion, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The level of facilities is relevant, in the same way that a big bus terminal in a city is more notable than a bus stop on a corner in the middle of nowhere. Only 2 airplanes are based at this airport. Not two airlines, two planes in total. This is like having an article on a parking lot with two cars in it. if it were a private airstrip we wouldn't even be having this discussion. There are hundreds of tiny airports in Alaska, they aren't all notable unto themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Trim and merge to Whittier, Alaska#Transportation pretty much per Beeblebrox. Airports aren't inherently notable (this was about all I could find that even directly mentioned them) and this one seems even less notable than other non-inherently notable airports. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 21:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Long standing convention and consensus is that airports are considered notable and Colonel Warden is correct per WP's editing policy and gazetter status. Never seen one, even former ones, deleted. Yes consensus can change, but there has been zero indication of it.--Oakshade (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

So, you would define a single, narrow, gravel airstrip with absolutely no facilities an "airport"? Do you define your driveway as a superhighway as well? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Your driveway is a private facility, not a public-use airport. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether its runway is gravel, paved or even a seaplane port with no runway, it's still an officially recognized and public airport. Your driveway/superhighway argument is straw man as nobody has ever claimed this is a major airport capable of accommodating A380s. --Oakshade (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

By that line of reasoning if I opened my driveway up to let the public use it it would become notable. However, let's try another, more fitting metaphor: harbors and marinas. These are also open to the public, maintained by governments, and verifiable to exist. Are they all automatically independently notable regardless of size and usage? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - as a public-use airport, this is notable, provided it can be verified through reliable sources, which it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Question Just for the sake of clarity, what I believe I am hearing here is an argument than any public use airport of any kind is in that magical realm of "automatic notability". Is that about right, and if so, why? I mean, why are we exempting these articles from WP:N. By this logic a public parking facility or a bus stop should be automatically notable as well so long as its existence can be verified. I honestly do not understand the logic that says a tiny flyspeck of an airstrip is notable just because it is open to the public during the brief periods when it is accessible at all.

For those who don't know, Whittier has notoriously bad weather. It is constantly overcast and raining or snowing, which is why the airport is so minimal, why it is not maintained in winter, and why damages from the earthquake in 1964 have yet to be repaired.

Whittier is an important transportation hub as it links the waters of Prince William Sound with the Alaska Railroad and the highway system, but it has no relevance as an aviation hub because it isn't one. The Alaska Marine Highway has a terminal there that loads and unloads thousands of travelers a year, and many cruise ships dock here now that they can get their busses through the tunnel to their cruise ship dock, yet we don't have articles on those facilities, which serve as important links in Alaska's transportation network. Why not? because they do not have any relevance to a general audience, yet it seems folks insist that this crappy, broken, largely unused airstrip is automatically notable because things that fly are cool and automatically more notable than things that don't. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Discuss larger merge I see an argument is raging on, which I don't have time to digest in full. As it pertains to Alaska, however, keep this in mind: there are scores of airport articles wherein 1) the airport is very, very small; 2) the community it serves is very, very small; 3) the community and its airport are very much intertwined, especially socioeconomically in the case of isolated smaller villages in The Bush. It seems as though some would use the notability of the airport itself to argue for separate articles. The reality is that you wind up with a bunch of stubs which languish as such for years and years, because there really isn't that much to be said about the topic (or at the very least, if there is anything to be said, it may require real work to do the research involved). Aside from airport articles, we have the same situation with scores of stubs on Alaska radio stations. A bunch of those articles could also be merged, rather than using the notability of the broadcast license as a rationale for having 100+ mostly useless stubs.RadioKAOS (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree that airports play a very important role in the majority of small Alaskan communities. However, as we say where I live "It may rain in Homer, but it's shittier in Whittier" meaning that their weather there, being wedged on a narrow (semi) livable spot between the sound and the glaciers of the Chugach, makes it so that the airport is hardly relevant at all and it seems mostly used for local "flightseeing" trips on the odd clear day, not actual transportation from point A to point B as is normally the case. As such I don't see how it merits more than the briefest of mentions in the main article as opposed to having it all dolled up like a real airport that serves a vital purpose. Ok, I'll stop going on and on now and let others continue discussing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment There are really two options: Keep or Merge with Whittier, Alaska. The article suggests about two aircraft movements per day. Since (I understand) light aircraft are normal measn of communication between towns etc in Alaska, it might be more appropriate to treat it as a local facility in Whitter and thus merge this into its article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - general aviation-only airstrips are not notable, period. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• I dare you to AfD Van Nuys Airport under your opinion-ed criteria.--Oakshade (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny you would mention that. That article contains a hatnote linking to a similar article. Combined, I don't have even a faint hint of a coherent history of that facility. Maybe the presumed notability of the airport is all that matters. Perhaps in reality, it's more like having PD sources available to fill up article content. Once you have that, then start churning out article after article, sometimes without regard to factual accuracy or usefulness, or whether or not the article is exclusively a mirror of information found in a million other places on the web. I think I can very safely state that Kwigillingok Airport will never achieve GA status within my lifetime.

See the pattern?

Notability of airport ---> FAA materials in the public domain

Notability of broadcast license ---> FCC materials in the public domain

Notability of NRHP listing ---> NPS materials in the public domain

Same situation each time. Lots of useless articles unleashed on Wikipedia, only for some member of a related WP to have to figure out what the hell to do with them. If the articles actually are useful, well, I guess it's up to someone else (read: The Story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody) to do the actual writing and sourcing. The ratio of articles which are actually being edited by anyone who gives a shit versus articles created merely out of wholecloth is far too low in the cases of all three categories I list above.RadioKAOS (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Convention is that any public-use airport with an ICAO code or IATA code is inherently notable. Yes, this place has minimal notability, but it has enough. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge there isn't inherent notability here, and even for those that argue that there could be, the circumstances negate that. A tidy "smerge" (summarize and merge) into the Whittier article is sufficient to cover this subject, with a redirect from the title. Imzadi 1979 → 09:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - Public airports are notable enough for their own articles. Dough4872 16:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • May I ask what you base your rather broad statement on? Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 18:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, it seems to be based on the idea that anything related to aviation is automatically more notable than other forms of transportation. The ferry and cruise ship docks in Whittier, along with the mixed use rail/auto tunnel through a mountain are the real transportation facilities in Whittier, there aren't any WP:RS of any kind that demonstrate notability of this largely unused gravel airstrip, (it is not an airport by any reasonable definition of the word) but we are being asked to cast WP:N aside because having all of 2 airplanes there is just too cool to not cover it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that every public airport, regardless of size, that has an airport code has some significance. Getting rid of this article would be the equivalent of getting rid of an article on a small settlement. If this was a private airfield, I would say delete. Dough4872 21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Err..."I believe". Nothing wrong with you believing, or what you believe, but what are you basing this on? If there was any sort of policy, consensus or even short discussion that said that having one of those two codes makes you automatically notable, this would be an easy keep for me. Not only do I not see those discussions, I don't think they would fly. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability indicates that "General aviation (civilian non-airline) airports which meet one of the following criteria are considered notable: (1) it is marketed to the public for aviation-related services (2) it is currently or formerly owned by a local, regional or national government entity" Whittier Airport meets this criteria as it is "a state-owned public-use airport". Dough4872 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. Entries in databases do not count as depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sunkist Protein

Sunkist Protein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Blatant promotion for a commercial product, consisting of a two sentence description. The author has created numerous other articles for products by the same company which have already been deleted or changed to redirects. KarlM (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page, for a similar product by the same company with the same issues:

Sunkist Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) KarlM (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising. Shouldn't that be a Speedy, with a Block for the advertiser? Same for Sunkist Energy and its spammer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but an admin removed my speedy delete nomination. KarlM (talk) 08:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Does not meet the basic requirements for general notability. The only notability I see is inherited from the corporate brands that have been tacked on to the product. This should just be a one-liner in a list of products by Sunkist. Steven Walling • talk 21:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. None of the current sources appear to meet the independence criteria. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 17:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ABCs of attraction

ABCs of attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Relisting of company mistakenly listed at AfD for two unrelated books, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can I Retire?. The question as I see it is whether the company is separately notable from the founder JT Tran. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Enough coverage in reliable sources. One mentions the company in its title: Nguyen, Vicky. "NBC's Shocking Investigation into the ABCs of Attraction". There's no link to it in the article, but is here on YouTube. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment That link looks more promotional than a WP:RS. Autarch (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, YouTube isn't a reliable source, but NBC is, and being featured on "Emmy winning reporter Vicky Nguyen"'s show is. ~dee^(talk?) 12:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I was the original author of this article. I'm looking to rewrite it and add more relevant content and sources that will distinguish it from JT Tran. As you can see from the references already listed, and more which I will be adding, the company has been widely covered since its establishment, having been featured on numerous television programs, newspapers and magazines as being one of the popular (and legitimate) PUA companies today. Josh769 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• What is "PUA"? Please don't use obscure acronyms without explaining them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• PUA is Pickup artist, I believe. ~dee^(talk?) 14:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Since you haven't begun, I have taken it to my sandbox to see what I can do with it and will show you what I have done once completed. ~dee^(talk?) 16:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge with JT Tran. Autarch (talk) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep Have checked that the sources quoted do appear that this article stands in its own right, if it has further content. Perhaps Josh769 can paste his draft notes onto the Talk page to show that more relevant content is on its way. Just a thought. Mediation4u (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}
• Keep' As long as the content will be different from JT Tran as promised, from what I saw of the sources, I think it is notable enough to have its own page. ~dee^(talk?) 11:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete basically an infomercial. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - has received the same amount of coverage as Love Systems, PickUp 101, etc and featured on NBC and ABC and several magazines (different periods). Adotrde (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 decker^{talk to me} 04:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Matteo Bianchetti

Matteo Bianchetti (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:GNG, and more specificity Bianchetti did not play in any professional game and UNUSED bench in the Supercup did not count as appearance, fails WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:NSPORT. Matthew_hk tc 17:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 17:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - only played in the Under 19s. See [10]. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

yes, only in Primavera reserve team Fullsoccer Matthew_hk tc 18:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. There is no indication of significant coverage and he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per Mattythewhite. ~dee^(talk?) 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sloppy Joe's Bar, Havana

Sloppy Joe's Bar, Havana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article was deproded by article creator and re-filled with POV non-sourced rumour. Original issue still exists. It appears to be a non-notable bar, with no reliable source references to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep Does have several mentions in Google Books [11] and it is notable through the Hemingway connection and it inspired the name of the same named bar in Key West. I agree the article needs work to remove POV and needs sources (which can be found on Gbooks) but this should be fixed through regular editing. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be a historic, notable establishment. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added several references to the article. The Los Angeles Times called it "one of the most famous bars in the world" with "almost the status of a shrine."[12] --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per above reasoning. Sources currently provided are sufficient to meet notability guidelines. Tinton5 (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Keep historical and notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Baskent Knights

Baskent Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Neither Baskent Knights nor the Turkish College National Championship games of 2006 have any significant coverage. I could not find any source to suggest that the games even happened. There are a lot of Youtube videos but those can't be added here. There are some Turkish pages so this might be a good article for Turkish Wikipedia but not for the English one. The one book I did find (and referenced) is published by the University this team belongs to. Wikishagnik (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:ORG as well as WP:GNG (WP:NSPORTS doesn't apply as it doesn't mention criteria for sports organizations, despite there being a header "Organizations and games notability"). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple, independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. I spent 30 minutes reviewing Google results, and found old YouTube videos, lots of articles derived from this Wikipedia article or mirror sites of it, and what appear to be Turkish language blogs. I found nothing that appears to be a meaningful and reliable secondary source per WP:RS. I also note that the only source currently cited for the article appears to be a publication that has compiled Wikipedia articles for resale. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bryn Phillips (political activist)

Bryn Phillips (political activist) (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 is a non-notable activist. There are many references for this article, but none of them show significant coverage. Rather, they are mostly mentions from him doing interviews as one of hundreds of people at an Occupy London camp. There are a few other oddball references here and there... an article written by the subject, a book that mentions him (kind of), nothing significant enough to make this subject notable. A news search brings up the same types of hits - quotes from him at the Occupy London camp. Web and books searches bring up nothing of merit. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO MisterRichValentine ^(talk) 15:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete A useful spokesman for the media but not notable outside the Occupy movement. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable; a few mentions in news articles about the Occupy movement. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:1E. If sources are added to the article to prove otherwise, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Jarvis Sherbourne (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sofia Andres

Sofia Andres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Speedy and subsequent prod were removed by new editor account, but still appears to be an A7 candidate as there is no reliable source coverage I can find to cover this child actor. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Author warned re socking. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Iglooflame (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable actress. ~dee^(talk?) 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Dom Dwyer

Dom Dwyer (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 by an IP withouth providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. He plays in Major League Soccer. ~dee^(talk?) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • He is indeed on the roster of a MLS team, but hasn't made an appearance yet. Also, WP:FOOTYN is only an essay and is not a formal guideline on notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks for the clarification, Matty. ~dee^(talk?) 18:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As stated, this fails an alphabet-soup of policies, guidelines and essays; Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. No prejudice against redirect creation; if it's desired that the page be userified for later or retrieving content for merging, ping me and I'll happily do so. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

SFL 2

SFL 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Based of the consensus established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination) in addition to being a event that is going to happen in the future, that this article should also be deleted. It should be noted that this article was created during the SFL1 (2nd Nomination) deletion discussion by an author who saw (and posted) in the AfD so it is safe to assume that they should have been aware that the individual SFL event articles were being challenged for inclusion to Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions Hasteur (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified everyone who participated in the SFL 1 (2nd nomination) discussion Hasteur (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep As par WP:GNG, WP:MMAEVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:EVENT. Both events meet these policies an for the SFL 1 page to have been deleted is really a crime when considering all the facts of the event, such as it being India's first MMA event, the first event for the first Indian based MMA promotion, first MMA event in history to be streamed live on Youtube etc. That was nothing short of a crime in truth and I am prepared to contest that result. Until then all I can do now is defend this page also. BigzMMA (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - for same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination). . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Another article that obviously fails WP:MMAEVENT:

"To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.". - David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to List of SFL events or similar article. Contrary to BigzMMA's opinion, this article, just like the recently deleted SFL 1, fails to show any lasting effects of the event, the article contains only WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and contains no "well sourced prose" as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 2012 in Super Fight League This is a slight modification of my !vote. Combining SFL events into a single article that can, potentially, discuss the significance of the events would more likely meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines than individual event articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - This event seems to be more notable than the last, and I dont think SFL 1 should have been deleted. But if this gets deleted. I think the results and fight cards should be moved to the main article. Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - As per SPL 1. Please stop creating these article and comply with your own guidelines. Bjmullan (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Its SFL Bjmullan, as in SUPER FIGHT LEAGUE, these events are highly notable, they have had articles written by the highest papers in India, which in accordance to GNG, national coverage counts towards notability, just because, say, The New York Times may not of written about it, it doesn't mean to say it has no notability. Discriminating an foreign event based on foreign coverage for a foreign promotion holds no power for deletion votes on here and I am more than happy to point out which users has done so accompanied with the pages done on, some of which are actually on this page already. BigzMMA (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete (sigh) Here we go again. I understand Bigz's concerns, but these articles fails some policies on notability. The event may be the first based in India, first to be streamed live on Youtube, yadda yadda yadda, but like David has said, "the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references for reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of the coverage lasted beyond the end of the event". It fails the "and show that the duration of the coverage lasted beyond the end of the event" as it hasn't even started yet. None of the sources give lasting and significant coverage, so therefore I am in favor of deletion. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the promotion's first event was the first MMA event to be streamed live through Youtube, the worlds biggest, most recognised video sharing website on the internet clearly shows historical significance. It was covered by the Times of India, the country's version of The New York Times or USA Today, so clearly independent of the subject itself, both the promotion or even the sport in general. It was heavily covered throughout India post event, which if you read the comment just above your vote you'd see that I have something to say about your '"and show that the duration of the coverage lasted beyond the end of the event"' statement. As far as this event goes, it is being treated the same way by the national media, and these biased votes based of clear lack of invested research has clearly shows that what I am saying about the delete voters on here are not lies, but fact-full statement. If this page gets deleted as well, I will have no choice but to create a '2012 in SFL' page, which I am deeply against but will most likely have no choice to do, considering this relentless attack on MMA event over the course of the last few weeks. I will fight to defend each and every MMA event as best as I can, but the day I see that the only way I can look at past UFC events through a 'year in UFC' page I will be done with Wikipedia, as that day would mean Wikipedia has turned to a prison created by the very immates that someone accidentially given powers to create, delete and create ridiculous policies to decide which is what! BigzMMA (talk) 12:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Bigz, your "I'm prepared to make 2012 in SFL" constitutes a threat of continued disruption and could be used as behavorial evidence of not getting the point. WP:BURDEN says that it's the responsibility of content adders to back up their claims (including notability) with references. Each time you claim that the local media is treating these promotions with more than the standard coverage we don't have anything to judge it on. Ergo you are failing at the "burden test" Hasteur (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Hasteur, it has been talked about for a while now that all events for MMA promotion should fall under a single page based on things like the year it was held in, the TV channel it was on, the time period (as the case is with Bellator) so pages can hold enough notability to remain on here. I am strongly against the idea due to the fact that this is an encyclopedia and that all information should unquestionably be on here. However due to these literal crimes that are being called policies (which are actually guidelines, which means they should not have to be followed and in turn not actual reasons to delete, only policies like WP:GNG are cases for/against a page), they are being removed, but a lot of people who votes delete on these AfDs have said having a 'year in SFL' page is something they wouldn't mind having, hence they would probably not look to delete them if they are made. It shouldn't be done, but it will have to be if this keeps carrying on. Its not like this information is harming anyone, nor is it costing a thing so who are we protecting this stuff from? Wikipedia is going to the dogs (that is a fact) and only the UFC events, which have been able to remain as separate pages as of now, are the final front line to keeping me using and editing Wikipedia. If they get merged into a pages, then thats me gone, because I can't be asked taking this shit from you guys any more. Wikipedia is for information, not for debates for it and you guys have lost that sometime ago. As far as your 'local media is treating these promotions with more than the standard coverage we don't have anything to judge it on.' statement goes, it is also stated in WP:GNG that it can be covered even on non-internet sources (i.e. TV, Newspapers etc), so you may want to try again with that line! :) BigzMMA (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA, please strike your personal attacks (shit from you guys, However due to these literal crimes..., etc.) from your posts in this discussion immediately. As per WP:NPA your comments have been derogatory and insulting to editors who have been attempting to hold up the policies of Wikipedia in opposition to your efforts to dilute them and make Wikipedia a vehicle for promoting and collecting information on every last single Mixed Martial Arts promotion/fighter/league. Other editors would have taken the hint about what Wikipedia considers Notable, however you seem to be so single minded that it appears the only way to get through to you is by a hard bat and not the soft cluebat. Hasteur (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well isn't that what an encyclopedia is, for every piece of information on every subject? Because if not then this website is misleading people who use it that what they think it is really isn't. "the only way to get through to you is by a hard bat and not the soft cluebat"? And your telling me that I'm the one dishing out personal attacks??? Because this sounds like your threatening me with physical violence. Fellow editors keep note of this for future AfDs/ANI etc cases. BigzMMA (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Replying to a request to strike Personal attacks by making another personal attack is not the way to foster a collegial editing environment. The "soft clue bats" have been our up to now fairly calm and reasoned explanations of why your reasoning is faulty and warning you about your actions when they go against the policies and practices of Wikipedia. The "hard bat" is reporting you to one of the Action taking noticeboards (AN/ANI/WQA) to have sanctions applied against you. In no way did I threaten you with physical violence! I was explicitly enumerating what the next action on my part will be if you don't fall in line with WP policies immediateley (as evidenced by your final warning about "No Personal Attacks" delivered by TreyGeek. If you don't strike every single personal attack here in 24 hours I'm going to ANI for a block and AN for a topic ban concerning MMA topics on you as you appear to be unable to discuss these topics logically and without emotion or personal involvement. Hasteur (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

BigzMMA, your arguments about what an encyclopedia is in relation to Wikipedia was addressed by the closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFL 1 (2nd nomination). The admin, in deleting SFL 1 stated the "Wikipedia should have everything" argument is invalid. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per TreyGeek. ~dee^(talk?) 11:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I have no interest whatsoever in this subject and I find myself here because I'm tracking another editor who does apparently have an interest. For those of you who think the subject is not notable have a look here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-17395464 Seems to me it is notable, and the reason why at least some editors are going for deletion is for other unrelated matter. I think its called pov or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) 12:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC) — CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hasteur (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This proposal isn't about deleting an article on the sport, the organisation, the league, or the series, but about deleting the article on one specific event, which hasn't yet taken place. I'm not clear, CookBookCharlie, in what way you feel that the BBC link you gave us is supposed to demonstrate the compliance of the article on that future event with the criteria in WP:MMAEVENT, which I will quote again, in case you didn't read them above:

"To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event."?

- David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats the matter Hasteur? you see a good, accurately written comment made by someone who believes that the page/s should be kept and you want to downplay them as much as you can? Instead of trying to fight me at every turn why don't you try something more creative such as agreeing that a 'Year in SFL' page, though I strongly disagree with it, should be made? BigzMMA (talk) 12:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally - TOTALLY irrelevant. My edits or lack of them have nothing at all to do with it and such a statement is typical of the garbage I've found here at times on Wikipedia. I am pointing you to an external reputable source which demonstrates notability. That's all. I point you to a fact, so what in the name of hell has my history to do with that. Assess the fact, not me! Incredible!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CookBookCharlie (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with you CookBookCharlie, but sadly that is how many users now want to play AfDs these days when dealing with MMA related subjects. BigzMMA (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This has the same issues as SFL1--a failure to meet WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE. Astudent0 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Merge I think it would be nice to keep these results on Wikipedia. The promotion itself is notable, therefore It would be nice to see a page with all of the event results together. --Pat (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that this event hasn't occurred yet and based on the SFL 1 AfD that we don't see the group of individual SFL events notable, nor do we have a general listing for the list of events. Ergo it doesn't make sense for a merge to occur. Hasteur (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, No reason to suspect this event will be of any historical significance, and fails a number of guidelines and polices (WP:NOT, WP:CRYSTAL WP:EVENT, WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:MMAEVENT). Mtking ^(edits) 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete There's no indication this event will have any long-lasting impact or that the article will be anything but routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:MMAEVENT. Alternatively userify unlil six months after the event a we can see whether it has met the criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Rory Fleming

Rory Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wealthy individual, descended from or related to wealthy or well-connected people, some notable, but no indication of his own notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and failing WP:GNG. ~dee^(talk?) 12:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Seems to have a bit of a tabloid presence [13], mostly in Danish and about his ex-wife. Otherwise he seems to be someone with famous relatives - none of whom seems suitable for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. Rich relatives and a massive divorce payout aren't enough. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Rahul Bharti

Rahul Bharti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article concerns a Thai massager. It makes no claim to notability and my searches in Google have turned up the usual Facebook and Youtube stuff plus an advertiseing site, but no independent pages that could be mined to find a hint of notability. Interestingly, the history of the page begins with its creator saying, "That page was deleted, so recreated it." The page was then nominated for a Speedy deletion, but the creator developed the page and removed the nomination, without giving a reason as far as I can see. This page has existed for 5 years and, other than editors like myself doing a bit of tidying up, it is substantially as it was at creation, i.e. unreferenced (properly at least), orphan, lacking notability, borderline advertising. Emeraude (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Cannot find any significant coverage for this person (WP:SIGCOV). The first and last names are probably the most common first and last names in India so it will take a lot of pain to find anything notable about this person. Don't see any news or other articles. The one book I came across in google books does address notability concerns at all. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean it does NOT address concerns? Emeraude (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OOPS! That was a typo, Whack me with the fish ;-)--Wikishagnik (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Whack!!! Emeraude (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Not even any claim of notability, just the allegation that he "teaches students from around the world". --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. I marked one reference as link dead. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy Doonan

Andy Doonan (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:MUSICBIO. Repeatedly recreated. Also contains copyvio and no references. Should revert back to previous redirect. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 13:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitrueman777 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I found a couple of reliable sources that mention Doonan for his old band, Crimson Daydream. More recently, he won Live & Unsigned, which is the UK's largest competition for unsigned artists, so I think it can pass WP:MUSICBIO. I do think the article needs to be rewritten, completely trimmed down and all self-promotional material/tone removed. ~dee^(talk?) 13:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Changed Changed tone and added more references. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.103.72 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It still needs some work, let me see what I can do. ~dee^(talk?) 08:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. I rewrote, edited and added a number of references. It still needs some work, but I'll have to do it later. ~dee^(talk?) 10:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per improvements during AfD. Passes GNG, WP:BIO#1 and WP:MUSICBIO#1 & #8. Cavarrone (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Republic County, Kansas. Or, alternately, merge to List of people from Kansas. In any case, consensus seems to be fairly strong that lists of people from individual US counties an individual list of people from this particular county is not necessary. —SW— ^converse 17:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of people from Republic County, Kansas

List of people from Republic County, Kansas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• There is already a List of people from Kansas, which should be sufficient. No reason is given why Republic County, Kansas is notable enough to merit such a list.
• If there are truly people who are notable because they are somehow associated with this county, then they could be added to a section within the Republic County article. This article is a better example:[[14]] Note that it doesn't list everyone who happened to be born there; it just details citizens who were noteworthy within that county during their lives.
• In this Republic County list, for example Lloyd Cardwell and Edwin C. Johnson both seem to have spent most of their time in Nebraska. *Again, the criteria is *not* notability of the people. From WP:MOS:"When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself: If this person/thing/etc., wasn't an X, would it reduce their fame or significance? Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X? Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?"
• WP:LC also says "The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article."
• In addition, per WP:LISTN, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There aren't any independent notable sources cited that reference people from Republic County
• Thus I'd suggest that this and other county-notable lists created by this editor be merged into the county articles as a separate section, and focus the contents on people who are really notable for having done something for that county, not just having happened to have been born there. Karl.brown (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and merge with Republic County, Kansas, as per just about every other place in the world that we have articles on. The list has to be very large to justify splitting off, and this isn't. Emeraude (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• this and other county-notable lists created by this editor Really? You start off with a personal attack? Any similar article created by me should automatically be removed because you don't like this one? In the interest of having a fair and full discussion, I suggest that such comments be struck before moving forward. Actually, I suggest that this AFD be closed administratively and a new one opened without those statements.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi Paul, sorry it wasn't intended as a personal attack. It was more of a suggestion that, if other admins agree to merge this one, then we should merge the others as well - I just noticed you had created a number of them, and rather go through this process one by one, perhaps we could come to a general consensus for these types of lists (i.e. List of people from County X, list of people from small town Y, etc). --Karl.brown (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Apology accepted. Let's move forward on the discussion (which is what matters anyway!). I'm going to move forward first by improving the article in question to address the issues before responding further in the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for starters, go here [[15]] for a discussion of the county history. This list is far from complete. Time prevents me from writing more...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Republic County, Kansas. This list is relatively short (only 8 people listed) and would not make the county article overly long if it were merged in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Bibliography Here is a link to a selected bibliography of the county history [16] As you can see, it is a topic of discussion for more than just myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what that list establishes. Most of the titles on that list don't imply that the publications discuss residents who would be considered notable (at least not by Wikipedia standards). Maybe those publications do discuss such persons, but some editor would have to provide confirmation of that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Or one could simply read the title of most of the entries: 1) "Pioneer Memories"; 2) "History of Bands in Belleville Goes Back to Early Days"; 3) "Mrs. Joseph Johnson Tells of Pioneer Day Incidents of Late Charles Isaacson"; 4) "Osborne Family Among the Early Tillers of Soil"; 5) "Lone Homesteader of Beaver, Norway [Townships]"; 6) "Two More Veterans of Civil War Here"; 7) "Coming to Kansas for Health in 1871, E.D. Haney, Pioneer Lived to be 83"; 8) "Pioneers Were Hardy Lot as They Settled Republic County"; 9) "Settling in County in 1868 the Charles Family Encountered Indians in Early Days"; 10) "Tom Lovewell Government Scout in Early Days Came to Kansas in 1850". That's ten independent references from 1931 to 1961 on people from the county just from the title of the article. Further, many of the other titles in the bib can be reasonable to assume that people in the county will be at least some of the topics, such as "New Scandinavia's Ninety-Three Years, 1868-1961: From Indian Days to Space Dreams" or "A Gift to the Future Our Heritage: A History of Agenda and Elk Creek Township". This is all clearly verifiable information. While it should be verified, the gap between verifiable and verified is not grounds for deletion. See WP:VERIFY.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Updates as you can see from recent changes at Republic County, Kansas#People, there is hardly room to extend the details further and the list is definitely warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Another source Here is another source including sections of biographical data of people from the early days of the county. [17]--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I would note that mention in a single book does not usually equal notability. Notability is based on multiple independent secondary sources WP:BASIC. From reading several of these biographies, it's not clear what makes them notable. --Karl.brown (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I would note that we're talking about more than a single book here. Greta Granstedt has 15 sources on her article alone. Richard Wilke has 6. And on and on. If you want to address the notability of any article on the list, I guess you can do that but I'd recommend starting a different AFD to get into that. Any and/or all of them currently on the list could at least theoretically be considered not notable and deleted, but that does not mean that the list article we're covering here shouldn't exist and couldn't be re-built from the other potential candidates for inclusion in this list. But as for the WP:BASIC standard, I'm pretty sure that most if not all of those on the list have at least met if not exceeded that mark.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, when I said 'biographies' I meant the biographies from the Cutler book you referenced above, I wasn't trying to challenge notability of Greta. In addition, the Cutler book (and the bibliographies you cited from the Kansas historical society) cover every county in Kansas, not just Republic County, which suggests it is not inherently more notable than other counties. I guess that's why I think this brings up a larger question - what is the standard for notability for a list like this? The references used to defend this list could be used to defend a similar list for every county in Kansas (and eventually every county in the US). Finally, it's not clear what is the standard for inclusion on this list. For example, Allen Wikgren, according to his bio, was born in Chicago, and died in Wisconsin; his only connection with Republic county seems to be his time as a Minister, which doesn't seem to be the thing he's most notable for, and it's not clear how many years this lasted.--Karl.brown (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • On Wikgren: that is a prime example why this list should exist. Including him with a paragraph summary in the county article wouldn't be appropriate at all, because there are others that are better suited for that setting. But having this list allows a central location with some brief commentary and references for a larger group that might not quite fit in the county article. Further, the list provides the option for more detail and quick references from one page, unlike a category which is limited to just existing article names.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • "The references used to defend this list could be used to defend a similar list for every county in Kansas (and eventually every county in the US)." So what? postdlf (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to Republic County, Kansas, as the notable people from a certain place are an unquestionably valid subtopic of that place. Who the list should include, and whether it is too long to keep in the place article instead of splitting off or should be merged back, are matters for normal editing and discussion to handle. Per WP:ATD deletion is off the table so this AFD should never have been started. postdlf (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment there has been significant changes in the list since it was nominated.

1. The list has been broken into classifications
2. The list has grown in size form 8 to 19
3. The Republic County, Kansas#People article section has grown to provide details of selected people and no longer has room for such a list, thus warranting a separate list article.

Just thought anyone passing along would like to get caught up.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Prune and convert/change to category, namely Category:People from Republic County, Kansas. This is what categories are for (and "people from..." should, with a few exceptions, be just where people are born). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment per WP:CLN, I think that would be a huge mistake. This list article provides so much more than a category: 1) supplemental image; 2) supplemental information; 3) sources; 4) history of contents; 5) Can be edited and modified to include information about people who do not currently have an article; 6) Can include other linked information like Philadelphia Eagles; 7) items on the list can be linked to specific sections of articles; 8) templates can be added; 9) list is presently sorted by topic classification rather than alphabetical; 10) list articles like this one show up in search engines where categories do not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: your "should...be just where people are born", that's not a "should" most editors follow, nor is it even going to be the best option in many cases (more than a few exceptions). It's not at all uncommon for people to grow up or live and work in a place other than where they were born. postdlf (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree such as Dwight D. Eisenhower was born in Texas but always said he was "from" Abilene, Kansas. Just one example among many.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Brett Rossi

Brett Rossi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. I Googled her extensively and it doesn't appear that she has even been nominated for anything. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 11:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear failure to meet relevant notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments made by the keep !voters here are very weak, and all of them were discounted to some degree. Night of the Big Wind's speedy keep vote is based on the claim that this is a senior competition, but he/she offers no proof of this apart from the fact that he/she lives in Ireland, which is clearly not acceptable. Milowent's "per" vote is discounted for the same reason. Wikishagnik's rationale is that only an expert could tell if this is an senior competition, and so therefore we should just "lay off the policies a little". Unfortunately, WP:BURDEN doesn't afford us that option. The remaining delete votes focus on the lack of reliable sources, and no attempt was made to refute that argument. —SW— ^verbalize 20:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship
• Articles for deletion/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship (3rd nomination)

Laois Intermediate Hurling Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Sorry to renominate so soon, but let's get this right. This is a local junior competition, without any coverage in reliable sources. The article itself states that the winners qualify for the Junior Championship elsewhere. Laois is one of 32 county boards in Ireland, maybe their top competition is notable, I highly doubt their junior second division holds notability. No notability has been established, reasons for keep in the previous AfD included "senior tournament", which is neither asserted or proven by the article; and "it meets notability for gaelic games", although the notability criteria in question only covers players who have played at senior inter-county level. Although this article doesn't specifically cover players, the level is neither senior not inter-county. For these reasons, I am nominating this article for deletion. Cloudz679 19:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy keep This not a junior competition, this is a senior competition. But thanks for warning, I corrected both championships from junior to intermediate level. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. How do you know it is not a junior competition? It was marked here as a junior competition on the date the article was created, 22 November 2006, remaining described as such until being changed by you within the last two hours. I must admit I am no expert at hurling but the third link at the article appears to be a list of Wikipedia articles of hurling clubs, the fourth link is clearly the source of the information at the article, and the other two links do not clearly support the article. In total, there is no apparent reason for the existence of this article. Fails WP:GNG. I might also add that speedy keep is only valid when the nomination is unquestionably an attempt to vandalize or to otherwise create disruption. Please try to assume good faith. Cloudz679 22:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it make sense to you that I live in Ireland as reason that I know it? See my userpage! Another reason for een speedy closure is when the nomination is based on a clear mistake or (doesn't seem to be the case here) gaming the system. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you living in Ireland has anything to do with establishing the facts here. Cloudz679 08:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ow, and I guess just nobody noticed that it was wrongly linked. At least, I did not notice it until you pointed me at it... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep per User:Night of the Big Wind.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Delete Keep of the Wind's 'proof' that it is a senior competition does not come from a reliable source. If not even the most basic of facts can be sourced, then I somewhat doubt the notability. However, I will look into this more before going as far as recommending delete. Has recieved trivial and passing coverage in local news, but nothing more. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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) 10:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - Not a very strong (or even correct) vote but the picture painted by WP:NGAELIC, WP:SPORTSEVENT and Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is all so confusing that any sports event between hurling clubs at an international level cannot be proven to be not notable. So is this event a League game? Who knows! Is this an international Championship? The name says so! Only an expert in the game could go to extreme technical details and point out otherwise, but then most will come back and say that the article might be rewritten but should not be deleted. No, their is no significant coverage of this event. Most articles on the web are hosted by fan sites and clubs. But all that is OK. As long as its a sports related article, lets lay off the policies a little. --Wikishagnik (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Although there is no assertion that this is at international level. Being a sports article is not a reason to keep. Cloudz679 09:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. There are serious concerns that this article is a hoax. The "keep" opinions have been unable to verify this story through reliable sources as required by WP:BURDEN. As core policy, WP:V mandates deletion in such cases.  Sandstein  20:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Benediktas Mikulis

Benediktas Mikulis (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:GNG. A Google News search gets zero results. Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - one should be looking for a lot more than Google News. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - found little to no reliable secondary or tertiary sources regarding subject. A few brief mentions, but nothing that would be considered "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. Furthermore, does not appear to pass WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Weak keep It's a remarkable story and one that I've heard before. If not unique, I can't think of another. However, it does need to be properly referenced. Shouldn't be beyond the wit of Wikipedia to validate this story. Emeraude (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

*Keep - OK nothing useful on Google but found some books that are coming in book search. I have one here.

• • That is a collection of Wikipedia articles sold in printed form by the print-on-demand publisher Books LLC, basically the biographies in our Category:Lithuanian resistance partisans, thus including this article. Using this book as a source would mean using the article as a source for itself.  --Lambiam 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Emeraude. It does need to be copyedited and referenced properly, though. ~dee^(talk?) 12:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The article reads like a hoax, and I think it is one. If this was true, there would be plenty of reliable sources to back it up, but I couldn't find any.  --Lambiam 13:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Could be; I haven't found much that's useful, though as I said before, the story is known to me (though not the name). This site gives a brief mention, but may not be entirely reliable given its title: CommunistCrimes.org. Similarly, BetterWorldBooks.com has a book for sale called Roman Catholic Victims of Soviet Repressions which has a chapter on Mikulis, unfortunately not online, but this page by and large confirms the Wikipedia article. Emeraude (talk)
    • That book is a print-on-demand collection of the Wikipedia biog articles in the former Category:Roman Catholic victims of Soviet repressions – now deleted. Another incestuous source. The text at CommunistCrimes.org, which does not give any sources, may have been copied from our article Forest Brothers; several other sentences are also verbatim the same, including some that are properly sourced in our article, so this too looks incestuous.  --Lambiam 15:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment. And here's a published book that talks about him (it's in French). Les Français dans l'histoire de la Lituanie, Gilles Dutertre, L'Harmattan, 2009. It lists Benediktas Mikulis as a member of the freedom fighters that were in hiding in the forests of Lithuania, and that he remained in the forest until 1971, at which date he was sentenced to many years in prison. Unfortunately, no specifics. I'm still looking for that Finnish documentary, which I hope will provide us with more information. ~dee^(talk?) 19:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

References

You are right usually such books give a disclaimer that its published by Wikipedia but missed it on this one. Changing vote to Delete. --Wikishagnik (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, it appears the other title could be a rip-off of Wikipedia Category:Lithuanian resistance partisans. But I still urge some caution; just because these sources are abstracted from Wikipedia does not mean that the subjects are not suitable for inclusion, far from it, but if these remain the only sources there remains the possibility that the article is a hoax. Emeraude (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment It's not a new hoax in any case, the broken link cite on the Lithunian Wikipedia has a 2007-dated entry at the Wayback Machine which mentions him, reliable or not. [18]. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  21:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Nanushka television

Nanushka television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No indication of notability. Google search for the name brings up six results. Source given is about the TV series and only mentions subject trivially. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 13:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• weak keep - seem to pass WP:GNG by a slim margin. also for the user making the article to get a chance to make edits to improve the article. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable and substantial coverage found for "Nanushka Media & Television" (which seems to be the correct name of the company), "Nanushka Television" or "Nanushka Media". Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Nothing on Google apart from company website. --Wikishagnik (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete The claims in the article seems difficult to verify. "Nanushka has made several film and TV series"? The company website mentions three. "The company has been written about for its new production methods" – where? I fail to find any mention whatsoever of the company in Swedish media (even after using the the Media Archive) with the exception of of the dagensmedia.se article linked to in the Wikipedia entry, where the last sentence says "The Club is made by the production company Nanushka Media och Television." That doesn't mean no one else has written about the comapny, but it sure ain't no indication of notability, so to speak. "[B]ringing the same quality to the big Swedish TV channels" – which channels? Klubben (The Club) was shown on SVT Play. Not even the company website says anything else about other television channels. According to information online, the company seems to be a sole proprietorship owned by Nathanel Goldman Amirav with no employees. I'm not so interested in the WP:GNG here, but it seems to fail verifiability, which is far worse. /Julle (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Additional comment The six hits on Google is because the company isn't actually called "Nanushka television", though. As I've understood it it's registered as "Nanushka Media" and calls itself "Nanushka Media & Television". /Julle (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 C166 family. Apparently, the information has already been merged Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

C167 family

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/C167 family
• Articles for deletion/C167 family (2nd nomination)

C167 family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Renominating. No consensus to do anything in last AFD, which was open for 3 weeks. Doesn't seem to warrant a merge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing worth merging if you ask me. Non-notable product, plain and simple. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 09:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• ALREADY merged Did not remove the deletion notice. So: Quick merge Tagremover (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Someone has to remove the deletion tag to get the redirect active. @Angrysockhop: Non-notable product: I guess you have no experience. But: Poor article. Other languages are better. Tagremover (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, I don't have any experience. Not in the context of microprocessors. And I shouldn't need any to see notability. If the c167 family of microprocessors is notable, then that should be made readily apparent. From my perspective, that of an average layperson, the product is non-notable, and neither the original article nor the merged section under c166 family seem to sufficiently explain why this particular product is notable. If you happen to be more informed on the subject, which I'm assuming you are, then please, explain it further. Not all of us are engineers, my brother. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• So you want to delete all stubs? You are confusing article-quality with notability. Tagremover (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I want. I want you to explain why this seemingly run-of-the-mill product is actually notable. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Merge to C166 family or XE166 family. Not notable enough to stand on its own. Notability not established for the proposed targets either. --Kvng (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Psychea(Psyshit)

Psychea(Psyshit) (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 Does not meet criteria for WP:BAND -Aaron Booth (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Aaron Booth (talk) 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, before nominating have you tried to take a look at the relative Russian version of the article, here, that is plenty of reliable references? Furthermore, a minimal search in Google News archives shows several hundreds of sources: [19]. Keep, per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment. I am inclined to keep based on the coverage identified by Cavarrone, although I don't feel confident that I could tell which are reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the sources used in the Russian article (Google Translate could be helpful): Известия (Newspaper), Московский комсомолец (daily and weekly newspaper), Звуки (award winning music site), Fuzz (magazine), Rolling Stone (magazine), Экспресс-Газета (newspaper), Телеканал (television channel), РБК (newspaper), Lenta.Ru (according WP among the most popular Russian news websites), Interfax (non-governmental news agency)... Cavarrone (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, good enough. Thanks. Keep.--Michig (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per GNG / WP:BAND and the reliable third-party sources identified by Cavarrone; running a random selection of cites through translate shows clear non-trivial coverage. Fosse8 (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Although, on reflection, I've made a huge assumption there - if all the sources are Russian-language sources, then does the group (who undoubtedly qualify as notable for an article on the Russian Wikipedia) still qualify as notable in the same way on the English Wikipedia? Not changing my vote, and I believe the answer should be "yes", but just thought I'd raise the question. Fosse8 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. If the group are notable in Russia (or any other country) they're notable. --Michig (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I had thought so, but it's good to be clear. Fosse8 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as per references in Russian language wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Gachon University

Gachon University (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 assertion of notability. Calabe1992 12:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. "University" is an assertion of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a university - of course it's notable. I can only assume the nominator has the mistaken belief that an "assertion of notability" actually means stating "this is notable" in the first paragraph. It doesn't. Some things are an automatic assertion of notability, and being called a university with evidence to back that up is one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep - what Necrothesp said. Ou tis (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - what Ou tis said. Emeraude (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Six Flags New Orleans. Content can be merged (with attribution, of course) from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ozarka Splash

Ozarka Splash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable theme park ride from a closed theme park - no notability outside the park, and no significant coverage outside of fansites found for it either. Of the provided references, one is a press release, the other doesn't mention the ride. Tried redirecting to Six Flags New Orleans, but page creator kept reverting with no explanation, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be deleted, i mean, come on dude, it's just an abandoned theme park ride. Calm down, and just let it stay until it's REALLY time for it to go. --RedDisneyGuy (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Weak Keep but then merge with other extant ride articles into a single "Six Flags New Orleans attractions". The level of detail here would be lost by merging into the main Six Flags New Orleans article and there does seem to be press coverage of these individual rides sufficient to indicate some notability. - Dravecky (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Delete and redirect along with the rest of the Six Flags rides that have seperate pages. All they do is repeat the history of the park over and over. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete and/or redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kyuss. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sons of Kyuss

Sons of Kyuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC, PROD denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kyuss as a plausable search-term. Lugnuts (talk) 10:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Considering that this album was an EP not a demo, and a critical early release for a highly influential and notable band deleting this article seems rather detrimential. 71.209.184.50 (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Response EPs can be demos. If this album is critical (and it may well be), that needs to be verified with sources to establish notability. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• Redirect to Kyuss. Difficult to tell whether this is a self-released EP (i.e. released for sale) or a demo (i.e. demonstration recording aimed at getting a record deal) but either way there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of it to warrant a separate article. It's already mentioned in the Kyuss article. As a plausible search term it should be a redirect. --Michig (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC) It appears to be a self-released EP - if kept I would recommend calling it such rather than using the confusing metal-fan 'demo' terminology.--Michig (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kyuss per Lugnuts and Michig. This option is reasonable as I'm unable to find significant coverage to support an individual article.  Gongshow ^Talk 21:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as failing WP:GNG, unless substantial reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in depth. Merging would require sources. If new sources are added to the article, ping my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Treating this as an expired PROD with a second. If somebody wants to write a new sourced article from a neutral point of view, it won't be subject to CSD G4. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

ReelAfrican

ReelAfrican (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 non-notable organization with no sources to established notability. Tinton5 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The article now includes a reference to an article in Variety. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete - The Variety article is a good start, but that is literally the one and only source I was able to find in a brief search. There appears to be no other coverage than that. —SW— ^speak 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Jimfbleak per G11. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Atlanta car locksmith

Atlanta car locksmith (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 agree with the end sentence of the article, but we are not for getting this word out. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not for publishing tips, guidance, recommendations etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete In the very unlikely event that I go to Atlanta, I might just regret this, but basically this is the sort of trash that appears as space fillers in magazines all over the world (and I suspect it may actually be a copyvio). As it is, if this article stays, I will want to see thousands more articles on the same lines, because though I don't intend to visit Atalanta there are dozens of others places that I will! Emeraude (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

First National Innovation Brokers

First National Innovation Brokers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Promotional/advertising, non-notable. All references are either promotional (e.g. the first one, not from HuffPo but HuffPo Union of Bloggers) or complete fabrications, citing academic articles behind paywalls that contain no mention of the subject. Google search turns up no mentions other than this article, their own websites, and various ads. KarlM (talk) 06:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - promotional piece. Autarch (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete - on checking WP:CSD, it breaches G11. Autarch (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is an important company (share capital of over NZ$100,000,000) and it appears to be notable in its field for some innovative features (first Forex and gold trading firm to accept bitcoin and other electronic currencies). I don't have either access to some of the sources and, in this sense, I'd need a clarification from the nominator, whether he has access and he did not find the company mentioned there or he just surmised this. Yaratam (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yaratam, could you clarify your statement on why this is an important company? The "fact" you assert (share cap) appears to be sourced to a book published six years ago, even through the statement begins with "As of January 2012". At first glance, most of the sources appear to be complete fabrications. I'll drop a note for the article's creator, but it may be a good idea for you to take a deeper look before !voting. Frankly, the preliminary info I'm turning up is a little embarrassing. Kuru (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I do have access to all of the sources (the journals International Studies Quarterly and Financial Review), and none of the articles cited in support of these statements mention the company at all. The fact that no real mention of it comes up in an Internet search casts additional doubt on assertions that it's a significant company. Furthermore, the creator has a long history of creating solely promotional articles and IMO is acting in bad faith. KarlM (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The firm is noteworthy and controversial because of bitcoin. Give the author a reasonable opportunity to clean up his references and make his case this week. Today is Sunday and he may be offline. There are Russian language references. DazzBand (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC) — DazzBand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If a company based in New Zealand and doing business internationally doesn't have at least one English-language reference, that would seem to argue that it's non-notable even if it exists. KarlM (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yaratam the company's self declared single share holding is more likely fictitious, in that it is unlikely to be a paid up value. Also, it has no registered office in New Zealand. It only seems to exist on the internet. NealeFamily (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment If it really does have a share capital of over NZ$100,0000,000 and was "the first firm to accept bitcoin and other electronic-currencies," then it may be worthy of a keep as long as it is sourced. Fake sources should be deleted immediately though. ~dee^(talk?) 13:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Completely unsourced "firm"; zero references could be found from reliable sources despite some serious astroturfing and seo. Some of the forum discussions don't help build a positive image of this entity, and the fabricated references used here seem to support a less than honest attempt at creating more seo. Random SPA's popping up to support it are curious. Kuru (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The authoritative official URL for this company is http://www.business.govt.nz/companies/app/ui/pages/companies/3473593/detail That's it's companies' office registration. Note that it appears to be registered, managed and owned in different jurisdictions. If you google for the registered address / address for service you get hundreds of thousands of hits---because it'll be a company management company that manages thousands of companies. It is not 'based in New Zealand.' It does not appear to have a 'share capital' because it does not appear to be traded. It does, however, have 100000000 shares issued (to the same shareholder). If you notice any other dodgy-looking New Zealand companies Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand will be more than happy to help :) Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as SPAM based on above analysis. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. It is all real dodgy and SPAMish. I would like to have it speedily deleted but the inclusionists hovering around over there probably won't wear it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Factual article. The firm is a bona fide New Zealand limited liability company (#3473593) currently licensed as a registered financial service provider #154824 as per NZ government web site. No record found of Better Business Bureau or other watchdog actions. The same corporate mailing address is utilized by numerous NZ firms that meet NZ compliance. Being publicly traded is not an counter indication of dodginess, nor is a publicly traded firm ipso facto noteworthy. Pets.com was publicly traded. As of this writing, Facebook is not publicly traded, but will be floated soon. Google was not traded until years after its noteworthiness. As for forum discussions not building a positive image, this is a double-standard, as similar forum and blog posts that do build a positive image have been deleted as references herein. Moreover, not only do negative posts not preclude notoriety, they may very well increase noteworthiness. Both positive and negative posts demonstrate this firm's unique connections to the bitcoin community and that in itself is reason to let this article develop. DazzBand (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Double !vote struck. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable company with its office in Hong Kong and a single share holder in the United Kingdom. Has no significance at this stage to New Zealand. Looks more like a shell company. NealeFamily (talk) 22:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Poorly sourced, nothing to establish notability. Mattlore (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Article Userfied. To be returned to mainspace if and when more sources become available. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The Chimera Vector (novel)

The Chimera Vector (novel) (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 is a book that is set to be published in a little more than a month. Doing a quick search, I was unable to find anything that connotes notability. To note, Pan Macmillan is an Australian publisher - and Momentum is an E-book only publishing house, with some publications on demand. I have a few questions on the author as well, but I would prefer to leave that for a separate AFD if it comes up. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I did a major cleanup of the article, as it was highly promotional in tone. It used primary sources for sources and had a "reception section" that was mostly full of unreliable sources such as facebook and blogs. There were three usable sources, which I added into the article. I think it might be WP:TOOSOON, though. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Thank you for improving the article I created, I've learned a lot from your edits. If this does end up being WP:TOOSOON due to lack of independent reviews, I'll let this one go and consider recreating the article at a later time if there is sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Willing to hear what other users think though. Zippy2012 (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I recommend you put it in your own user space e.g. User:Zippy2012/The Chimera Vector (novel) then you can work on it there and if has been reviewed or substantially covered by some reliable sources you add them to the article and then move it back to article space. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 19:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I second SpeakFree's suggestion. ~dee^(talk?) 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not opposed to userfication of the article for improvement. TG, you're right, it is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. Zippy, we really appreciate your understanding on this one, either way it goes. =^_^= --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete or Userify as WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Userified to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zippy2012/The_Chimera_Vector_%28novel%29 Zippy2012 (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - author agrees that it is OR. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Water Cycle - new definition as "Waterway Cycle"

Water Cycle - new definition as "Waterway Cycle" (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 is an essay, and really does not belong on Wikipedia. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and a non-notable neologism. The only reference is a conference paper by the creator. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

"Neologism" The posture that the term "Waterway Cycle" qualifies as a "neologism" is correct. Perhaps, it will be best for Wikipedia if this newly coined term is deleted. On another note, there is solid scientific research that fully documents the existence of the three interdependent and interactive water cycles as presented. However, no one has yet to synthesize recent scientific research and extant water cycle data into a coherent and more accurate definition for our Earth's water cycle. Thus, the genesis of my effort to accomplish this task.

I have been involved with water research for over forty years and have presented information from my books and essays at the United Nations and various international water conventions. My award-winning book, "Water Voices from Around the World," includes essays from some of the worlds foremost water experts and researchers: Mikhail Gorbachev (Chair, Green Cross International); Dr. Jane Goodall; Glenn Estess (former President of Rotary International); Larry Fahn (former President of Sierra Club); Peter Bridgewater (Secretary General Ramsar); Gedeon Dagan (Stockholm Water Prize Recipient); Gilbert M. Grosvenor (Chair, National Geographic Society); Dr. Eilon Adar (Director of Water Research, Ben-Gurion University), and many others. My water research also includes interviewing the world's foremost NASA scientists, and oceanic researchers such Dr. Robert Ballard (from whom the "oceanic water cycle" data is sourced).

Granted, this page needs additional references to fully meet Wikipedia's standards, which I intend to do. However, if Wiki's posture is to delete this page - I will just move on to other projects, one of which is a book on this subject. In advance, I thank you for your response and editorial suggestions, Williamwaterway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

• William, appreciate your understanding. Do understand also that it's not that I like getting rid of material necessarily, but this is not within our scope. Perhaps at a future time, without recommending the implementation of a new term - that is, if waterway cycle becomes common vernacular and falls within our scope. That, though, can't be predicted. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as a personal essay. JIP | Talk 13:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is a subject worth covering in Wikipedia, the article ought to be created by someone other than the person who created this concept and named it after himself. Otherwise, we will have problems with original research and conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Why wasn't this WP:OR personal essay speedied? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Simply because, to the best of my knowledge, WP:OR and personal essays do not qualify for speedy deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• In my opinion as an author, publisher, editor - the Wikipedia editing process is FLAWED. If the author of a page wishes to delete his/her posted content from Wiki - Wiki should promptly allow same. I don't like wasting my time or yours. Williamwaterway (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
  • William, if you refer to the article, we do allow this, but it must be an administrator due to the back-end requirements (not anybody can just delete something, the community has to be trusted). If you wish to do this, the fastest way is to simply place '{{db-author}}' on the page (with the braces, without the quotes), and it shall be done. You can make the blatant request here on the page, but that takes time and confirmation - the former way I suggest is simply more efficient. But please, if you want to delete it right out, you need to be explicit - certainly, as an author, you understand that hints and suggestions are unbecoming. As to your concerns about flaws, it's probably best to go to our editors' guidelines and pick that apart in the individual talk page - this discussion is, quite simply, not the place. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis - I will employ the {{db-author}} tool immediately.

Two responses relative to disallowing neologisms - imagine if this world was not a dimension of "open minds" when the founders of this encyclopedia introduced the word "Wikipedia." As far as a term reflecting the name its inventor or creator - parents create children which they name after themselves; "jacuzzi" named his invention after himself, and, of course - we have the application of Latin binomials often reflecting the name of the person who discovers a new species. Mine is the discovery of a new definition for our Earth's "waterway cycle."

Relative to water rhetoric - the term "waterway cycle" reflects a transformational change in our thinking process relative to a deeply embedded definition (430 years) that is no longer functional. In short - this new definition reflects an evolutionary change to our understanding of this creative motive process. The waterway cycle concept signifies, implicitly and beyond the the level of polemic engagement on specifics by those who have never explored the definition - the basic assumptions that continue to legitimize Encyclopedists. Thus, in a larger context - the waterway cycle serves as a model that embodies an intellectual adaptive mechanism for addressing evolutionary change, and represents a new voice in the veritable fugue of antiquated water cycle rhetoric.Williamwaterway (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. The consensus to keep the article, and hopefully improve it, is clear. The form the improvements should take is less clear, but that's a discussion for the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction

List of vampire traits in folklore and fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The article seems to be just a listing of trivia. Perhaps merge some of the contents in the main Vampire article, as prose, or just delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete absolutely indiscriminate, poorly sourced, not the way to sort this thing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Don't our policies on deletion recommend only leaving a "delete" opinion if the topic does not meet our criteria? Arenn't weak articles on notable topics supposed to be fixed, not deleted? Isn't the comment above "not the way to sort this thing" a tacit admission that the respondent acknowledges this is a notable topic, and that they merely think the article presents it in the wrong way? Clarification please -- do you agree this topic should be covered -- but in a different way? If so is there some other reason why our usual techniques for improving weak articles shouldn't be followed? Geo Swan (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see it as trivia and it certainly isn't indiscriminate; The analysis of how vampires have been represented is encyclopedic, the problem is that so much of it is unsourced and the detail is just excessive. I would rather see this covered in prose, either in this article or in the Vampire article. --Michig (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - of all mythological creatures, vampires are one of the ones which has detailed discussion of traits/strengths/vulnerabilities etc. Most books discussing vampires discuss this in detail. Yes I can imagine this list can get huge with lots of unreferenced entries, and should possibly be trimmed to those vampires notable enough to have been compared with other vampires. As far as upmerging, Vampires in popular culture is huge, as is Vampire film, so destination would be overladed plus in the wrong layout. Both of those articles are better as prose and this as a list. As far as sourcing, there are sufficient to define notability of the subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger and this is therefore not a matter of deletion. Warden (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep When plot elements can be referenced to primary sources, V is met. The topic is notable, as Cas posits above, and there is so much information here it seems problematic to merge substantial parts of it anywhere. I would like to see more commentary included, rather than the list deleted. Just because it goes into much detail doesn't mean that there's a problem with trivia. Indeed, tables like these are among the most clear ways to present this much information. Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - useful list for our core readership, students. 'Compare and contrast' lists, other than for software (which has been contentious), have been kept before. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep -- I agree with Ten Pound Hammer that this is currently a weak article. I disagree that deletion is in order. I think our normal procedures for addressing editorial problems are in order. I agree that tables are used poorly here. . I agree more prose, with references belong in the article. But the topic itself is a notable one. Geo Swan (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep We all prefer prose articles. So what? Slap a Template:Prose tag on it and WP:SNOW this thing already. Anarchangel (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep The list should be left in tables, because doing it in prose would make it longer. Skuag 02:23, 01 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe decker^{talk to me} 04:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

James Plaskett

James Plaskett (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 chess player. His only mentions in reliable sources seem to be in a Cif blog in The Guardian that isn't about him[1] and a couple of very brief mentions in the Evening Times[2]. Claims to have been a columnist for the New Statesman, but there is no evidence of this[3]. Appears likely to have constructed the page himself judging by the IPs. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 04:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. You are quite mistaken. Plaskett is a notable chess player. His grandmaster title and former British Champion status are verifiable from within the article - just click on the appropriate links. As for the other stuff, that's all true too. Someone cleared out most of the sources recently, but there is still an edition of a newspaper quoted within the text, which relates to the only controversial matter in the article. Brittle heaven (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, being a GM is definitely not sufficient for notability, see for instance this discussion. Having won the British championship does not confer notability for a biographical article by any guideline I can see, it merely suggests that he should have an entry in the list on the British Chess Championship article. Looking at the removed sources they consist of 3 articles in The Mirror, 1 podcast and an article on a chess news site called Chessbase. I can only find evidence of 2 of those Mirror articles, the first is not about James Plaskett, the second is about his comments on a Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy, not about him. The podcast is not about Plaskett but again about the Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The chess project never reached a conclusion about notability. I was one that argued that not all grandmasters are notable, but the general consensus of the chess project is that all grandmasters are notable and that the lower international masters are not notable, unless they are also writers, coaches, etc. I have never seen an article about a grandmaster deleted. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep. He is notable in variable chess tournaments and is licensed from sources found on the news and recently new sources from daily news on google news.--GoShow (...............) 15:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide these sources? He does not appear in recent news from google[1]. Results in the google news archive seem to be very brief mentions in chess columns (which are WP:ROUTINE) and brief mentions in a few articles on a Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy, not the significant coverage of Plaskett himself needed for a biographical article. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I do not see that Plaskett merits a biographical article based on the basic criteria in the notability guidelines for sportsmen or the more general guideline. Saying that he is a GM, British champion or appears in various tournaments doesn't fufil these criteria and there are no specific criteria for chess players. Where is the significant coverage "address[ing] the subject directly in detail"? Articles about a Who Wants to be a Millionaire controversy not Plaskett and WP:ROUTINE mentions in chess columns do not satisfy these criteria. ← Randomnonsense ^talk 17:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and speedy close. The nomination is just a waste of time. If winning the British chess championship, publishing two dozen books that are (collectively) held by a significant number of libraries, and being cited as an authority in his field isn't a strong prima facie case for notability it's time to scrap whatever approach to notability produces such a silly result. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Strong Keep. He is a well known person in chess world. --MrsHudson (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per everything Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said. ~dee^(talk?) 13:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - a grandmaster, British champion, and author. But the article needs more coverage of his chess. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow ^Talk 00:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Francesco Salvi

Francesco Salvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There isn't much more info than that and its useless. Loper324 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for now. There is a much longer article about him on Italian Wikipedia that seems to establish his notability, and many Italian language sources are available. Some of these sources seem reliable to me, but I am using Google Translate since I don't speak Italian. English langauge sources would be nice but are not necessary to show notability. Inpit from an Italian speaking editor would be useful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep if They can translate it accurately, Then it will meet Wikipedia standards. So I guess its time to find a Italian editor. Loper324 (talk) 08:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have added another reference and some more details about his biography and career, translated from it.wiki (to be completed). GiovanniS (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and Close, expanded and referenced. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Cavarrone (talk) 08:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and Close Now per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:SNOW. While certainly when nominated the article was in poor shape, the incredible efforts by User:Cavarrone and User:GiovanniS shows the true benefit of fixing current state through diligent WP:AFTER and addressing issues through the use of regular editing. As the nominator asked for input from Italian Wikipedians and received it... in spades... this can be closed early. The article now serve the project and its readers very well indeed. Major kudos to both Cavarrone and GiovanniS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and Close thanks to major improvements made by Cavarrone and GiovanniS. ~dee^(talk?) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by DGG per G11. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ronnie Sanders

Ronnie Sanders (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 to establish notability, trivial third-party coverage. Proposed deletion removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per criterion G11 (advertising). Appears to be created to promote his websites. VQuakr (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As I see it, he's the part-time proprietor of some websites that give news that may be of interest to those involved with college football in certain places. The article looks like a promo for these sites. Peridon (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Turk's head toilet bowl brush

Turk's head toilet bowl brush (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 prodded this some time ago, but it was replaced by a notability tag. A Google search failed to find enough coverage. The TALDF press release and a copy of it were the only webpages I found about the product, and the few other sties I found were those selling the product. Not notable at all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC) Sources have been found now. I will now support a move to Turk's head brush, since that seems to be the more common term. However, the article should be re-written to reflect this. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into Turkish Coalition of America or Newell Rubbermaid. This is not just an ordinary product, it has caused some reaction, but it does not seem to be notable by itself. However, I think it is worth mentioning in one of these pages. See this Google search in Turkish. If we spend some time looking, we may find newspaper articles, two of which are already cited in the article. This is an article by a Turkish newspaper which has a quite high circulation. --Seksen (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The article's subject is racist naming. But you're still talking about product. You must be joking. Maybe the gas chamber just a chamber for you. I explained to you sending a message. Reason for deletion is not appropriate. I don't accept it. Esc2003 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. If nominator did not find other webpages about the product than the TALDF press release, they did not look very far and hard:[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. As these pages make clear, the naming issue goes beyond the specific Rubbermaid-brand version, so the definition in the lead ("a cleaning brush designed by the American company Newell Rubbermaid") is not accurate, and a redirect to Newell Rubbermaid is not in order. For another reference to the controversy, see here.  --Lambiam 19:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Some of the links above seem to be sites selling the stuff, not those actually about the product (except if they are selling it), and if I can recall correctly the Turkish Journal link is a copy of the TALDF press release, but my memory seems to be failing me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. There is more than meets the eye here. A few Google book searches[30][31] show many results, most of them from earlier than 1900. These early mentions seem to be referring to a long broom, not a toilet brush, but most of the sources just mention it in passing so it is hard to be sure. There do seem to be explanations of what the brush is, for example here, but I can't find one that is readily accessible. It seems to me that the business about the toilet brush and the racism allegations could be tagged on the end of an article about the more general style of brush if it can be verified. It also seems to me that if the article is kept we will probably need to move it to Turk's head brush or similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, but it appears to be that they may not be the same products (how can a toilet cleaning product be sold earlier than 1900 and still have the same name? Turkey didn't even exist yet at the time, unless the product was renamed recently). It could be re-written to be about a more notable topic (such as the actual controversy), but the actual product still doesn't seem to be notable (the lack of Google hits was probably because of the article name being fairly strange, and more hits would probably be found under a different title. If they are only mentioned in passing then I can't consider that as good enough coverage. If someone does find more reliable sources, then I will withdraw, but only if sources are found. Google failed me using this title, but maybe searching another title will find a pot of gold at the end of the AFD rainbow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• The word "Turk" has been around in the English language since the 14th century (and the country name "Turkey" is also already attested in the 14th century). Fig. 65 in The Book of the home (1905), the book linked to above by Mr. Stradivarius, clearly shows this is the same type of brush still called "Turk's head" today.  --Lambiam 13:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) About them not being the same products - I would guess that the end bit is the same, even though one is longer than the other. I would also guess that the toilet brush took its name from the general shape of the older, longer brush, and I think that whether you consider them as being in the same "family" of brushes is probably an academic question. Of course, guesses are no substitute for reliable sources. If we are just talking about the modern toilet brush, then I couldn't find any sources about it, so I suppose that this academic question of whether the two types of brush are in the same brush family is the one that will determine the fate of the article in the end. I wonder if there are any reliable sources that show they are related? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge into Newell Rubbermaid and create a "Criticism" section. I don't think there's a need for an entirely new article. With the sources we have, it will make a great reliably-sourced section. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Merge proposals seem to assume that it is one company's product, it is not, it seems to be a generic term. I agree if I were Turkish its name would annoy me, but that is not a good reason to delete this article from what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Greglocock (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it is a type of product is not my reason for nomination, nor is it its offensive name. It was just that I could not find enough sources to justify its inclusion here. I did find some stuff, but they were only a press release, passing coverage, and sites selling such brushes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Move and redirect article to whatever generic term has replaced 'turks head' in the toilet brush world. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. The name is certainly both ancient and generic. "Turk's head" brushes were once used for cleaning cannons and removing cobwebs. I still clean up my cobwebs with the same kind of brush, though was not called "Turk's head" when I bought it. If kept, the article should be renamed to Turk's head brush and cover the generic brush type. A merge to Newell Rubbermaid should not be done, since they don't use the name for their product (in particular, the "rubbermaidwholesale.com" cited in the article indicates it is not affiliated with Newell Rubbermaid). The Turkish-American complaint does not appear to be notable, having no news coverage in English-language news media, and does not justify an article. -- 202.124.72.17 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm changing that to weak keep, since sources on the generic style of brush seem to exist. If kept, the rename to Turk's head brush is still desirable. -- 202.124.72.17 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep but rename to Turk's head brush per nominator.  --Lambiam 20:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School of Rock. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Joey Gaydos

Joey Gaydos (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 a notable actor. Only two roles. JDDJS (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to School of Rock, his biggest role. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 16:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to School of Rock, the one thing for which he has sourcability.[32] The article's asserted one-of 2009 role in CSI is not verifiable.[33] and even were it verified, this fellow, while yes... doing a post-School of Rock promo-tour on the talk shows... would then have had only two-ever roles... and his second and last was 4 years ago. This essentially lack of career that fails WP:ACTOR. The only other thing for which he received coverage was a DUI in 2009 when he was 17,[34] and even with his public apology to his "fans", we do not have enough to maintain a decent BLP. We can at least send readers to the one place where they might reasonable expect him to be mentioned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Potentials Education Suite

Potentials Education Suite (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 establish notability. Author contested prod with the summary: "removal of deletion notice, to be cited at later date" OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: I found no significant coverage of the topic on the internet, and no sources in article. The author of the article didn't take time to explain the subject (What does this software do? How is it different from the rest of similar titles?), though the award spam is already in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fruit Algebra

Fruit Algebra (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 is little more than an inside joke for a small group of physics student. From a mathematical point of view, this is completely useless. As a learning tool, this is probably worse than useless. There is no evidence that anyone outside the group of students has even acknowledged the existence of this game/joke/recreational math gizmo. Pichpich (talk) 01:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A little more research on this subject may be good because unlike what was mentioned above, many people are aware of the existence of such a mathematical system. Even I knew about this system. Many other similar systems were created by mathematicians and scientists. It would be good to explain why certain fruits were attributed to certain symbols/mathematical operators. Also, the article is not at all complete since there are many other mathematical operators that exist in this system. --MaxDawsonC (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If it was that well known, it would be easy to find third parties discussing it. You say that "many other similar systems" exist. I'm not sure what you have in mind. I'm not even sure why this even deserves to be called a system. Pichpich (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete The article itself almost admits it isn't notable. No 3rd party references, and I doubt there will be any, unless it takes hold as a huge joke in the mathematical community. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with the nominator, little more than some silly inside joke. JIP | Talk 13:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. A bit of non-notable silliness. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as something I made up in school one day... - UtherSRG (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Similar systems have been around long before the CERN version, and they make a serious point: the symbols are completely arbitrary, and only their properties are important. That said, the CERN version doesn't seem to be at all notable. -- 202.124.75.226 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Samuel F. Lee

Samuel F. Lee (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 autobiography recreated after it was previously CSD'd. The reliable sources don't mention him, and the rest are self-published. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is an odd case because the article is long and full of references and external links so it appears to be the biography of a notable individual. But scratch the surface and all you have is a young actor trying to make it but who has not made it yet. Many of the references don't support the content of the article. His IMDb profile lists a total of three very minor roles (including one uncredited and one still unreleased) in productions of limited importance. But that profile is used to support the sentence: "he has appeared in numerous feature films, short films, TV series, TV commercials, etc." The article also lists participation in a flash mob as a significant part of his career. Sorry, it's not. And by nature, it is also completely unverifiable. The rest of the article similarly fails to build any convincing sign of notability. The closest attempt is the claim about the Governor's Multicultural Awards but that's not exactly a major award and judging from the website of the Awards, he never was nominated... Pichpich (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I see no substantive difference between this version and the one I speedy deleted last month. Per A7 and G4 of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, I will speedy it again. If Mr. Lee wants to have this article restored, he should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- Donald Albury 12:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have undone the second deletion while this AFD is in progress. CSD is for mostly uncontested deletions - apparently, this one is contested. This discussion will help determine the suitability (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's not my understanding of speedies. I certainly have seen articles speedied after coming to AfD. -- Donald Albury 13:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Did you see the request in WP:REFUND? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• That page is not on my watchlist, and I did not receive any notification of such a request. -- Donald Albury 00:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Donald Albury 13:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing that supports the claims of notability, and I agree with what Pichpich says. Also, I don't think it was a valid speedy - it makes a claim of importance, which is really all that's needed to avoid A7 (and an AFD delete would give us G4 to use if it's recreated again). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete and salt. Non notable actor. Why is this not being speedied? If he ever becomes notable that's fine, he can have an article, but this smacks of using Wikipedia to assert notability. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I just checked. The article creator has stated this is an article he has created about himself. I've looked at the external links and removed most because they fail WP:EL and the section because the other items are pseudo-references in unreliable sources in inline citations. Frankly there is nothing left in this article even to assert notability (before I edited it!) let alone cite it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see where he would meet the criteria for notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I've blocked IP 184.32.60.92 for the duration of this AfD, as they were repeatedly removing Donald Albury's comments. This edit summary makes it look very unlikely that it is Donald Albury logged out (and Donald Albury would surely have responded properly and logged in after the first time) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Notability issues indeed. The subject's biggest claim to fame is being a YouTube personality, something that anyone can easily be if they aren't already.  -- WikHead (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete No sourcable notability. Seaching undeer his birth name[35] finds a few forums and social networking sites such as his Taiwanese Facebook page... giving us that same name as author/major contributor to the article. Good luck to Sam in his endeavors, but this one is way TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball time yet, chaps and chapesses? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 04:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Lyonnais (band)

Lyonnais (band) (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 The article was created through AFC, and then the author bypassed that process and moved into article space. The article contains few reliable sources, and the only reliable sources there are mere references in a list of bands. Does not meet WP:MUSIC Aaron Booth (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn presuming that it stays in AFC this time... -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Little gypsy

Little gypsy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Completely non-notable. A search on Google News turns up nothing related to this book.

While Goodreads does have a page exclusively dedicated to the book, the page itself is analagous to one of the standard blurbs listed on a book's back cover in order to entice an individual to read a book, and not much of a plot summary. This, I believe, does not satisfy the "Significant coverage" subsection of WP:GNG, because large amounts of original research would be required to create a reasonable article about a book. Nor does it meet reliability requirements, as the content is user-created and unverifiable to any reliable source with mechanisms of ensuring quality.

I doubt that there would be any derived notability (anyway not usable as a sole justification for inclusion), as the author of the book does not seem to be covered to any reasonable extent by any source, except The Guardian (where she is a columnist, thereby making it non-independent). The only other bio I found of the author, on Goodreads, was self-created.

For these reasons, the article should be deleted. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - As with many books of this type, there are many blogs and small reviews by booksellers, but nothing that seems to pass WP:NBOOK#Criteria. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 02:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I see a few book reviews but not enough significance outside of those for me to consider it passing notability. Shadowjams (talk) 03:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A couple of items that can be found are a viewpoint article by the author in The Independent tagged in respect of her then-forthcoming book, and her appearance on a fairly high-profile BBC Radio 4 programme after publication to talk about her book. Both possibly PR-driven, but if so it is quite successful placement. Possibly worth seeking more to see whether a weight of pebbles builds a notable hill. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think the two articles you found begin to amount to a hill. There are thousands of books published every year and most major houses will arrange at least the cursory coverage for them. That they're showing up isn't really significant... it's what they say, if they're independent, and if what independent sources say indicate notability that matters. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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