Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 October 12 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Hill figure. SarahStierch (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantotomy

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

The word "Gigantotomy" appears to be a neologism failing WP:NEO, invented "half humorously" by Morris Marples in 1949 [1]. It hasn't really caught on, with no dictionary references, nor peer reviewed journals. The correct phrase is "Hill figure". Iantresman (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Rush (Season 1)

[edit]
Gold Rush (Season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sorry, I accidentally Accepted this page as I was reviewing it. The same list is on the actual Gold Rush page so can this be deleted? ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣ Talk Email 23:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to duplication. --Jethro B 18:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you moved (or accepted) a page by mistake, usually the quickest way to fix this is to just move the page back to its original location (ie: WP:AFC) like this. MediaWiki will allow such a move by a registered non-admin user if the destination contains only a redirect with no history. I suppose it's a bit late now, though. K7L (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


List of DirecTV channels

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

Per the result from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels, channel listing directors for cable provides are not appropriate content for WP.

I am also nominating the following:

List of DirecTV channels (Latin America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of DirecTV channels (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of DirecTV local channels with HD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Dish Network business and weather channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Dish Network channels (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Dish Network PPV channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Dish Network Sport channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Local channel availability on Dish Network and DirecTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Verizon FiOS channels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As to keep this multiple AFD reasonable (as most of the articles in Category:Lists of television channels by company fail this), I am going to do these region-by-region-ish, just in case any specific listing has a reason to be kept. MASEM (t) 16:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Article is well sourced and thorough, no justification provided for deletion. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the linked AFD discussion that just closed. These channel listings summarily fail WP:NOTDIR (they are akin to electronic program guides); they change too often, and there's no reason we can't link to official versions from the providers themselves. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It changes too often" is not a rational for deletion. Wikipedia is not paper. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an electronic program guide, there's no names of shows or when they're on. It's better than DirecTV's website too. On DirecTV's website, several channels missing or mislabeled. This list is complete and accurate. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not our responsibly to make up for mistakes and omissions on a company's website - it also begs the question of how this can be accurate if the most direct source is not. And while it's not exactly an electronic program guide, it's akin to one, and the type of directory NOTDIR warns against, as evidenced by the previous AFD for the AT&T Uverse channels. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our responsibility is to provide thorough, accurate, complete details about the topic. That's exactly what this article does. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are supposed to be providing a summary of the topic, being a tertiary source. An article on DirecTV, yes. A listing of channels it offers? No. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally contribute a lot of effort to keep List of DirecTV local channels with HD accurate. Frankly, it's the best listing/grouping on wikipedia of stations and the cities they serve, since we received several takedown notices in the past concerning similar pages. It could be repurposed to do this. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, I check DirecTV news literally on a daily basis, and have made thousands of edits to List of DirecTV channels (United States) to make sure it's accurate and updated as often as needed. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to WP:EFFORT. --MASEM (t) 03:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant policy (again). That article has never been outdated and never will be thus your arguments are illegitimate. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing that because of the amount of work you have done and continue to do that the article shouldn't be deleted. Please refer to WP:EFFORT. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My work proves the article has never been outdated, thus refuting your claim that it is, so your claim is completely false and should be disregarded. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, saying that you've put a lot of effort into maintaining the article is not a reason to keep the article, if the article fails on other grounds. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that voting snowball on keep/delete has absolutely no meaning, especially if it's the first vote on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 20:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or electronic channel guide, which these are equivalent to, as shown by their stating that they give current channel assignments. They lack independent sources needed to satisfy WP:N, and just provide (likely outdated) copies of what would be better obtained from the cable companies' own websites or the online channel guides. My cable provider moves channels around and adds or removes channels frequently, so I question the usefulness of these soon-to-be-stale copies of the provider's channel lineup. Edison (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia is not paper. If an article is outdated, it can be updated in a matter of seconds. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"It's not paper" is not a blanket license to fill Wikipedia with unencyclopedic heaps of miscellaneous and trivial raw data such as channel listings, which are always available from the cable provider in accurate and up to date form. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the content in the articles does not appear to be supported by the references listed. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What part of Wikipedia is not paper do you guys not understand??????TomCat4680 (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTPAPER explicitly says we don't include everything under the sun, and make decisions on what content to include. Seems very appropriate here. --MASEM (t) 03:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it states nothing on Wikipedia is permanent and can be edited by anyone at any time, i.e. any outdated material can be updated instantly. Therefore all arguments about "outdated articles" is irrational and not grounds for deletion. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the content has to first be appropriate for WP, before we can talk about being updated regularly. This fails NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 04:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which part? It's not an Electronic program guide because there's no names of shows or what time they're on. It's a list of available channels, and nothing in NOTDIR says anything about disallowing these types of lists. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR is not fully inclusive of what is considered a directory - this came up at the previous AFD noted above, and as it closed for delete , it was based on the fact that these are not directories WP should have. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So basically you're saying you're not sure how it fails it? Sounds like you haven't even read the guidelines you keep quoting. Plus the results of an unrelated article's AFD have nothing to do with the merits of this article. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would really appreciate if one of the editors above would remain civil, and refer to WP:NOTPAPER. We are not saying outdatedness is grounds for deletion. We are saying the fact that WP:NOTDIR is. So please stop refering to part of NOTPAPER taken out of context, and ignoring out facts about NOTDIR. When you are ready to refute our basis of NOTDIR, then feel free to continue. Otherwise, may I politely request of all that you continue this discussion on a new strand, and not on my delete vote? gwickwire | Leave a message 05:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, back up your claim with specific details. Exactly what part of NOTDIR does it fail? TomCat4680 (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It fails the whole concept of NOTDIR. The concept of NOTDIR is that Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a directory. Ergo, it failes "article must not be a directory". Once again, continue this discussion on a new comment, not under my vote please. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comments by @Masem, a major proponent of the AT&T U-verse AfD, at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Meaning of Wikipedia:NOTDIR. S/he states, "We don't disallow any directory..., but do avoid directories that don't fit the educational or academic goal of WP. ... More often than not, it is directories that are controlled ... by a single commercial entity that we generally disallow,... . But we are purposely vague as to allow determine by AFD to access when an article is a directory or not." So a blanket ban on "directories" (whatever that term specifically includes) isn't really the case. --Chaswmsday (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the spirit as well as the letter of WP:NOTDIR. Directories such as this are very difficult to maintain, as the information can change very fast. DirecTV is a notable subject worthy of encyclopedic analysis. How they order their channels is not. ThemFromSpace 21:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, per NOTDIR and arguments in prior related AFD. It would be a different matter if we were dealing with lists of network affiliates, stations owned by a particular company, etc. These provider lists are instead mundane (most notable cable channels will be carried by most providers and most providers will carry most such channels) and transitory, particularly in the numbering. This makes it raw data, something to be summarized, not dumped here. In those rare instances in which the carriage or noncarriage of a particular channel is actually a topic of discussion in reliable sources (wasn't there a Viacom-DirectTV dispute over fees?), that alone may be encyclopedic and should be noted in the companies' histories. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have been using this list for years and years. It's the only truly comprehensive DTV listings out there. About every 6 months i print off an updated copy and i go through my receivers adding and removing channels. Way back when, i even attempted to do some editing the channel guide myself. I understand that some are saying that WP is an inappropriate place for electronic channel guides, but i thought WP was supposed to be for all knowledge for anything that members/people are willing to contribute to. If people are willing to keep working on these lists, why delete them? Especially when there are people out there like me that utilize this information? I don't understand the harm in keeping the content. I'm in favor of a KEEP. I apologize to anyone who may be upset if i did something wrong here. I'm learning and needed help being able to voice my opinion the correct way. Thanks for allowing my opinion. Terster . Terster (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Terster (talk • contribs) 02:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I'm definitely an inclusionist, this series of articles has been a thorn in my side for years. It has no logical means of organization, breaking everything into colors and packages that I haven't been able to ever make sense of and which the average Joe/Jane has to do multiple scrolls up to the legend to understand fully, contains channels and alternate feeds rarely watched by anyone and of no use to anyone outside of sat-enthusiasts, and most of all, all of the channels are already listed in the network articles themselves with their channel locations on these providers or have a 'the network is available on (providers X,Y,Z)' note in the article, making this all duplicative. Besides that, judging from my past experience of having to clean up after, it is also one of the easiest and most annoying of article series to vandalize by IPs and troublemaking users, and fixing the complicated template structure takes multiple saves to work all out. Most of all, notwithstanding the zeal of others to keep everything up to date, they're a small minority of editors and if not for them, this would age badly otherwise because there is a steep learning curve to maintain this long list of templates where you're only going to see editors with long experience (and serial vandalizers) editing it. Definitely WP:NOTDIR, and all channel lists are better listed by the providers themselves on their websites, and Wikias=options to maintain this information in a more collaborative and less volatile venue where the vandals can't get in. Note I did rationale Speedy Keep on nom #1, but that was six years ago and many building issues before where it was just a simple basic list easy to navigate. Nate • (chatter) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am mystified by the hostility these articles generate. One would have the impression from reading the comments of those wanting to delete them that they represent an existential threat. Carthago delenda est? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep what's the alternative? Quoting Canadian Bobby: "(...) all of the channels are already listed in the network articles themselves with their channel locations on these providers or have a 'the network is available on (providers X,Y,Z)' (...)," that would mean that one need to check channel by channel for the channel numbers on a provider's line-up. Not very logical and definitely not practical. Every article could be vandalized, so that's no strong argument against it. I update the Dutch UPC channel lists (List of channels on UPC Netherlands (Horizon) and List of channels on UPC Netherlands (Mediabox)) regularly and I don't see a valid reason to delete it. I'm also strong against the merging of the list with the article of the provider. That's really messy! - C0re1980 (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover it's more than just a list of channels. It also keeps track of channel changes, channel launches, defunct channels and so on. It isn't a commercial list, but just an objective article about the available channels with its corresponding subscription/channel info and the history of available channels. - C0re1980 (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These pages (and others like them) for other countries are the best and sometimes even only source of information on the specific channels on a platform. I do not believe it comes under WP:NOTDIR, because that seems to cover only directories for business purposes such as business directories, promotions or catalogues, etc.. They are well-organised under channel genre (I'm talking specifically now about the UK-based ones which have also been nominated under this page). They are well-sourced in every way - I've seen people want to add sections to these articles which have been removed because (despite how correct they are) there are no sources, so they're obviously also well-policed and looked after. These pages have little to no original research as some people seem to be implying; believe it or not, there are extensive media outlets for the reporting of upcoming launches/closures on the TV side of things; many of the sites that are (or could be if the appropriate tag was added) sourced are ones used by the industry itself. As there are few television platforms of interest in the UK these articles are also notable in that they provide quite an easy way to compare them in addition to everything else that they're useful for. These constitute valuable and useful glorified lists essentially, so in conclusion, definite and strong keep from me. Muzer (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because no other source has this information all in one place means we have make up for that. It is a director, akin to a product catalog. I will agree that the grounds to delete is not based on (apparent) OR. What would not be a problem would be a non-table list of the notable channels a station carries on the article about the station, along with any significant channel omissions or changes that have been noted by sources, but we don't need to give all info like channel number, all the music/ppv/etc. stations, the format, etc. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't made up but the list is acquired by checking it at home on the set-top box (or other television reception device) and sourced by press releases, news etc. In table form it's well-organized. The channel number, format etc. makes the information complete and you can see all you want to know in just one glance. By doing this without tables it would be very messy. - C0re1980 (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong Keep at least the articles of Canadian cable and satellite providers lists and Dish Network lists. Steam5 (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have noticed that the channel lists for British satellite and cable platforms have been added to the list of articles proposed for deletion. I find them to be useful lists which are diligently kept up to date by one editor. These lists are not available anywhere else on the internet and they provide a very useful resource and it would be very disappointing if they were to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I acknowledge the delete rationales raised here, I am persuaded by Core1980's argument that these are, ultimately, beneficial lists organizing existing information in an encyclopedic way. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above by others and myself, please see WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think this qualifies for a directory. Like mentioned before, it's more than just a channel number list. At least the European counterparts are. - C0re1980 (talk) 23:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To C0re1980, the concept that I follow is the fact that it is, at its core (no pun intended), a channel list. Period. Lists are okay on Wikipedia if they serve a purpose other than ease of use for TV subscribers. From Wiktionary: "1.A list of names, addresses etc., of specific classes of people or organizations, often in alphabetical order or in some classification." (wikt:directory). This seems to classify these articles as directories. First of all, these could cause Wikipedia trouble with the companies if they decide to sue for some reason. Second of all, people can just look on their TV screen, the paper that came with their service (and all do have a paper), or their providers website instead of Wikipedia. I've been seeing a lot of the whole "I use it" "Super keep (at least the ones of a specific area)" "It's not word for word a WP:NOTDIR" etc. My response is that Wikipedia is about consensus, not about following a policy word for word (especially like this, when the policy does not establish word for word what a directory is and isn't, just gives examples." I encourage all of the respondents here to take a close look at WP:NOTDIR and the previous AfD linked at the top of this page before continuing, as I do not want this to escalate more than it currently has. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As per WP:NOTDIR, specifically (and I quote) "...Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.". Convention has been set by the previous ADR at which a channel guide was deleted. doktorb wordsdeeds 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Comment on possible canvassing At least one user who has recently !voted to keep in here has commented that he was notified by email of this discussion. [2]. I can find no on-wiki message to him about this, so perhaps there is an offwiki email campaign going around. Heads up, just in case. ThemFromSpace 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the context (the fact the user hasn't edited since 2009), It's probably the case that the user has "E-mail me when a page or file on my watchlist is changed" ticked in preferences and received an email when the page was tagged. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. These are unquestionably covered by the policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These lineups somehow violates WP:DIRECTORY because we can't serve readers information about satellite channels that either come and go or are just there... to merely direct readers where the channel is. That is DirecTV's job, not ours. Also, editing and revising the whole table of channels is very complicated, pointless, unnecessary, and time-consuming. Prose is enough; table is excessive. --George Ho (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR despite arguments in other AfDs as to what constitutes a directory, it seems clear that this does constitute one and falls short of being an encyclopaedic article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful info, I don't see why some people want to delete information that completes their main articles. "DTV has ### channels go to some other website to find out what channels it has" if you delete these lists users or visitors would have to leave wiki to find the what channels are in a cable/sat provider. Plus wiki is not a paper encyclopedia. -AMAPO (talk) 08:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but "Channel Types" which includes the color coding should be remove as that is not needed unless this were a channel directory. Now a few things to note about WP:NOTDIR: 1) Under 1. it says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." These list of channels (although these are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not a list of channels) do "significantly contribute to the list topic" by categorizing them by cable or satellite provider. 2) Under 4. it links to Directory (databases) for its definition of directory. These articles do not fall under that definition. Powergate92Talk 16:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - These lists are not directories per the definition. They do not include programming lists, they are not shilling for the companies involved, and are, as other have said, meticulously updated and maintained. They are emphatically not electronic programming guides. They do not list current, past, or upcoming programming. TV Guide they are emphatically not. The argument against these pages, as summarized by User: George Ho is: "These lineups somehow violates[sic] WP:DIRECTORY..." seems to be the prevailing interpretation. This is an effort by editors who simply don't like the articles to have them deleted. As editor User:Mrschimpf stated, "this series of articles has been a thorn in my side for years." The definition of what constitutes a directory is being stretched so broadly to include these pages that the Billboard chart pages better watch out - they're just a list of songs. Billboard can provide that information on its site, right? Why are we promoting Billboard and the listed artists? List of songs in Guitar Hero and the like better watch out, too - they're just lists of songs. Harmonix Music Systems can provide that information, or Sony or PlayStation 2. Why are we promoting the songs of these artists here? Besides - they're just lists, right? - Canadian Bobby (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the song lists that Canadian Bobby picked out are listed that I was fundamental in creating and passing to FL. The reason these lists (which are not directories) are fine is because the contents of the list are necessary to understand the reception of the game, which is judged on the quality of the lists by reviewers. Those lists will never change since the games are released.
    • The argument is not these are lists. These are akin to listing out every product sold by a grocery store or a catalog store. It is a list for doing business, even if that is geared towards subscribers. In 100 years, where WP is still around but these networks aren't, these channel directories will have little relevance to the reader. There may be historical channel changes or disputes (as DirecTV has had with some networks) that can be documented in prose, as the listings themselves have little historical relevance. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So a list of songs is not a directory, but a list of channels is?
      • If in 100 years that is the case, we can open this debate then. Now, they serve a viable, encyclopedic purpose, notwithstanding that editors don't like them. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If from a cable company, cable lineups are defined that way. If not, that depends. --George Ho (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a person who has contributed to a number of these lists, I have found them useful. On the Verizon and AT&T sites, you have to go through a cumbersome act of plugging in zip codes to grab the line-ups especially to factor what regional variations there are in those providers. With the U-Verse line-up article before it was deleted, it had the most comprehensive list of what they carried and the variations by carriage of the east and west coast feeds of cable networks. Also, with the article histories (which get deleted with the articles), I could keep track of all the channel changes especially as providers have been expanding their HD offerings these last few years, it allowed me to keep track of which providers added the HD feeds of the cable networks and when they did it. With DirecTV, Dish, Cablevision, FiOS, and U-Verse available in the region, I have had an interest in keeping track of which providers carried which HD channels and when they were added. Livingonli (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • As mentioned earlier, from WP:USEFUL: "A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory." It doesn't matter how useful these lists are; they do not meet Wikipedia's policies for what's encyclopedic. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:USEFUL is an essay not a guideline so your argument is invalid. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're right that it is an essay. Nonetheless, by saying that these articles are useful to you, you are ignoring the main concern here - that these articles violate policy, WP:NOTDIR, and -- while helpful -- are inappropriate for Wikipedia. It doesn't matter how difficult it is to navigate Verizon's or AT&T's websites: Wikipedia still does not publish the Yellow Pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • The validity of an argument does not depend on the bureaucratic designation given to the page where it appears. And that's policy not a guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The Yellow Pages is a book of addresses and phone numbers full of advertisements for local businesses, which is updated annually by the phone company. These articles are nowhere near that, they are updated weekly, if not daily, by people unaffiliated with the company. No one is trying to sell anything, just providing unbiased factual information, the whole point of an encyclopedia in the first place. None of the other criteria of NOTDIR (which it seems you haven't actually read) apply to any of these articles either. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • NOTDIR (like the rest of NOT) is purposely not fully inclusive of all inappropriate types of articles; if editors feel something is a NOTDIR even though it is not explicitly listed (as per the AT&T Uverse AFD), it can still be deleted per NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 20:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The Uverse AFD isn't a part of this one, so its discussion and result is irrelevant. Mentioning it is like saying "All the other kids are doing it..."TomCat4680 (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Uh, what? I specifically called out at the Uverse one as a test case to avoid problems with multiple AFDs at the past and made sure that it was announced at VPP and WT:TV. It's result very much should be considered in this AFD. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • It's a metaphor for peer pressure. Haven't you ever been to high school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomCat4680 (talk • contribs)
                            • No, that's not the part I'm questioning. You're trying to sweep the previous AFD aside, despite the fact that it was purposely initiated as a test case for all these articles that all share the same format and appropriate, and was advertised to be such a test case. --MASEM (t) 21:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • That's because every article has its own merits, and it shouldn't be deleted just because it shares a category with another article that has completely different information. Every afd should be judged independently. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • In general, that is good advice for prose-heavy articles, but effectively these all have the same basic tables with different sets of data with the same properties (channel, number, format, etc.) There is no reasonable way you can say these lineups are so different from the Uverse one to invalid the consideration of the previous AFD to this one. --MASEM (t) 21:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • How bout the fact that Uverse is a cable company that is only available in certain parts of 22 states while DirecTV is available in 100% of the country? They're completely different services completely -regional vs national - and their lineups should be treated as such.TomCat4680 (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Nope, that doesn't work. It's the same type of content and has nothing to do with what areas they serve or the size of their market. --MASEM (t) 21:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • It's apples to oranges. The only thing they have in common is they're both TV providers. DirecTV is a national satellite provider, while Uverse is a regional cable service, therefore the latter's AFD should be disregarded. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • More pertinent example for @Masem & @Canadian Bobby: Reading this sub-thread and figuring out that "FL" means Wikipedia:Featured lists led me to articles which seem significantly more analagous to the "List of provider X's channels" case than List of songs in Guitar Hero was. The currently-"featured list" List of Nintendo 64 games, as well as List of PlayStation games and all other articles under Template:Video game lists by platform. To paraphrase @Masem: "These are akin to listing out every product sold by a grocery store or a catalog store. It is a list for doing business, even if that is geared towards gamers. In 100 years, where WP is still around but these games aren't, these game directories will have little relevance to the reader. There may be historical game changes or deletions that can be documented in prose, as the listings themselves have little historical relevance." Should we not then, under almost-identical criteria, AfD all List articles of this type? --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Please focus on these lists at hand. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. Y'all are not proposing deletion here on the basis of anything inherent about television providers, you're basing, as near as I can tell, solely on WP:NOTDIR. I'm just following the logical implications to articles which are strikingly similar in character solely on the interpretation of NOTDIR that has been argued by y'all in this forum. I see this AfD as sort of a "test case", if you will. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then you need to learn the difference between what lists are and what directories are. It is laughable to think that this is a test case for those others. The reason the Uverse AFD was a test case for these is because they all shared the same fundamentally basic format and were directories, failing NOTDIR. You cannot compare these to any of those other lists you've mentioned. (Also finding that you're picking on topics of my interest to be just shy of a personal attack). --MASEM (t) 16:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I knew from this sub-thread you were interested in List of songs in Guitar Hero; I didn't check to see if you've edited on video games in general or on "List of games on Platform X" specifically. I'm personally interested in TV station articles, not so much about Lists by Provider - I'm here largely on principle. Not to go too off-topic, but just what is the difference then, between lists and directories? And very briefly, how would the other article type (which seems substantially identical in character) not fail under those same definitions/arguments. Perhaps if I understood the distinction, I could understand the AfD rationale "here" as opposed to "there". --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Directories are typically designed to promote a specific commercial service that is controlled by a single entity, aimed at selling their services or products. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • So, e.g. List of Playstation games is not a directory under what theory...? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's not under the control of one company, so it's not a resource for doing business. --MASEM (t) 18:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Wouldn't that come as a shock to Sony? --Chaswmsday (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Sony doesn't sell the games. --MASEM (t) 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                          • This all seems rather poorly-defined, since channels are not fully under the "control" of say, DirecTV. In this scenario, Sony is the hardware, the games are separately-owned software upon which the Playstation depends. As the TV provider is dependent on the separately-owned channels it carries.
                          • So in the hypothetical alternative, one could delete all of the games with no citation or a Sony citation? And in this AfD, delete channels with no or a provider-only citation?
                          • But, as e.g. Electronic Arts sells the games, one could delete all or most of List of Electronic Arts games, and similar? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                            • It is poorly defined because what you are asking us to define is basically a sniff test - for these articles on this AFD in question, several look at them and recognize them as directories, but the list of games (whether for the Playstation or EA's catalog), and there's no hint of a directory. I wouldn't contest that there's a possibility the EA list fails per NOTCATALOG but I would not say that with any certainty as it depends on consensus; my guts says you would have a hard time deleting that. The only distinction I can make is that there are sources that talk about the wide catalog of games on the PlayStation, or that EA publishers, but that's probably not going to satisfy you. At times, you have to just shrug and accept what consensus says. --MASEM (t) 20:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Well, I think they're at the very least, "close enough" to directories. A similar standard to "close enough to an EPG".
                              • Yeah, I imagine too with a restricted pool of editors invited to the dance, that the consensus would turn out counter to any AfD I might propose, as well as this one. It's so much fun dealing with abolutists who don't like something, but will move Heaven and Earth to excuse content if they do like it. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                                • The other way to look at it is the permanence of information. In 100 years, with Wikipedia still going, how encyclopedic is it to know that one could have gotten TNT on channel 150 via DirecTV? Not very much. This information has little permanence. On the other hand, even though there may be no copies left of said games, the fact they existed at one point in time and had sourced information means that the games have permanence of information, and thus an encyclopedic topic. This is not to discount that some channel info on the providers doesn't have permanence, but from everything I've read, its more directed towards when customers are hurt or benefit from the removal or addition of blocks of programming and less about individual stations, and certainly not about the fact of where they sit on the dial. What encyclopedic information that comes from those can be summarized in the body of the provider. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • After puzzling through the double negative, I realized what you were trying to say. Do you have any support for the contention that a product has to be under the control of a single company to be a "resource for doing business"? Or even any vague definition of what that phrase might mean? --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break deux

[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all To understand what made these companies successful, you need to see what channels they have, that the reason people choose one service or another. List_of_DirecTV_channels_(United_States) has been viewed 108,035 times in the last 30 days. [3] These articles bring a lot of people to Wikipedia, and are useful to some people. Dream Focus 09:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stats are meaningless; the fact that they may be disappointed if deleted is meaningless. They can look elsewhere, like TV Guide or DirecTV. As for success, channel changes rapidly; amount of channels grow, so PPV must have changed from 20 or 10 years ago, right? --George Ho (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not dispute that To understand what made these companies successful, you need to see what channels they have, but you cannot just throw up a list of channels and say "Well, here you go, figure out yourself why people chose this service", that is an incredible failure of OR. It is much more encyclopedic to have, on the articles about the services themselves, sourced facts that attribute why people chose one service over another, and if it has to do with having certain channels available, then those specific channels can be mentioned, or whatever similar mode there is. (More than likely it is not so much exactly which channels, but the number of channels, the availability of local channels, and the availability of HD forms of channels, rather than any specific channel, that draws subscribers). --MASEM (t) 14:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Article is a directory, and has no use otherwise due to lack of historical perspective. Krushia (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Wikipedia is not a television guide. Your service should have an on-screen television guide in any case, or there are magazines/newspapers which publish schedules for channels. Your keep votes avoids WP:NOTDIR. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useful or not, these pages lack historical/encyclopedic perspective, and their main purposes are current listings for current subscribers, similar to DirecTV's and Verizon's purposes. Judging from content, obviously, these pages are very commercial (yet informative), but, even if you add in prose, they still are directories in some way. List of NBC television affiliates tells you which stations are located. Cable/satellite channel lineups merely tell you what channel number the network is located; even when local channels are added there, lineups are still directory to me. --George Ho (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also please see WP:Useful. Your first words violate this concept. Just because listing all of the phone numbers in an area is useful to people, it's not for Wikipedia. gwickwire | Leave a message 16:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Were you referring to mine or someone else's? --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above; a few things to note about WP:NOTDIR is 1) Under 1. it says "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." These list of channels (although these are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not a list of channels) do "significantly contribute to the list topic" by categorizing them by cable or satellite provider. 2) Under 4. it links to Directory (databases) for its definition of directory. These articles do not fall under that definition. As well, an electronic program guide (see article) list TV shows by channel and time, these articles do not. An example of an article that is an electronic program guide is 2012–13 United States network television schedule, which is kept for historical reasons. Therefore these articles do not fall under electronic program guide. Also as TomCat4680 mentioned above WP:Useful is essay, which is " the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval." according to WP:ESSAYS, a Wikipedia policy. Powergate92Talk 17:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think channel lineups are not directories? You want to stand on your argument as valid, don't you? --George Ho (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted before, WP:NOTDIR (and WP:NOT in general) is purposely not fully inclusive of examples of what we are not. Thus, just because exactly this type of directory listing is not listed does not mean it is free and clear of failing WP:NOTDIR. If consensus clearly shows that something not listed should fall within that scope, then it is appropriate to considered it within scope, as was done on the previous AFD for AT&T Uverse. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho: 1) These are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not channel lineups. 2) Most list are directories.
George Ho and Masem: As most list are directories, there are certain types of list/directories that are allowed on Wikipedia. If you would read all of WP:NOTDIR you'll see that it actually says in the first two sentences "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." It then continues Under 1. "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic." As I said above; these list of channels (although these are actually lists of TV networks in channel order, not a list of channels) do "significantly contribute to the list topic" by categorizing them by cable or satellite provider.
Masem: The WP:Consensus at the AT&T Uverse AFD was not a Wikipedia wide consensus as it was among a limited group of editors, and therefore it should not be "considered it within scope" per WP:Consensus#Level of consensus. Also note that consensus can change. Powergate92Talk 20:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. AFDs are not done in isolation. Further I specifically advertized that one at WT:TV and VPP, since I explicitly started it as a test case for all of these other ones. You cannot disregard that consensus there. (And no, consensus is not going to change from 2 weeks ago) And again, a list of channels a carrier has either needs to be shown as significant via sourcing to show why it is important to list those (per my comment to Dream Focus above), or otherwise it is only a page that has value to those that are subscribers, and ergo, it is not WP's place to perform a function that the providers should be doing in the first place. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) It was still not a Wikipedia wide consensus to delete all list of channels articles, if it was we would not be having this deletion discussion right now. What it was is a deletion discussion limited to one article among a limited group of editors. If you look how many more editors are participating in this AfD, you'll see that was limited group of editors in the other AfD. 2) Yes consensus can change in 2 weeks, and if you look above, as it is right now there is no consensus here to keep or delete. That is a change in consensus from 2 weeks ago, as we're now discussing this among a wider group of editors. Powergate92Talk 22:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs represent global consensus, period. The reason I didn't suggest all such articles at once is that multi AFDs that go beyond 10 or so become logistical nightmares; doing it in smaller batches allows editors to identify exceptional cases to be kept. And the consensus in this one currently weights towards deletion, since the few keeps are based on the "It's useful" fallacy. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Enough policy talk; I sense some phony, pretentious attitude when you call something rather than "channel lineup". Back to articles themselves, look at them obviously. There is no need to use policy, essays, or anything else as proofs of your stance. When you look at five seconds of the whole article, obviously, they do not fit in the encyclopedic standards. --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) This is a list of wikilinks to TV networks by cable or satellite provider in channel order, not a "channel lineup." 2) If the "Channel Types" which includes the color coding is removed as I suggested above, it will look similar to, for example, List of Me-TV affiliates. Powergate92Talk 22:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That list of Me-TV affiliates suffers the same problem these lists do. Listing the affliates by local city is reasonable, but the stuff with virtual/physical channel is far beyond encyclopedic info. So that should be deleted or modified at some point too. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way you could say List of social networking websites has "far beyond encyclopedic info" with it having "Registered users," "Registration," and "Global Alexa" in its table. But that list is used as an example of a "Sortable lists" at WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#General formatting. Powergate92Talk 05:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. In the list of social networks, factors like number of users and popularity are significant, important data that is reported in many sources (eg: Facebook passing one billion users was recently covered in news as a significant milestone). So that list is fine. But with these cable offering lists or something like the Me-TV list, most of the information on it is data without any context to why it is necessary to include - there's no significance or the like given. In the case of the Me-TV list, its specific data elements that raise the question of inclusion. --MASEM (t) 06:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"data without any context to why it is necessary" what about the "Number of players," "ESRB/ELSPA rating," and "Genre" at List of Nintendo 64 games, a featured list. That is very much similar these articles having channel numbers and in some cases channel types. Powergate92Talk 06:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is data that defines what a video game is, and is irrespective of the means of how the video game was or can be acquired. For these provider directories, the data like channel listing is too specific to each entity and has no permanence to be encyclopedically appropriate - it doesn't matter what channel a certain network is on on a certain provider. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Me-TV affiliates and cable/satellitle channel lineups are different from each other. ME-TV is merely over-the-air, while others are cable or satellite. Nevertheless, they are useful to readers but directories to me. I wonder if "List of Me-TV stations" may fail notability and standards of lists. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break trois

[edit]
  • Delete all - List of DirecTV channels (United States) in numerical order might be a better title. In any event, the topic fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:LIST. It may be an information source that has value to some people, but it's not a valuable information source per WP:LISTPURP. There's no Navigation or Development purpose to the list. And the big one, delete per WP:NOTDIR, which notes "article on a radio station should not list ... current schedules". List of AT&T U-verse channels is close enough to that to fall under NOTDIR. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - In spite of comments to the contrary, I don't believe that the general rationale for the existence of these articles is to look up channels on your provider. If you are a subscriber, your provider's electronic program guide(s) is a much better tool for that purpose. Rather, it's not difficult to envision an encyclopedic purpose for these articles. The ready ability to compare and contrast providers (or conversely, to determine a given channel or broadcasting organization's carriage across providers) could easily be used in business planning, in media studies, in students' school papers, in other scholarly works and most likely in other contexts I haven't considered. As I've stated earlier, some of these articles could stand the addition or improvement of coverage of historical and future channels, but flaws in an article shouldn't be a reason for deletion. --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The potential media student argument is fair (as I noted to Dream Focus' point), but the format of these articles is woefully unable to address that. Consider the one case of historical program listings we absolutely do keep, the articles like 2012–13 United States network television schedule, in which all options are compared at once with extraneous details removed. A comparable article here would be to have a table, each row a notable broadcast station, each column a provider, and then the table filled with if the provider provides that station and its start and/or end date. Note, however, this would have to be done for every notable provider in the region. You also need to be able to source every point and not just from looking at the channel guide, the references need permanence of some type. I don't believe such an article can be convincibly be created, and instead simply to mention notable channel additions or removals in the articles on each provider themselves. --MASEM (t) 14:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily the way you would structure it. You could have a (probably sortable) table for each provider's List article; anyone looking up info could use a category (e.g. Category:Lists of television channels by company, or new ones) to gather up for comparison/contrast the providers in which s/he is interested. As for permanence of references, couldn't that be addressed by archive.org or by WebCite or by the fact that citations are not required to be online? And what's the inherent problem exactly with sourcing from the provider's channel guide, I ask, already knowing the answer? --Chaswmsday (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, we need a reason to compare channel lineups on cable providers. We have a good reason to compare show offerings on the major networks because that plays into everything with ratings and viewership competition, and there's plenty of sources for that. While it is possible that this could be important for cable providers as to what stations they provide, there hasn't been a lot of sources to show that importance, so until we see such sources, the presumption that these comparisons are needed is OR. (If anything, my gut tells me that the sources that do exist don't talk about the influence of specific channels, but instead certain blocks, or the availability of high def channels on the whole, but I don't know for certain on this.) Ergo, even a comparison list article is going to be a problem, much less the individual by-provider.
        • As to the sourcing, we strongly discourage the use of sources that can only be accessed by a limited set of people - in this case, the channel lists from your settop as sent to you by the provider. It is only thing to have pay-wall sources which we do accept, but using provider listings that are only there via the settop box is far different - there's no WP:V for those that don't have that service, period. Basically, I would not call the settop channel listings as "published" compared to other sources. If the providers had complete pages of channel offerings that a non-subscriber could see, then they could be used and archived via webcite or similar. But it's been said that the lineups given here are the only complete listings due to lack of effort by the providers to give such, making me question if this is possible. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • To your first point, if I'm reading your argument correctly, you hold that editors must anticipate a use for content before it can be included; IMO, there are inherent implications in WP:PURPOSE and WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that this is not the case.
          • To your second point, most provider websites eagerly tell the general public of their vast and wonderful offerings, this info is not limited via a paywall to subscribers, and these again can be Waybacked or WebCited. Also there are most likely paper channel guides (which WP would allow as a source). As to Verifiability concerns, if a provider were to falsely claim channel carriage to make their product seem better, Wikipedia editors and real-world subscribers would jump on them in a hot minute.
          • Please note that I've added what I feel are more pertinent parallel examples upthread where @Masem & @Canadian Bobby were discussing "Songs on Guitar Hero". --Chaswmsday (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • First point: yes, it is called notability. We don't include information just because it exists; we include information because there is sourced discussion about it that allows us to create an encyclopedic article. This is why we generally don't include directories, since they rarely can be discussed any more than showing the data "as is".
            • The second point: it has been said by those who maintain these that the version on WP is the only true, complete version of these listings at times because the providers simply do not keep up their online schedules. If a provide did offer a true complete lineup that anyone could access, that's fine, but the implications given by the ones !voting "keep" suggests this is not the case, that the WP version is the only accurate one. Which we should not be. --MASEM (t) 16:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although it doesn't matter what those who oppose the nominations say. The editors who don't like the articles are determined to have their way and nothing anybody says to the contrary will sway them. Kindly explain to me how this [4], an electronic listing guide, is exactly the same as List of DirecTV local channels with HD. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You shouldn't !vote again, since you already had a keep above. Again, we're not saying these are electric program guides, but instead fit the mold of what WP:NOTDIR gives as examples of directories to not include. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I had thought the topic was 'rebooted' above with it being extended. Apologies. I've seen the phrase "electronic program guide" several times and used as an argument against the pages. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to expand nominations

[edit]

Proposal. I propose that all members of Category:Lists of television channels by company also be nominated within this AfD, as well as any substantially similar "List of 'Provider X' channels" which may be found that should have been in that category; as well as the substantially analogous articles List of Sirius Satellite Radio stations and List of XM Satellite Radio channels.

This AfD specifically did not include these articles because of "logistical nightmares; doing it in smaller batches allows editors to identify exceptional cases to be kept." So I further propose that we could (under "Use common sense") customize this AfD such that if it succeeds, the "logistical" problems can be resolved by retaining articles containing "exceptional" content other than the subject of this AfD, with only the content in question being removed from them.

Rationale: It was suggested during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels that, by noting the AfD on the talk pages of substantially similar articles, I was Canvassing. I have serious concerns about editor notifications, which I've raised at Canvassing's talk page. If I had been "canvassing", it was clearly ineffective, as very few additional editors commented on the AfD. Perhaps editors don't view talk pages that frequently, perhaps they don't take things seriously unless an article in which they're interested is tagged for deletion. As @Powergate92 notes upthread, there is now a larger group of editors commenting.

The AfD instructions at WP:BUNDLE state that "for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes" - a "test case", as "AT&T U-verse" was. By not now nominating all relevant articles here, it could be misconstrued as being another "test case", getting "two bites at the apple", "dividing and conquering", as it were. Specifically, this AfD is mainly US-centric, lacking input from Canadian, UK, Australian and New Zealand editors, as well as others.

In a sense, this second "test case" could be seen as an example of "anti-Canvassing" - that is, specifically leaving out problematic editors who might object to the deletion of "their" articles.

Comments? I'm sure I'll have many. So be it. :( --Chaswmsday (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Fully agree to delete all. The reasoning to keep just isn't convincing enough. We are supposed to believe that viewers can't access their own on-screen channel guide or a TV magazine? That viewers need Wikipedia to check what channels are in front of them? There is a very long list of things Wikipedia is not here to do - and one of the highest on that list is as a repository for random pieces of fact and trivia. All these lists are essentially trivia. There is no justification for doubling up an existing service on an on-line, edited encyclopedia. None. It's not as though the channels couldn't be edited maliciously, misleading viewers seeking information. It's time to accept that WP:NOTDIR includes these and all of their type. It's time to delete all articles which fall foul of it. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My intent is to eventually AFD all these articles, but it has been my experience that no matter how good-faith the effort for that, as soon as you get past a certain number of related articles, you will get people trying to discredit the entire bundled nom due to the size issue. Handling smaller batches allow judgement if exceptional articles should be kept. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since this AfD will likely prevail anyway, due to voting, what's so wrong with my proposal to be innovative and have a hybrid AfD/"Content for Deletion" here and involve all interested editors. Are we indeed having multiple "test cases"? --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alleged "purpose" of the article content is a straw-man argument. I would refer you to my "Keep all" under "Arbitrary break trois" upthread. "Malicious editing" is a possibility, however that's a danger for all of Wikipedia. I would refer you to The Colbert Report, truthiness and any number of WP page protections implemented during Colbert's airing... --Chaswmsday (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This AfD has been running for 12 days, and has had many comments. We can't assume that any of those comments apply to any articles other than those included in the nomination, so the addition of other articles would require the whole process to be started again. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all the talk of policies and the like, I read WP:BUNDLE closely, as well as Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deletion of large # of articles based on result of one AFD. Per what I found, I posted a question at WP:AN/I#Proper use of AfDs as to whether it is valid to bulk nominate multiple articles which are not extremely close in content.
    • Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh, there's ZERO point in going to ANI with this. There's no admin action here (outside of the AFD closure, which is certainly not an ANI cause). And if you don't call the fact they have the same format and scope, and just different data "close in content", I really don't know what to tell you. These are all effectively the same. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, there is. I wanted an unbiased opinion of the rules governing AfDs. I looked at Administrator's Noticeboard, but it claimed it was more about Administrators and that AN/I was an appropriate venue for questions. (And I mentioned in the AN/I that it wasn't really an "incident".) I also note that you sought advice about the scope to related articles of the AT&T U-verse AfD at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Deletion of large # of articles based on result of one AFD, but then seemed to ignore the one response you got. --Chaswmsday (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • ANI is not the place to go for unbiased opinions that need no admin action. You're wasting admins' time there. And no, I did follow the advice, but choose not to do one massive bundle knowing that editors would likely shoot down the excessively large nomination, and instead doing it by region to give time to find exceptions to be kept. --MASEM (t) 21:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • From AN, "If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue, ... you should post it at ANI instead". At AN/I, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors". If I'm wasting Admins' time, they can tell me that themselves and recommend a more suitable venue for questioning experienced editors. I've done RfCs before, and they're often answered by just anybody wandering by who may have no more knowledge or experience than I. And no, the responder at AfD Talk said, "AFDs only serve as precedent with regard to the exact same topic [my emphasis], so all of the others will need to go through AFD themselves." So you didn't follow that piece of his/her advice. (BTW, I corrected my link just above to AfD Talk twice, once since you responded. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please read the top of WP:AN. There are only specific cases that you should be taking an issue to there or ANI; how to work an AFD is not one of those. You're looking for a third-party opinion, AN/ANI is neither place for that. Also in regards to the thread at WT:AFD, you did see the next sentence: However, to save time and effort, they can all be bundled into a single nomination by following the instructions at WP:BUNDLE? YOu know, what I'm doing right now? --MASEM (t) 21:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • I also read English. "They": "With the exact same topic". So the advice is perhaps muddled, or means at most that you can list multiples under the same AfD, but everything I've read concerning AfD today says that each individual article must be decided on its own. I've done third opinions also - with similar results. The person responding has no more or less insight than those in contention. And probably lack the subject-matter interest to make a well-informed decision. I'm strictly asking experienced editors about the correct process. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Did you even read what I asked in that? I was suggesting if I could have an AFD-less discussion how to deal with the rest of these articles. The advice said, no, they all have to go through AFD since they don't necessarily "have the exact same topic", but bundling them into multiple AFDs is acceptable. That's what I'm doing. There's no other way to read that advice. And again, there are other venues to ask experienced editors beyond AN/ANI. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no consensus to delete the ones now. So why added more things to the list when you know the result will be no consensus? And you can't do that once the AFD has been going on this long anyway. Dream Focus 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not, we're not supposed to Vote, but I just did a quick count (not checking for duplicates) and the "vote" is 19 deletes and 14 keeps. That "result", plus the fact this AfD is over 7 days old will, if this discussion goes the way it usually does when editors are hell-bent on deleting things, will result in a deletion of all nominated articles. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I find notification of AfDs and mandatory article changes wholly inadequate and believe that the editors of all affected articles should get to express their thoughts, rather than these articles being deleted piecemeal. --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As learned, polling is not a substitute for discussion. Why making vote tally? --George Ho (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because I fully expect, based on past content deletion battles, that a Vote will be taken. 19 opinions one way and 14 the other doesn't constitute a consensus, and it's well past 7 days, so an Admin should have been asked to close this with no resolution. If the Vote had been more heavily weighted on the Delete side, I'm certain the AfD would have been closed in favor of deletion and over and done with days ago. Instead, the Vote is held open (likely to gather more Deletes). The next tactic I expect is that everyone on the Keep side will have their arguments dismissed as ill-informed and against sacred Policy and thus illegitimate. Do those of you on the Deletionist side understand why so many editors are so frustrated and have come to often loathe what should be a fun, collaborative experience?? --Chaswmsday (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all Arguments that these lists are somehow exempt from WP:NOTDIR is just wikilawyering. Minority interest groups wanting to protect their primary source directories often claim that there is some great conspiracy against them. Not so. It is just that the community wants Wikipedia to remain a tertiary source encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 23:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add since it seems like the issue with the AT&T U-Verse list opened up the whole can of worms since many of these channel line-up pages have been up for years and it seems like only now they have become a cause of complaint of whether these pages have any value on Wikipedia. The biggest issue may be that there is no context and whether keeping a channel history list like have been on the Sirius and XM Satellite Radio pages would make them of greater value. In light of current on-going industry provider disputes with programmers (i.e. DirecTV with Viacom or Dish Network with AMC) that being able to compare what the providers carry since a potential customer's decision to go with a particular provider (besides options like discounts with internet and phone bundles) are what channels are available, whether certain channels are carried in HD since if a provider only carries a certain channel in SD and it has an HD feed, they may decide not to sign up with that provider. In light of the current wave of programmer disputes, these decisions become more prevalent wants to switch providers because their favorite channel was dropped in a dispute. In the case of the List of Me-TV affiliates, the list is a reflection of the digital TV era where most of its distribution is via digital sub-channels where that placement is important. The only thing I would have an issue with that list is that should better define which DMA is served by which Me-TV affiliate which in the New York market might be hard to determine when the New York broadcast affiliate is in Bridgeport which is on the fringe of the market and Time Warner Cable in New York City is providing the channel by carrying the national feed instead of the local affiliate. --Livingonli (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete similar others anyway - Obviously, there is no need to create nompages; they are too similar to deal with. As for provider articles with lineups, like Angeles City Cable Television Network, I have discussed this further in WP:VPP#Section of channel lineups in articles of providers, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All. Pages. Like. This. Now. (not another !vote, this is a vote on the expansion). This has gone on long enough, should have been closed instead of relisted (no clue why that happened) see below. These never should have been allowed to stay this long in the first place. I'm not going to bother mentioning policy because it's already mentioned here. Let's just be done with all of these. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointy proposal. Will not pass on its merits, nor is this forum equipped to neutralize the inherent bias in the nom's selection criteria. Other AFDs are expected, via process, to continue the arbitrary self-section bias. Path forward is below. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break quatre

[edit]
  • (Very) Strong keep all per NOTDIR, which does not describe them. However, on criteria other than NOTDIR, "Local channel availability ..." makes no sense and can be deleted or merged, and "List of Dish ..." should all 4 be merged. A group of deletionists have seized upon a hairy content dispute over one article (in which I was involved) as an opportunity to attempt to put the ax to perhaps 100 480 lists because they believe they are unencyclopedic, despite this never having been codified in any guidance. They obtain occasional agreers because of the poor state of the articles and their superficial appearance to directories. These are not EPGs, program directories, or unilateral output: These are lists of agreements contracted between very major players and are no different from sports rosters (compare cricketers), affiliate lists, music lists, or many featured lists. Denying the argument from other stuff only goes so far: The question is interpretation of NOTDIR, and other stuff informs that interpretation when the text itself is inapplicable. Thus the argument from other stuff has support from significant plurality. I am working on demonstrating encyclopedicity of such articles at User:the "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels (note that that is my permitted, segregated alternate identity). The current discussion is clearly nonconsensus and these titles should not have been nommed as a mass deletion, especially since the first deletion was overturned to userfication and an essentially similar miscellanea deletion discussion on the same history was nonconsensus. Nominate "Local channel availability ..." instead and get some traction first. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been pointed out, NOTDIR does not explicitly list out all types of directories that are not appropriate for WP, but only gives examples as to what types of directors are not encyclopedic. So just because this highly specific format isn't among the examples of NOTDIR doesn't exempt it from NOTDIR. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 480 of them per NOTDIR or at least the subset which is nothing more than a list ordered by channel number. IF you create article (chunks) like the top-half of User:The "good guy"/List of AT&T U-verse channels, that's a different story, but that's not really a list, and it's probably better merged into the main article anyway. The bottom half there however (section List of channels) is really begging for copyvio takedown notice, and it's just WP:GAMING the Wikipedia AfD system. If you want to maintain TV channel lists, do it on Wikia or similar sites. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. We're not a directory and there can be maintenance issues associated with these sorts of articles. I became very involved in trying to calm the edit-warring over List of AT&T U-verse channels and I was happy to see that article deleted. I've written much more on all of this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of AT&T U-verse channels but I think my points there have largely been covered by others above. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Angr (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clickly get there

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

Neologism invented today - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickly from same editor. Totally non-notable. PamD 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong speedy delete per the snowball clause. Cursory Googling turns up nothing but Wikipedia articles. This is, quite possibly, the most tremendously non-notable topic I have ever seen get a Wikipedia article. CtP (t • c) 00:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:ONEDAY. Past drafts of the article make it clear that this is a new coinage that somebody decided to put on Wikipedia. There's no evidence it's widely used. The phrase has 3 google hits, all from this online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but sometimes shouldn't. Come back in a few years if people are still saying it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Depending on how closely this follows the text from the now-deleted clickly, G4 might be an option, but really, the criteria for speedy deletion aren't the issue here. This is, by the creator's admission, a neologism invented by the article creator in the extremely recent past, and already deleted (speedily) under another name. This one should go equally quickly, and a firm word may need to be had to prevent additional recurrences. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't think of an obvious speedy (It has context, and it's not about an individual, animal, organization, web content or musical recording) but completely unsourced one line neologism. Unsalvageable. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circle Recording Studios

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

contested prod - no evidence from third party reliable sources that this is a notable studio, thus failing WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Searched the web. References found are disreputable without a question. WP:PROMOCantaloupe2 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Uthman ibn Affan. SarahStierch (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Uthman

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

Unsourced biography stub. Righteousskills (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Takehiro Murao

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

PROD removed by author, rationale was non-notable designer, written like an advertisement, and is a link farm. LegoKontribsTalkM 22:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unless there are sources I just plain missed, there's nothing out there that shows notability for this designer. Working on potentially notable restaraunts really only gives notability if the design is considered notable enough to mention you, which is rarely the case here. Even in the very, very brief 1-2 instances in the EL where he was mentioned, many weren't what Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source (Stone World Magazine) and the other two were such an incidentally brief mention that even if they were considered to be mentions in reliable sources, they'd only be considered trivial sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:MADEUP, article states that the term was coined yesterday. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clickly

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

Original Research, WP:MADEUP Anbu121 (talk me) 20:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, see what Wikipedia is not. Therefore, I say Delete Go Phightins! (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maganti Ram Chandran

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

Not notable 122.177.153.55 (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shankar Maruwada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basab Pradhan were created on WP:AFC by the IP, so I've moved both pages to their proper location. Steps 1 and 3 have been completed. I have no opinion on the subject — Frankie (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 23:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shankar Maruwada

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

Not notable, with a not-notable tag since Feb 2012 and an Orphan tag since 2010 122.177.153.55 (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maganti Ram Chandran and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basab Pradhan were created on WP:AFC by the IP, so I've moved both pages to their proper location. Steps 1 and 3 have been completed. I have no opinion on the subject — Frankie (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for the Worst

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

Non-notable web-site. The article is positively stuffed with references--almost all of which are to the web-site itself, while the few which aren't are almost all are passing mentions. CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Journal of International Economic Law

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

No independent sources, not indexed in selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The reference and links in the article give no more than catalogue listings, which are no evidence of notability. I am not willing to say "delete", as there may be perfectly good sources which are not mentioned in the article, but if nobody can find better sources then it will have to be a "delete". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Discussion centered around WP:GNG, with most participants feeling that the sources provided were press releases and therefore not independent; thus, notability under WP:GNG was not established. j⚛e deckertalk 21:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilly Bermudez Media

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

No evidence of notability. One reference is a press release, the other three about the owner, not the company. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although Ritchie's news results provided a hefty amount, a large portion of them are simply press releases. One of them mentioned that he ran for Miami-Dade County Commission in 2008 but I haven't found any evidence confirming that he won. This article's miaminewtimes.com reference (second reference) mentions that he also ran for the Florida House of Representatives 116th district in 2009 but I also haven't found any evidence suggesting that he won. These two candidacies may suggest notability but it would be a stub at most. A Google News search for "Whilly Bermudez Group" (it appears to be the accurate name) provided mostly press releases and one mention through a Spanish-language news article that also contains personal details about Whilly Bermudez so this suggests that the company itself is not notable. Bermudez is also a board member of the Institute for Child & Family Health but that wouldn't support an appropriate article. The only true significance would be the two candidacies but, as mentioned, that would be it. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The media company appears to have no independent coverage at all. All references cited in the article are press releases. The person, Whilly Bermudez, is somewhat better known (described here as an "event marketer"}, but two unsuccessful runs for office do not meet WP:POLITICIAN, and any personal coverage he received was simply about his campaigns.[14] --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A search turns up only press releases, which are not WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG on not enough coverage in independent reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for lack of independent coverage Fireflo (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asianet Pakistan

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

There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. No independent sources are cited in the article. The first page of hits from a Google search were: two pages from Asianet Pakistan's own web site, Asianet Pakistan's page on a web site that markets pictures on behalf of subscribers, Facebook, Twitter, this Wikipedia article, Asianet Pakistan's page on a business marketing site, and so it continues on subsequent pages. There does not seem to be any substantial coverage in independent sources. (Note: The original version of the article was blatant spam, created by a single-purpose editor who clearly has a conflict of interest. The article was substantially despammed when a G11 speedy deletion was proposed. A PROD was removed by the creator of the article without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There aren't any significant sources about the company itself at this time. Google News found one mention as a photo credit here and Google News archives provided several results including one promotional press release about the company signing a partnership agreement with a company. The third to the last result is also a press release mentioning that the company supported press offices affected by a Pakistan earthquake. Aside from that, the other results are press releases that Asianet Pakistan released for their clients. Honestly, it's not surprising that there are few significant results, considering that it is rare to find significant sources about press release companies themselves. Additionally, the purpose of these companies are only to provide press releases for their clients, nothing else. It is possible that additional sources may not be English but rather Punjabi, Pashto or Urdu, but I doubt it as it seems Asianet Pakistan has released English-language works. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of sources establishing its importance. SalHamton (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Puranagaram

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

"Upcoming" film article provides just 2 links, both brief mentions (one a student news site) which do not establish notability. This brief article has been flagged for lack of notability for months but nothing has been added to indicate the film has become notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - We should take to mind that any reliable sources may not be English, considering that the film is from India. Regarding the "flagged but nothing has been added", from experience, I have noticed that it is unlikely that users from India would be competent enough to edit an English encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caribou Mathematics Competition

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

fails WP:GNG. mere 1 gnews hit [16]. and nothing from a major canadian broadcaster [17] . let's see if the usual suspects turn up. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
being sponsored by a notable organisation does not guarantee notability. You've only provided one source not "lots". LibStar (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
please provide actual sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Terrible topic on what appears to be a notable subject Drmies (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiber optic adapter

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

Has no claim to notability. Contested PROD. Created by a puppetmaster, probably while blocked.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Google search indicates that it's a product from multiple vendors. Article is probably not a good starting point for the topic so I won't be sad if we have to start over. Puppetmaster/blocked accusations don't help here. -—Kvng 03:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey Khaliel

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

No tour, no charts, no veriable records - sources given are more sort of social media, not independents one. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Ben Ben (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:
Kacey Khaliel production discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The CaliBoyzClub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--Ben Ben (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ben Ben (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: advertising on two of the pages, all three are not super-encyclopedic, and not referenced at all once you remove the non-reliable sources. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War of Conquest (game)

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

Non-notable online game with a single two outside sources. Orphaned. No longer online due to U.S. gambling laws. Also note that I am the creator of this article (but G7 doesn't apply). DMurphy (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you created this article, but you are now begging for it to be deleted, I take it that you would not be too upset if the article were deleted! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laskar Bali

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

I declined this G11 CSD, but I cannot find any reliable sources which would suggest that this organisation is notable. I have found some sources which seem to suggest that this is a violent gang (such as this) which, if true, would mean the article in its current form should be deleted as a hoax (I chose not to speedy delete on those grounds because I'm not well enough informed about the organisation). So either: its a hoax and should be deleted, or it is not notable and should be deleted. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was the one who tagged it "{{db-spam}}", as it seemed promotional, orphaned, and unreferenced, and its only external link was to the organization's facebook page. Its notability has not been demonstrated. None of those situations have changed.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Carty

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

Non-notable autobiography; only escapes speedy because of the claim that a book he contributed to is widely used as a college text. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus is reached; hope is expressed for further improvement to the article. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VTD-XML

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

I will admit that I don't know what the heck this is about, but I feel that the article doesn't show that it is notable and is also trying to promote it. This came to my attention when deleting an apparently similar thing as being promotional. I hope that some with more understanding of the subject can say yea or nay to it. If it is promotional, it's not blatant enough for CSD and a request was declined by an admin quite a few edits ago. Peridon (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question for the nominator - I'm no expert in XML so I may just be exposing my ignorance here, but I think I need more info to form an opinion. My first foray through this article shows lots of technical posts that indicate a discussion about the topic that goes back at least to 2004. I'm not claiming to have formed an opinion about the topic's notability yet, so I wonder if you can elaborate on what is your concern... that Notability is not claimed? that notability is not proven through citations to RS? (there are plenty of citations, but the RS may be in question)... and for "promotional", I didn't see an obvious pattern. What is the concern here? Who/what do you think the article may be promoting, and can you provide any examples? I'd be inclined to tag this article as too technical for most audiences, but I didn't see what was driving the AFD Nom? 174.31.162.221 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is about treating an XML document as a binary file and pre-parsing it to store byte-offset locations of notable structures and content in the document. Such indexing of binary files has been done forever, but applying it to XML data is relatively new. The project is downloadable on Sourceforge and has been written up in 3rd party articles, e.g., (There was a link here, but Wikipedia has blacklisted java.dzone.com. Ridiculous.) As a viable alternative to DOM and SAX APIs, I think this approach and thus this article is notable enough. I agree that the article is mildly promotional, emphasizing advantages over disadvantages, but there are some disadvantages listed. I'd recommend rewriting to make the article more neutral, not deleting it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark viking (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am the author of this article outraged by ignorant people having nothing to do but messing other people's useful creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.92.214 (talk • contribs)
  • I'll evaluate this against the WP:GNG and then make a judgment. First I'll look at the sources cited, then I'll look for others on the web. Ref 1 doesn't mention VTD-XML. Ref 2 is a slideshow presentation, not a WP:RS. Ref 3 is a technical information site for developers. Ref 4 is a broken link. Ref 5 covers VTD-XML in some depth, but is technical like Ref 3. Ref 6, 7 and 8 are all technical articles of the same type. Refs 9 and 10 aren't loading for me. Ref 11 is a technical article. Ref 12 is a pdf presentation probably not suitable as a WP:RS. Ref 13 is another technical summary. Ref 14 is a position paper by Jimmy Zhang, not a reliable source. Ref 15 and 16 are technical articles. Ref 17 is a SourceForge page that appears mainly promotional in nature. Ref 18 is a technical opinion article. Ref 19 is the SourceForge site. Ref 20 is another technical article. Ref 21 is another technical article. Ref 22 is a slideshow, not a WP:RS. Ref 23 is a position paper by Jimmy Zhang. Ref 24 is a technical article. It's worth noting that almost all of the secondary coverage in technical journals is by Jimmy Zhang of XimpleWare. XimpleWare is a privately held and presumably for-profit company, per its website. The company appears to be promoting VTD-XML. Thus Zhang is not really an independent journalist when it comes to VTD-XML. The only technical publication reference that does not mention Zhang is one by Viktor Volkman in another technical journal here in which Volkman says he got all of the examples from Zhang. This makes me wonder about Volkman's neutrality. I suspect that this is a concept or piece of software being promoted by Jimmy Zhang and XimpleWare, in part through articles in various technical publications. Thus these sources in my view are not sufficiently independent of the subject itself and not sufficiently reliable under WP:GNG. I did a search and could not find evidence that anyone other than Zhang (except for Volkman) has taken any sort of significant notice of VTD-XML. Thus I believe at this point the correct action is delete for lack of secondary reliable sources under WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 12:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also simply as a point of information in case other editors are interested (this does not affect the current discussion directly and is not an argument for deletion) see User talk:Jzhang2007 for numerous cases of previous deletion of both XimpleWare and VTD-XML articles. --Batard0 (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of broken links have been removed from the article. Thanks for pointing it out. VTD-XML is a piece of free and open source software that many people are using around the world to solve every day problems. The purpose of the article is to give a technical overview. There are tons of third party user inputs available on the Web I can point you too. As to some of the articles that have been deleted, I must admit that I don't spend whole day on Wikipedia and am not familiar with the rules and regulations, but i would be glad to do what it takes to make VTD-XML's wikipedia page conforming to the standard. jzhang2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.92.214 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for responding and making those fixes. I think what would be helpful is evidence of significant coverage by someone other than you (this doesn't have to be cited in the article, we just need to know it exists) of VTD-XML. I know it's free and open-source, but you and XimpleWare seem to be promoting it; I'm not sure what the arrangement is, but I assume the idea is that you develop and promote the free software, and then make money by providing support services to people who use it. Is that correct? The issue with coverage by you is that you're not sufficiently independent of the subject under WP:GNG guidelines. Are there reports by independent journalists about VTD-XML? --Batard0 (talk) 07:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is not promotional and it shouldn't be proposed for deletion just because the proposer doesn't understand the subject. From what I can see it is highly informative and well referenced Fireflo (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted under criterion A7 by Orangemike (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Montanans for Healthcare Excellence

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

This article is promotional and has been edited by two brand-new accounts who have removed the tags and provided only links to the program's website. The program is also not notable. My search yields only several different sub-pages on the subject's main page. This article is promotional, unverifiable, and not notable. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as blatant promotion by astroturf SPA with same name as subject's website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Delaware_elections,_2012#Lieutenant_Governor. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Margie Waite-McKeown

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

per WP:POLITICIAN which states that being a candidate doesn't necessarily satisfy notability requirements...she doesn't seem to gain notability from anywhere but a party site and a governmental website that would list all candidates on the ballot. My google search yields a few voter guides, which Wikipedia is not, a campaign Facebook page, and a few other sporadic hits that don't make her notable. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

' fails WP:POLITICIAN; I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, falling short of WP:GNG too. --Batard0 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Narendra Modi. MBisanz talk 22:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Narendra Modi's Google+ Hangout

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

I acknowledge that some speeches by politicians are notable (see Category:Speeches). So can interviews, through this seems much less common (see Category:Interviews). I guess it is not impossible for a live chat to be notable, but I couldn't find a single example on Wikipedia for a precedent, and in either case, this particular article does not strike me as a notable event. The event has generated some media coverage, but did it generate enough to make it notable? I have serious doubts about that, and I'd invite others to debate whether chats can be notable, and whether this one is. PS. I have no problem with the article being merged to Narendra Modi, I can see this as a valid section in his bio. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I guess deleting the article and adding the same info to another article is not possible for copyright reasons. Did you meant a merge? --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the info. But why would that be a copyright violation? I was not aware of this issue. Anyway, I did not vote as merge because I don't think this subject matter even deserves a full section in a WP article. Maybe 1-2 sentences at max. Aurorion (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to CC-BY-SA license, attribution must be given to the editor who provided the content. Usually, the revision history page takes care of this. But, when the info from one article (source) is added to another article (destination) and if the source article is deleted, the attribution to the editor who provided the content is also lost. When you merge the contents of the source article to the destination, the edit summary of the destination article should mention that the content is copied from the source article. This would retain the attribution to the editor inside the history of the redirect. After a merge has been performed, the content on the destination article can be copy edited or summarized or cut down by any one, but the redirect must not the deleted. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always copy the history of the page at the time to get attribution - attribution doesn't have to be done via link. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 22:55, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that the nominator's rational is highly based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That only applies to deletion !votes. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe argument is not about notability: it's aboutwhether the topic is worth its own article. Which, as my merge "vote" above indicates, I do not believeto be the case.TheLongTone (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Aurorion. Not at all notable and doesn't need any mention. It is just something done by a politician and I cannot see how is this notable. In past we have seen all articles regarding Twitter accs' of celebs getting deleted. On comparing them to this, this article isn't even near to what we call WP:N. TheSpecialUser TSU 01:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my !vote is merge. I have striked out delete and switched to merge. --Anbu121 (talk me) 12:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but my immediate observation was against the existence of a silly article like this, and I found Anbu's reasoning to merge is apt for proposing its deletion. However, I have no objection in including the gist of this article in Narendra Modi. AshLey Msg 09:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction of Slovenian currency

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

Seems like this article is purely original research. Eleassar my talk 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Wiley (rapper). (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ascent (wiley album)

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

The album has virtually no sources nor is it notable per WP:NMUSIC. quite speculative as its a WP:FUTURE event. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 15:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Editors participating were unable to discover sources they felt rose to WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 21:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCP-087 (video game)

[edit]
SCP-087 (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable game based on a creppypasta site that itself is non notable. Completely unreferenced, external links lead only to the game's website and material linked to the subject. The article also has tone issues and reads like an advertisement in some places. Googling the game yields a lot of hits for forum posts and social media about the game, but I can't seem to find any significant coverage from reliable sources. RPGMakerMan (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceTree technologies

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

I am also nominating the following product page for deletion:

Neither of the company nor the product appear to pass the necessary criteria of having multiple, independent reliable sources as mentioned in WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Instead, the company is a recent startup with a novelty product. As such, I am submitting them for deletion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Editors were unable to find sources they felt evidenced notability under WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 21:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P Jainulabdeen

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

Does not meet wiki:GNG criteria, also a recreation of already deleted article, notability is in doubt as most of the references are linked to personnel page Shrikanthv (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News archives found three English sources here (claims that his group, TNTJ, is the most powerful movement of Tamil Nadu but this is the only source I have found), here, here and here. Using the Tamil name that the article lists, I searched Google Tamil News and it provided one result but, due to the alphabetic differences, all the content never appears properly. It is possible that additional sources may not be English and Internet-based. There are insufficient sources at this time. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of notable sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete due to Lack of sources. You can safely assume that if english sources are not available online for a subject, tamil sources will also be not available online. Indian media is not matured. I am not voting based on assumption only, I have searched for sources in both languages, in vain --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that. I am ready to reconsider if someone cites a reliable offline source. --Anbu121 (talk me) 08:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources under WP:GNG. A search turns up a passing mention of his arrest and some other minor things, but nothing beyond trivial coverage. I allow the possibility of other coverage existing in Tamil, but do not have the capacity to investigate that myself. --Batard0 (talk) 07:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Although it seems clear further discussion and/or research is necessary, and redirecting may be desirable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures_with_efficient_protocols

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG's significant reliable source coverage requirement. Neither of the academics responsible for the research has a wikipedia article, and references are limited to the academics' own research. Did a search and didn't come up with anything saying otherwise. Batard0 (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This appears to be more frequently called something like the Camenisch–Lysyanskaya signature scheme, or alternatively SRSA-CL. Our article is in need of secondary sources rather than the primary source it gives, but there are plenty of them: this paper has 381 citations in Google scholar, and a search of Google books found around 1000 hits, the first few of them looking very relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with reservations): This article does seem like it could be notable, but I haven't been able to identify whether it is unique and framed properly. —Zujine|talk 15:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ammamanassinu

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

Not meeting the WIKI:GNG criteria and has no notablitly and reference tagging is not matching the statments Shrikanthv (talk) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 21:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarios technology

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

Insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Google News archive has nothing, nor does HighBeam Research. Could probably qualify for A7 speedy deletion, but since it's been PRODed previously I'm bringing it here instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlyMontserrat Flight 107

[edit]
FlyMontserrat Flight 107 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability Petebutt (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crashes of airliners are regularly included as background into carriers; this appears to be notable in so far as being the first for this airline, and with (unfortunately) significant mortality. Jkstark (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nom has provided zero argument as to why this article should be deleted. The word single word "notability" is nonsensical as they provide no reason why this has a "notability" issue, if that's even why the nom put this up for AfD to begin with. As the others have said, it passes our inclusion criterion. --Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:DENY and WP:EVENT, and the failure to meet the GNG. The article creator is a Community-banned serial sockpuppeteer with over one hundred different accounts. However, even if this was created by an editor of good standing, there is no significant widespread coverage, just reportage that the crash took place. By all means mention the crash in the FlyMontserrat article, but this does not warrant a separate article. YSSYguy (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are multiple references provided to back up the claims that this clearly did happen. Perhaps this article is a bit long winded but it is just being thorough. For the longest time, there wasn't even a page on FlyMontserrat until this article was published here. Hydraera
Nobody is disputing that it happened, but reporting that it happened does not automatically confer notability. There is no need to have an article about what is a tiny airline and then a seperate article about a crash involving the airline; and keeping this work of a persistent sockpuppeteer will only encourage him to keep creating accounts. YSSYguy (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep it because it happened and people died and media reported it" is also a pretty weak argument. Just about every single fatal car crash and every aircraft crash that occurs in Australia is mentioned in the media - they have a lot of space to fill. YSSYguy (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any crash with a commercial airliner, even with a small aircraft such as this one, generates significant attention from safety authorities, and reasonably extensive and lasting coverage in the media in general. The two delete votes above (YSSYguy and MilborneOne) believe that including the crash in the FlyMontserrat article is better, which is not a ridiculous viewpoint, but that resolution would involve merging and redirecting instead of deleting. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete or merge, however there is a strong sentiment (with which I happen to agree) that the articles should be renamed to "List of xyz typefaces" rather than "Samples of...". The sample images can remain, but these should be titled as proper list articles are. I won't mandate here that the articles be renamed, but I would highly encourage that they are renamed. If there is significant opposition to renaming the articles, then a discussion might need to take place first. If you need help moving the articles over redirects, contact me for assistance. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 17:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samples of sans serif typefaces

[edit]
Samples of sans serif typefaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Samples of display typefaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samples of monospaced typefaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samples of script typefaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samples of serif typefaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samples of simulation typefaces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not an article. We do not host image galleries on Wikipedia. Apparently prodded in 2009 but it didn't show up with a warning when I prodded it today. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is already a good List of typefaces article. The difference here is the images of the types. It could be a useful tool, but it is not comprehensive or encyclopedic. —Zujine|talk 05:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The List of typefaces is hardly as useful as these lists, because it does not have the images of the typefaces. I confess that I was one of the editors adding to some of these pages back in 2009, because I thought they were interesting and useful then, and I still do. Yes, I know that useful is not a criteria for retention, but it should not be held against an article, either.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partly persuaded by arguments below that merging is reasonable. A pure collection of images isn't, but lists can be illustrated (and on graphics topics, it's right they should). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge all to List of typefaces - If that list is ever to become a FL, it needs detailed content. The content in these nominated pages is an ideal start. Designer name, samples for comparison (like List of amphibians of Michigan) which are important given that this is a visual topic, etc. —Quiddity (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If merged, wouldn't they loose all the descriptive pictures? Dream Focus 08:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not rename these to "List of FOO typefaces", expand them to make them comprehensive, and turn list of typefaces, which just contains bare wikilinks, into a list of lists? I also think that the added content, including illustrations, is the way to properly annotate such lists, and doing so does not make them mere "image galleries" within the meaning of WP:NOT. We want lists to be illustrated if feasible. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and rename. They serve a valid encyclopedic purpose like any other WP:SAL. All fonts in these lists are blue linked, thus notable. Clearly such lists exist elsewhere, so WP:LISTN is satisfied as well. I note that the main list lacks details such as [sub-]classification and designer, which these lists do provide. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid list. It certainly overlaps with List of typefaces but the extra detail provided makes it worthwhile. If it was just a gallery, I would say delete, but it's also useful for navigation and summarizes factual encyclopedic information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment–In addition to the nominator's rationale, there were three arguments in favor of deletion made on 11 October. Since then there have been a variety of rationales for keeping the article, plus arguments surrounding merger, re-organization, or other clean-up. In my opinion, keeping this discussion open for another week is unlikely to produce much change in the balance of arguments for or against deletion. Cnilep (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - No prose, no sources. Both of these can and should be added to the list. Under WP:LISTPURP, the lists do seem to be a valuable information source. If these type of lists are limited to covering only those items listed in Category:Typefaces by style, I don't think there would be too much resistance. However, I think the entrenched WP:OWN removal of no references templates as purportedly justified by Wikipedia_talk:Typeface_list_collaboration#Samples_of_script_typefaces indicates it's time to delete and restart with new editors who are willing to develop these lists per Wikipedia:Core content policies. When you post something like:

*******************************************************************************
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
█████████████████PLEASE READ THE MESSAGE AT THE TALKPAGE OF THIS ARTICLE BEFORE EDITING███████████████
██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
*******************************************************************************

in the edit box[18] and remove policy based templates without complying with them and justify your actions based on a two+ year old very limited discussion with a Typeface list task force, that's WP:OWN. Merge all would have the same effect as delete all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ATOMac

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

unreferenced for over a year. Can't find any good sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I haven't found any relevant sources to a software product despite searching with Google News and Books. The article never mentions a release date but it's likely that it was never formally announced or never received any news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SPEEDY DELETE by me: CSD#G5, created by sockpuppet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Hakobyan

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, no sources. —Zujine|talk 13:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in entrepreneurship

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Unencyclopedic essay Eeekster (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Max Ellis

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

Non-notable photographer lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. Appears to be an autobiographical article. reddogsix (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:57, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Magierski

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

The first real coverage I found was negative press by someone with the same initials at the article author. Not sure if AfD makes sense here, but thought it was an interesting coincidence. The current given reference is not a significant secondary source. heather walls (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There are sources that have him giving a quote or mention him in an article about the company. There has to be sources discussing him, not just the company. Bgwhite (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Due to the low participation, this is a soft delete, and the article can be undeleted through a request at WP:REFUND. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Williamson

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A Google search for "Dan Williamson" sports did not appear to produce much more than some short news stories about him becoming sports director at a television station. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 06:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News and Google News archives found zero relevant sources and he's probably only locally known. Additionally, radio hosts rarely receive news coverage about themselves but rather event appearances or topics that they may have discussed. Exclusions are nationally known personalities such as Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. This radio personality is not notable to Wikipedia standards at this time. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Ganendra

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

BLP without any treatment in secondary sources. Created by COI account along with article on wife that was barely kept in an AfD; this one has even less claim to notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News found small mentions here and here, Google Books provided a payment required result (third and final result from the top) which is probably another small mention, considering that my first two links also mentioned the road construction agreement. Google News also provided one news article here which features one quote by Dennis Ganendra. There are insufficient sources to establish notability and an appropriate article at this time. Google Books also provided insufficient results. Google Scholar provided one piece of work by him which would probably be insufficient for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and the other two are small mentions. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Appears to be merely routine crime news - note all sources are from a two day period, etc. WilyD 08:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jodon F. Romero

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

Fails WP:1E and WP:EVENT. Subject is not notable. WP is not News. Article does not indicate lasting effects of this man's suicide. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 03:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern_Combat_4:_Zero_Hour

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Modern_Combat_4:_Zero_Hour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:N and is a blatant violation of WP:RECENT...this game was announced today, major verifiability issues as well as speculation on release date. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or otherwise incubate, as a cursory Google search reveals multiple sources with significant coverage to corroborate the article, including Pocket Gamer, which is certainly independent and reliable. Suggesting that the article violates WP:RECENT, or alternatively WP:TOOSOON, misapprehends these essays as guidelines or policies, and the guiding principle in applying such advice is discretion. Since the release of Modern Combat 4: Zero Hour is imminent, and given the reliability of the material presently included in the article, I don't believe that either essay is applicable. Mephistophelian (contact) 00:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Appears to be non-notable shovelware that is to be released in the future on a yet-to-be-announced date. What sets this game apart from others? How has notability been established at such an early stage? iOS pumps out thousands of similar shovelware every year, what makes this one so special? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gameloft has the leading role in video game publishing on handheld devices and Modern Combat 4 can be seen by far the most popular FPS game on iOS. Because the release is just imminent and tons of details about the game have been published (see also the [www.modern-combat.net/ official website]), I would say keep. --intforce (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This series is established and, as mentioned, Gameloft is a well-established dev/publisher. I'm concerned about the sources, given no overlap with WP:VG/RS, but since the AfD is about topic notability and not article quality, I tagged it as {{incomplete}} and look forward to its expansion. (Overall, I do agree that stronger notability standards should be established for VG.) czar · · 17:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: There's a slight element of WP:CRYSTAL here, and yet there has been significant coverage of the upcoming game in independent sources that are reliable, as far as I can tell. Thus I think it meets the WP:GNG but only barely. --Batard0 (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Necrovation

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

Non-notable band. A single ref from about.com doesn't meet reliable sourcing Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article uses a reliable book as a source. Just because the article is minimal does not mean the band is non-notable. The obscurity of a topic should not be considered as lack of notoriety.--Malconfort (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak delete - at the end of the day, the subject still needs to meet WP:GNG / WP:BAND and with the sources included at the moment, I don't think it does:
1. While I can't read the summary of the band (only select pages are provided), an e-copy of most of that book is available here. I won't make a judgement about what might be included in the book but if it gives similar coverage to that given to other bands in the book then I would say that counts as "significant coverage" in a "reliable source". But we probably need to verify exactly what the book says about the subject.
2. I'm 50-50 about metalmaniacs.com - it doesn't seem "obviously unreliable" as a source but it also wouldn't seem to have the same editorial rigour as NYTimes.com or something like that. I wouldn't be hanging my case on that one but it doesn't seem so bad that it should be removed.
3. The one from about.com is pretty bad. It fairly obviously falls into the WP:USERG category and would be like using Wikipedia as a source. Should probably be removed as non-RS.
So my conclusion would be that we probably have 1 1/2 reliable sources, maybe two if we push the issue. That's not enough as far as I'm concerned. But my conclusion is "weak delete" for a reason - if we can find one or two more sources then I think the question would be beyond doubt. Do you have any others? Stalwart111 (talk) 04:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not bad, though the band itself doesn't inherit notability from its work and that is, for all intents and purposes, a review of one of their albums, rather than significant coverage of the band itself. It would certainly be useful for verifying some of the content in the article, perhaps, but I'm not sure it necessarily contributes to WP:GNG all that much. Certainly heading in the right direction, though. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree that bands and their products get an exemption from WP:INHERIT (and so I'm lukewarm on the second source), the first of those two sources is (in my opinion) pretty good. In combination with the ones listed above, I think they allow the subject to meet the criteria at WP:GNG (though they would obviously need to be added to the article). Good work! I have changed my stated view above. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vicenco Blagaić

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

I proposed the deletion of this back in 2010 because of WP:BIO. The re-created article still doesn't fix the problem. It looks like promotion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social media bank

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

There are no sources to establish that this is even a thing. Fails WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Woodlands House School (Boy's Wing). MBisanz talk 15:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands House School (Girl's Wing)

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

It doesn't meet WP:GNG. WP:NHS says "Like any other topic, articles on schools must be able to meet notability standards". This doesn't as yet. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Anbu121 - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The school has not attracted significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG. Its mere existence is not sufficient to show its notability. The references cited above are passing mentions and fail WP:CORPDEPTH, which applies to schools. If the result is keep, which I think it shouldn't be, there certainly isn't enough coverage of the girls' wing to make it independently notable of the boys' wing and thus the two articles should be merged. I did a search and could find no further examples of significant coverage. --Batard0 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-André Farine

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Not enough coverage in third party sources specifically about him. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atop the Fourth Wall

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

Article about what appears to be a non-notable web-comic. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's...not a web-comic, but a long-running web show. I've been meaning to do more work on the article, but real life has caught up with me. DodgerOfZion (talk)
  • Delete - yeah, not a comic but a web series about comics. That said, I can't see any evidence it is a notable web series. I couldn't find any sources that could be used to establish notability, but if DodgerOfZion has some they should be considered. As such, Delete, unless someone can produce some proper sources. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a case where Wikipedia's notability standards creak at the seams. While there may be little coverage in traditional sources to establish notability, in the world of the Internet this is one of the things that "everybody knows it", and is discussed widely. The trouble is do we WP:IAR on that basis - that the article is likely to be something people are looking for information on having heard about it on the Internet? I'd say yes, even thought that's a borderline WP:ITSUSEFUL argument; but of course, your mileage may vary. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (Blizzard Entertainment project)

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

The entire article is about an unannounced video game based on speculation, heavily violating WP:FUTURE. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Blizzard_Entertainment#Titles for now - Agreed, the game appears to have been heavily fueled by speculation, not absolute confirmation. Although the article claims the game started production in 2012, this is not confirming that the game will be released. As a result of this, I believe redirecting it may be better than deleting it, leaving the doors open for when the game may be officially released. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than speculation since the game has been confirmed multiple times and been in production for 4 years according to a recent source. I updated the article and removed any speculation (except for the line discussing speculation that was later confirmed). There is plenty of information sourced from RS. I also read WP:FUTURE much different than the nominator: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur". The project is notable regardless of success. A failed project can even become a featured article if given enough care.Cptnono (talk) 05:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Cptnono. - hahnchen 19:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are enough sources to be found; such as those found in [24], [25], [26], and some others that can be easily found through most search engines. This article is not even breaching WP:FUTURE without a concensus made against this Article.--Bumblezellio (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has some excellent sources and all sketchy sources are easily rectified with the amount of information available. I'd doubt this article's ability to mime StarCraft: Ghost (per above) but there is enough material available to establish notability. I also disagree with the characterization of the article's content as speculation. Without a published retrospective, these types of RS are the most reliable history of a game development process. czar · · 17:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the section cited by SwisterTwister above. Under WP:CRYSTAL: "While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." In my view, this product announcement is too vague and its release too undetermined to warrant its own article, even though there's speculation in reliable sources. --Batard0 (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Flies past WP:N with a speed that could embarass Superman. I'm a bit sensitive to the concerns that the CEO would rather we didn't have an article, but without a concrete problem, or any obvious issue in the article, I don't see how I could justify something like that. WilyD 08:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SEOmoz.org

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

Does not appear to have sufficient notability to warrant stand alone article per WP:ORG. For there to be notability, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources are expected. Per the same policy, quoted self published materials and Press Release are excluded. At this the article is based on self published information and there's not sufficient sources that I can find at this point to consider this company genrally notable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 16:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find that support on general notability on company is rather weak. The coverage received in cited mainstream news for national circulation is trivial and significant coverage is mainly in local paper for Puget Sound and Seattle area, the locale where this business is established. per WP:ORGDEPTH coverage of local circulation is not much of indication of general notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — The large amount of prominent coverage at Google Books alone is sufficient to meet WP:N and exceed the trivial coverage outlined in WP:CORPDEPTH. Several books on Search engine optimization repeatedly mention SEOmoz.org and discuss it in depth.[27][28][29] etc. SEOmoz.org is frequently cited as an authority in mainstream news articles about SEO (Hotwiring Your Search Engine; Google a Topic, and the Results Are Based on Popularity, Right? Wrong. Inside the Shadowy World of 'SEOs'. Stone, Brad. Newsweek, December 19, 2005. Net Investment; Your Money Sunday Mirror (London, England), February 26, 2012. Web site search engine optimization: a case study of Fragfornet Gandour, Aurélie; Regolini, Amanda. Library Hi Tech News28. 6 (2011): 6-13. The Goodness in the Evil of SEO Rushton, ErinView Profile; Funke, Susan. Searcher19. 9 (Nov 2011): 30-35.) There's definitely a lot of chaff out there: large numbers of press releases and lightly paraphrased press releases mention this company, especially in the semi-legitimate marketing news media. Nonetheless, it is clearly one of the most notable companies in its field and is treated as such in reliable sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SEO is basically the art of self promotion and referencing each other. Book #2 If you read the intro, it shows that it is the opinions of the author, so its his personal opinion on SEOMoz and its a primary source. #3. a book in which SEOMoz's Rand Fishkin is one of the three co authors dropping his company's names... need I say more? SEOMoz.org has been mentioned about it in mainstream news article, but it was not an in-depth coverage recognizing it as an authority. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue. Search engines are complex. Most webmasters will make serious errors when constructing sites. SEO is the practice of fixing these errors so that the sites have more value for users, and work better with search engines. You ought to avoid sweeping generalizations when you lack knowledge. Regretably there are shady characters who try to perform SEO by gaming the system. The industry rejects this approach. Jehochman Talk 12:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The knowledge you seem to lack is that personal attacks on other editors, including claims they're ignorant, are simply unnecessary. Please stop. If your arguments have merit, you should be able to make them without this sort of behavior. Msnicki (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, good deal of coverage in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What are some reliable secondary source that covers this company in depth and in line with whats described at WP:RS? I had trouble as did User:Msnicki locating them.
  • Keep SEOMoz.org has the top SEO blog and is probably the most credible and widely respected source for SEO expertise. Comments above suggest it clearly meets notability. We should not have a bias against covering marketing topics. Corporate 13:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I investigated invesp.com. It cleary apears to be SEO insider page and it lists links for a lot of spammy websites. I see some interdependence between SEO websites and mutual promotion. It certainly doesn't appear to meet the burden of substantial, independent, credible and secondary WP:RS.
Are you asking me to prove the negative, that reliable sources don't exist? Or are you just objecting to my pointing out the obvious of what an SEO does? Either way, I don't think I'm trashing anyone, though you seem to be trashing me and I'm not real happy about that. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again to strike your unsupported accusation that SEOmoz is using Wikipedia for promotion. You may not sling loose words to suggest that somebody is engaging in unethical behavior, unless you have actual evidence. SEOmoz doesn't want to be covered by Wikipedia. I am very sure that they had nothing to do with writing this article. Despite the fact that a lot of bad actors give SEO a negative reoutation, it is unfair to stereotype all people involved in the field, because some are legitimate and ethical. Jehochman Talk 11:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm going to ask you again to stop attacking me. I'm entitled to my opinion. The whole point of an SEO is promotion and anyone who's been through a few AfDs knows that's one of the attractions having an article on WP. That's why we have a discussion of WP:PROMOTION. You obviously have a connection to SEOmoz and its founder – you already admitted as much – and it appears to me you have a bias that interferes with your ability to participate in this AfD in a civil manner. If anything is to be struck, I think it should be your !vote and the rest of your comments and that you should move on to AfDs where you don't have a bias and can participate without insulting and attacking other editors. Your behavior is simply beyond the pale and it certainly isn't helping your case. Please stop NOW. Msnicki (talk) 14:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know every serious player in the SEO field. Your opinion is fine. The problem is you have assumed that SEOmoz is engaging in self-promotion. I'm quite sure they aren't. As for my !vote, did I !vote keep or delete? Since I wrote my !vote I know that it was a comment, meant to shed light on these matters, not sway the discussion one way or the other. I don't care at all if the article is kept or deleted. What I dislike is people jumping to assumptions of bad faith against SEOmoz or SEO professionals in general. Jehochman Talk 18:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like assumptions, don't make them. I have not claimed this was self-promotion, merely that the article appears to be promotion. Pretty obviously, there are editors here, like you and Eclipsed (who's self-declared) who have a WP:COI. SEOmoz's own blogs (e.g., here) talk about spamming other sites as a means of promotion and one obvious way beyond just blatantly spamming them yourself is to get friends to do it for you. More to the point, most editors on WP are anonymous, which is one reason why personal knowledge doesn't count for squat. (From WP:No original research, "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors.") You have no way of knowing how your personal knowledge stacks up against mine or Cantaloupe2's. It takes sources, not repeated assertions that you know better to establish notability. So enough of the personal indignation and silly talk of bad faith and superior knowledge. I don't buy it. Msnicki (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good until you go look at those sources. The articles in Geekwire, Venturebeat, Techcrunch, Forbes's and O'Reilly are all basically blog posts, interviews with the founder (making them WP:PRIMARY) and routine coverage of company press releases. I haven't spotted anything that rises above the routine. So rather than list the names of bunch of publications, how about identifying the specific articles in those pubs upon which you base your claim that SEOmoz is notable. I don't see it. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re: GeekWire. I personally find it to be a heavily biased sourced. Many cited articles were local Puget Sound & Seattle WA publications. What about GeekWire? "GeekWire is an independent technology news site and online community based in Seattle, Wash.". "Editor’s note: SEOmoz is a GeekWire annual sponsor. ". Who's one of the prominent sponsors for them? SEOMoz of course. I lean towards borderline paid inclusion and a hint of local companies scratching eachother's back. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so which specific sources do you rely on? Anyone can claim it's out there somewhere if you don't have to identify anything specific. A lot of WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't count. Msnicki (talk)
I cited Newsweek, Information Today, the London Sunday Mirror and others above which verify the site is an authority in its field. Besides my pointing to three book citations, out of the 800 hits at Google Books. There's more at Google Scholar. It is disingenuous to keep complaining that you haven't been given both specific citations, and large volumes of search hits. I'm suspicious of SEO companies too, and I find them distasteful, and no doubt many Wikipedia articles about this industry are astro-turfed and should be deleted. But this one isn't even close. The burden is on those who want to delete to refute not just one or two citations, but hundreds of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are the essence of trivial mentions. And you're wrong: The burden is on those arguing that the subject is notable to provide the evidence, not for those of us who question it to explain why WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid. Msnicki (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't access the full article on highbeam. In Information Today, SEOMoz was a mere foot note. Mentioned != featured. I have some doubt Brad Stone is completely neutral. No big surprise SEO talked about this coverage where they offer a link to Brad's site. Impartiality or back-scratching? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Dennis major COI? I just happened to take a look at your user page and I see that you work for a company called Tableau software. I see SEOMoz.org getting mentioned on blog posted on Tableau here. I see Tableau getting talked about on SEOMoz 1 2 and apparently a business relationship going as far back as 2010 here. I think there's a strong COI as it appears they're your business partner. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I guess you'll need to shop that one to an appropriate board and see if they bite. The decsision to keep or delete this article is going to be made based on the merits of the sources. Anyone can see that the news and books coverage speaks for itself. This ad hominem is noise, and it's disruptive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked, shocked to find rampant conflict of interest in an AfD of article about an SEO. And, Dennis, can it. You should be ashamed you didn't disclose this on your own. Msnicki (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I work for a company that has hundreds of customers, and since my work is technical, not in sales or marketing, I don't waste my time trying to keep track of every company blog post, about SEO or any other field, where some random person comes along in the comments section and posts a link to some other web site that might also have a Wikipedia page, that may have bought my company's software two or three years ago. Or sold something to my company; I don't know which. Don't care.

What's so hilarious is that mentioning a company in the comments section of a blog post is a "link" and evidence "major conflict of interest", but hundreds of mentions in news articles and books aren't enough to keep an article. All I can say to that is that Wikipedia is not a battleground and when you are so obsessed with "winning" that you start making personal attacks and imagining, Glenn Beck-like, secret evil connections and conspiracies, it might be time to calm down and take a break.

Please don't attack any more editors in this discussion; you've done quite enough of that. It's tiresome, and it isn't going to help get this article deleted. There are appropriate venues to make complaints about other editors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Get back to us when you've got two good articles, not just WP:GOOGLEHITS and silly indignation. The fact that an SEO(!!) would have lots of hits on Google could not be more meaningless. Msnicki (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.Parkhurst, Emily (June 15, 2012), "Questions for: Rand Fishkin, CEO, SEOMoz", Puget Sound Business Journal
  • B. Dudley, Brier (May 1, 2012), "$18 million shot of capital makes startup SEOmoz feel good", Seattle Times
  • C.Dudley, Brier (October 29, 2007), "CEO puts fresh face on SEO", Seattle Times, p. C1
  • D.Mickey, Bill (September 2012), "Marrying SEO and social analytics tools: SEOmoz acquires Followerwonk", Folio: the Magazine for Magazine Management, vol. 41, no. 7, p. 26
  • E. Casey, Kevin (July 9, 2012), "What's Next In SEO For SMBs: 6 Predictions", InformationWeek
--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I lettered them for easier dicussion. A,B,C. Local coverage of local audience.WP:ORGDEPTH. D:uncertain if that's a mainstream media. It is based on what subject says, so it is arguably primary source. E: It is from the interview with the subject himself and appears to be a blog section, so it seems to fit the definition of Wikipedia that its WP:OR
--Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator." WP:PRIMARY in no way defines primary sources as interviews with journalists. You can't (plausibly) just make up your own notability criteria. Media organizations choose interview subjects because they are notable, and that is non-trivial coverage. The fallacy WP:TRIVCOV comes into play too -- the standard is merely that the coverage is non-trival. That's all. Next fallacy is WP:ITSLOCAL; The Seattle Times is a major US newspaper. Folio: the Magazine for Magazine Management has been in print for 40 years. Oh, and "appears to be a blog"? See WP:JUSTABLOG. I have no idea why you are linking to WP:OR; it's of no relevance to a citation written by one Kevin Casey of Informationweek. I'm not Kevin Casey.

You might wish that Wikipedia's notability requirements were something altogether different, but wishing does not make it so. And please don't refactor any more of my comments without permission. See WP:TPO.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is WP:PRIMARY because the subject helps create the article and gets to say whatever he likes. It's his words being printed. The interviewer may edit it down somewhat but he does not create a secondary analysis. Interviews are basically never helpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a novel idea, but WP:Notability says no such thing. The essay Wikipedia:Third-party sources makes no mention of disqualifying interviews. Maybe suggest a change at Wikipedia talk:Notability and see there is any support for that. But here we apply the guidelines as they are written now. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines and general understanding on WP are very clear that interviews are primary. From WP:PRIMARY: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. ... A secondary source is an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." From Primary source#Using primary sources: "Ideally, a historian will use all available primary sources created by the people involved, at the time being studied. In practice some sources have been destroyed, while others are not available for research. Perhaps the only eyewitness reports of an event may be memoirs, autobiographies, or oral interviews taken years later." From WP:ALLPRIMARY: "An author might write a book about an event that is mostly a synthesis of primary-source news stories (which is secondary material), but he might add occasional information about personal experiences or new material from recent interviews (which is primary material)." See also WP:Evaluating sources, where interviews are given as types of primary sources for numerous disciplines.
This is consistent with other scholarly views, e.g., University of Oregon: "Some examples of primary sources include: ... Speeches, interviews, letters", Princeton: "Some types of primary sources include ... interviews", Stanford: "Documents such as speeches, diaries, court records, and interviews are considered primary documents."
The whole point of an interview is to get the uncolored, first-hand, raw account from the subject himself. It does not present the interviewer's interpretation or analysis else it would not be an interview. Msnicki (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All it really takes to establish WP:NOTABILITY is basically two good articles of, say, 1000 words apiece, actually about the subject in WP:Reliable sources by authors having no connection to the subject offering more than routine coverage of the subject's press releases. I haven't seen those articles. All I've seen so far is a lot of vague WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments that with all those hits, the coverage must be out there someplace, plus some needless insults and bullying. That's not good enough. I've tried chasing down those claims and I can't find the substance. If there's really that much coverage, it shouldn't be that hard to identify two good articles. Msnicki (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously noticed my post, as you replied to it. I did not mention Google in any way (nor any other search engine for that matter). What, specifically, did you find insulting or bullying about my GNG claim? (I can only avoid these behaviours if other editors point them out to me.) --Nouniquenames 03:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note that INDY is only an essay. --Nouniquenames 03:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to you in my comment about unhelpful behavior. But I do think that merely listing a bunch of publications without identifying the specific articles you rely on is unhelpful in establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the leading organization in the field, according to the sources. The various sources in the subject are in some sense mutually-referential, but this is the case in any specialized subject, and does not make them irrelevant. The 1000 word "requirement" mentioned above is entirely imaginary and has no basis in guidelines or in practice here either--anything that is significantly more than a mention or directory entry is sufficient.As for interviews, it depends on the interview. Interviews which just give the interviewee a chance to say whatever he likes is not really independent & just another form of PR, but a proper interview by a reliable reporter can be a very good source. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wowza Media Systems

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

Insufficient support of notability for this company through secondary sources. Current sources on the page are from the company's own website, press or PR releases, or material from blogs (and not news blogs). A search of news articles revealed only press releases, product announcements, and merger announcements. In other words, there does not appear to be anything beyond routine coverage for companies. I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Google News found several results but, as mentioned, several of the sources are either insufficient or press releases rather than independent significant coverage. Google News archives provided additional results but several of them are press releases which is concerning, suggesting that this company has produced probably 98 (possibly leaning to 99) percent of any links. Although some of these press releases may be detailed, they would read like an advertisement thus inappropriate. One of the results here mentions one of the company's products but slightly reads like an advertisement. Unfortunately, the second page of Google News archives results continues with additional press releases, ugh. Google Books provided one result here that briefly mentions the company and focuses more with the product itself, there is another mention of the product here. Surprisingly, there is a German result here which appears to be another small mention. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Oppose: I agree that there is not much 3rd party coverage out there about this company, but they are a big player in the live-streaming game. Their main product, Wowza Media Server (at least as of 6 months ago) powered the biggest and fastest growing company in this area, twitch.tv. I'm not too surprised that the news is about the company using the technology, not the company developing it. I don't think it hurts to keep this article for a while, maybe 6 months to a year or so, to see whether the news reports come around. Also, as there is a Wowza Media Server article, I think an exception can be made for the company behind it. jheiv talk contribs 22:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally not object to incubating the article, but given that six months have passed already, I would have expected some coverage to start emerging by now. Also, the article for the product has three press releases for its sources and the other sounds suspiciously like a routine product announcement. Even if the product was notable, the producing company needs its own coverage. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communism in Washington State History and Memory Project

[edit]
Communism in Washington State History and Memory Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I feel this is a borderline case, but ultimately am in favor of a delete and merge into Pacific Northwest Labor and Civil Rights History Projects, because it doesn't appear to have attracted a lot of notice on its own. Per WP:NWEB and WP:N, it does not inherit notability from its parent project. Batard0 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be broken up; nearly all of it is history and nearly nothing about current events. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Werner-Gray

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

Spam lacking a solid claim to notability. awards shown are not major. full of sources that verify associated aspects but not anything to do with Werner Grey. Deceptive sourcing designed to mislead. Mostly a mix of primary and non reliable sources. Closest we may have is a The Times of India article but a quick look shows this is not a reliable source as it publishes false claims, demonstarting a lack of "fact-checking and accuracy." Werner Grey lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Her acting falls short multiple significant roles. (see also related afds The Earth Diet, On the Course, I Love Earth). duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:BASIC per [31], [32], [33]. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not accept promotional articles in Indian newspapers as being independent--they are clearly based on a PR effort. The Times of India one in particular makes an incorrect claim to the nature of her Miss Earth award (at least if the article in WP is to believed) , and is devoted to promotion of her "Earth diet". This leaves us without reliable sources for notability of popular culture figures in India, and I do not know how to deal with it except by making our own estimate of the importance of their careers. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SGH-F250

[edit]
Samsung SGH-F250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIR. No references, no claim to notability. Keφr (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but in the end all they provide specifications and reviews, which are often opinionated. There hasn't really been that much coverage over this particular model. The iPhone, in contrast, has a tonne Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 12:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
iPhone is not a particularly useful reference point for assessing notability. -—Kvng 03:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, what I meant is it's got a lot of coverage in things other than technology magazines. Something like Nokia 1100 perhaps, which got Reuters coverage Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 02:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All phones get reviewed somewhere (never mind product announcements). But this one doesn't even get the claimed two reviews. The one in French is not about this model. It just says at the bottom that the F250 is a better alternative because it's cheaper (at 130 euros) than the Samsung Elite at 200 euro, which is what the review is about. And http://www.mobile-review.com/ seems to says something about every phone. This article is unsourced WP:OR: "buggy software" etc. It's worth mentioning this phone in the general article about Samsung phones, but I don't see what's to be merged from here. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G5 - long term abuse JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CHaos

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

yes it has a ton of sources, but few seem to even be related to the subject, this at least is worth a discussion Go Phightins! (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SIASTO

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

Notability not established, but there is sufficient claim that I didn't think A7 would be applicable. Syrthiss (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Company provides software and has some coverage on topic. I think title should be changed to Siatso.com.Righteousskills (talk) 01:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doğan Türkmen

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

Falls under WP:BLP1E. Notable only because of a failed assassination attempt on his life. Has been on wikipedia since 2006, was AFD'd once and the result was no consensus. All relevant information is already covered in JCAG. George Spurlin (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reject and question: Mister Spurlin, continuing to try to eliminate all reference to victims of Armenian terrorism? (BTW thanks for editing the article just before proposing it for deletion...) --E4024 (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWould someone who wanted to eliminate all references do this? George Spurlin (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pexco, LLC

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

Fails WP:GNG on lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Only cited sources are the company itself and a press release posted on thestreet.com. A Google search doesn't turn up secondary source coverage outside of industry publications, which don't cut it under WP:CORPDEPTH ("media of limited interest and circulation"). Batard0 (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources in the article are either press releases or sources affiliated with the subject. None of them qualify as a reliable source. The Google test failed, so I'm doubtful an article can be written that is based on reputable sources independent of the subject and does not promote the subject. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 02:12, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RusFighters Sport Club

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

Fails WP:ORG which states: "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." So despite having some notable fighters associated to it, it fails to establish notability for an organization. WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 02:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the gym itself has spawned a few successful fighters, however, this article is a joke. To my mind, it fails CSD G11 as this article doesn't even attempt to establish notability, it just advertises the gym as though the writer worked for the gym. If it is to stay, the whole thing would have to be rewritten. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has added significant content to the article, he wrote text as 'we' and 'our'. G11 is correct now. Don't know, can we nominate CSD if AfD is in progress? --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 00:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once AfD is started it is best to let it run its course since if deleted it is much easier to CSD a recreated article The CSD on A7 is not clear cut in any case - unfortunate writing style aside.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, A7 may not pass. I'm thinking of G11. But it is understandable to not CSD while AfD. I doubt this article would survive AfD. --WingtipvorteX PTT ∅ 03:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be any significant independent coverage of this club. In fact, this article doesn't have any non-primary sources. The club may have some notable members, but notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete by RHaworth as G3 - hoax. (Non-admin technical closure)Ymblanter (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ (film)

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

Unreleased film, no sources. Fails WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 02:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax'. There's nothing out there to confirm any of this. A search brings up nothing that actually talks about this film. While none of the actors in this are as wildly noticable nowadays as say, Kristen Stewart, they're not complete unknowns either and mention of Juliette Lewis footage being used in a movie would be mentioned somewhere, as would mention of footage from any of the other movies used- especially Fear of a Black Hat. Considering that it's pretty much supposed to be along the lines of FOABH would also mean that it would merit a mention somewhere. Of course there's also the implications that N.W.H. is a fictional group and not really a real one. Finally, if there was enough done for the film to have a set release date, there would be some evidence of the film somewhere. Since there's absolutely nothing to prove this, I'm going to label it as an outright hoax.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about author - If the author is putting out hoaxes, then we may have to check over all 2500 of his other contributions. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corn cheese (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I should note that a user has tagged the article for speedy deletion as G3 but I wanted to voice my opinion. Considering that the film's name is short and easily ambiguous, it's possible to receive little results but I would have expected to find something but I haven't. If the film is going to be released, which is probably unlikely (judging by the lack of sources), this is not the time for an article. SwisterTwister talk 20:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as WP:TOOSOON for an article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine

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

I think this fails the WP:GNG requirement and the WP:NONPROFIT criteria for lacking secondary sources. The organization is under formation as of 2012, and while it appears to be national or international in scope, I am unable to find any independent coverage of it or its founding. Batard0 (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (CONEM) is still under establishment, and has therefore not made so much impact yet. Can you help me to rescue the article. How can it be better? What is needed? Leave a message —Preceding undated comment added 10:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V. K. Mathews

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

While the company may be notable, I do not believe that this person is notable. Being a government advisor does not infer notability - the same could be said of many corporate executives. Biker Biker (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As is normal arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy are given greater weight. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sapna Vyas Patel

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

Claims to notability seem to be being a Minister's daughter and having lost 33kgs weight in a year. Nothing encyclopedic here. De-PRODded without comment, by original author. PamD 07:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that minister's sons or daughters can buy fitness? Fitness cannot be purchased or influenced. There is no option to discipline and hard work if one wants to achieve a fitness goal. She is an ordinary person and helps many to lose weight without any monetary gain. Inspiration and motivation play a major role in weight loss success and she is doing that for others. She has shared all her weight loss diet plans, exercise plans and tips to motivate others. She is doing a lot of philanthropic activities in the field of fitness in India. This person definitely deserves to be in Wikipedia for the contribution she has made in the lives of many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moksha Shah (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I do agree with unwanted information should be removed from the article but the page is created not just for identifying as a fan view. This page is created to show her popularity among the Indian people. Keep the article, may be we can protect this page for vandalism. -- Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing significant to establish notability and an appropriate article. Although she certainly has a noble cause, none of the references provided are significant and, really, she is only a fitness trainer. If she achieves reasonable national or international success, feel free to restart the article, but for now, there isn't anything significant. I searched with both Google US and India news with hopes to find additional sources, but alas, found none. SwisterTwister talk 20:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Blessing

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Unsourced BLP, unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:ENT. "Has had significant roles in multiple... productions"? No. "Has a large fan base..."? No."Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? No. If he won "some sort of award", we might look at the significance of the award. This leaves the general notability guideline -- essentially, is there lots of coverage in reliable sources? No. Basically, it looks like he's an actor with a long history of minor roles. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The magnitude arguments referencing non-notability and insufficiency of sources to meet GNG result in a deletion close. MBisanz talk 18:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trishneet Arora

[edit]
Trishneet Arora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Article has apparently been created by subject of the article, going by the username which is a single purpose self-promotion account (WP:SPA)
  • The only other significant contributors to this article even 3 weeks after creation are multiple IPs. Promotional content added by these IPs has been reverted by other editors
  • Notability (WP:GNG) is questioned despite apparent references in newspapers since these are online editions limited to a single city. The book apparently written by the subject is not available in online stores.
  • A similar article had earlier been CSD'd[42]

Sesamevoila (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP has also removed the AfD template Sesamevoila (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. I've left a message on the original editor's page explaining a bit about the template for AfD, but I also wanted to post this link to YouTube here: [43] It's not the official news site so we can't link to it in the article, but I did want to show that there's been some television coverage. Much of the coverage for Arora seems to be relatively recent, but there's quite a bit of it. I'm not as familiar with sources in India so I'm still abstaining for the moment, but again- there's a lot of it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – because this individual passes WP:BASIC and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Period. Some source examples include [44], [45], [46], [47]. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources pretty much come down to WP:1E regarding publication of the individual's (upcoming) book. The notability, reliability, and independence of [48] seems questionable, and the fact that a link is given to this non-text-searchable e-paper source has a smell of self-promotion. Let's wait for established notability. Or in the individual's own words: "Even though people might not know about me, but my company would be among the respected companies in the next few years, he says." Let's see. Nageh (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also going to leave this diff here. In the case this gets deleted, his name should be removed from here. Even if it stays I'm not sure if he's important enough to warrant a listing for births Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the list reference is on his official site, leading me to believe the listing (and the entire article) is self promotion. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 10:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I want to know the reason why you want to Delete dear, this is useful information for all and this guy is so popular so what to do just tell me this thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.221.127 (talk • contribs)
Another sock/meatpuppet. Please stop spamming keep, it won't help. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 14:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"What about 1E?" It's a biography article not a book article. The sources are all biographical, not book reviews.
"AfD is not just about notability" - The article is well sourced and notable, that's all that is needed. It is unfair to me that you would try to delete because of bad behavior of some other user. AfD is purely a content dispute, you're mixing in a behavior dispute with this person(s) as a reason to delete is not fair to me. I am only concerned with the content. So should you. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking at the behavior of the user. Trishneet Arora was covered as one off news because he is a young hacker. There is no sourcing of his book, I can't find anything about it. The sources merely says he is working on a book. He doesn't hold world records, even then I've seen AfDs of people who hold world records and still aren't notable. Think about it: I am 18 years old and I say I am going to write a book on hacking. I get coverage in the press, primarily a local newspaper. Does that make me notable? By the way, I'm not mixing in the COI / SPA arguments, read above, you may have confused me with someone else. I never said that, although I did have concerns that the article was created with the intent of self promotion. I just notified the editor that spamming keep votes doesn't affect anything. I'm not trying to sound rude or anything, sorry if you took it that way. :) Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK re: SPA/COI I wasn't sure what you meant by AfD being about more than notability. Re: 1E, being a hacker is not a 1E (unless he is known for only doing 1 hack/event). Trishneet Arora is a human interest story, there are many human interest stories on Wikipedia about people who do certain things and get oft-reported in the news. We don't really care why he is notable, just that he apparently is, based on the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Express article merely repeats what
Arora claims. It is written by a reporter not a specialist in the field.--Zananiri (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very few reporters are specialists in the field they are reporting on. It doesn't negate the reliability of the source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the Express article, virtually all of the biographical information cited in the article is based on interviews with the subject, and is not independently verified. Sesamevoila (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any biographical article is going to be informed by interviews with the subject, preferably, that's how journalism works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "Not a Ballot" template for all possible socks. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this AfD discussion has been going around in circles for quite some time, I thought I would dig a little deeper and called up the publisher mentioned in the news articles (since the book was not showing up in their online catalogue at [49] ). They first said no such book was being published by them, but when I referenced the news articles, they did some further investigation and reported back that such a book had indeed been under consideration for publication, but had been withdrawn due to "legal problems", usually a euphemism for you-know-what. If this cannot be a consideration in the discussion re. Verifiability, not truth(does that at all apply in AfD discussions?), then please ignore it-this is only my 2nd AfD nomination.
India-related articles such as this are becoming quite the bane because the general Indian reader is not sufficiently clued-in to distinguish the varying degrees of reliability of Wikipedia articles, and takes a biographical entry as evidence of a subject's notability and reliability. Sesamevoila (talk) 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting aside, but I'm not sure it tells us much because we really have no idea what the situation is. The article is based on existing sources, even if the book isn't published it doesn't change the existing sources. We are not trying to establish objective notability, just notability by Wikipedia standards, which is multiple independent reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_October_11&oldid=1142633854"