Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 October	6 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus has changed. It appears the that passage of time has clarified the subject lacks notability for a standalone article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburbs (web series)

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

Previous deletion proposal ended in keep based on a single mention in a local/regional newspaper, with the hope that more sources could be found. More sources haven't been found. I looked around. There's basically this Wikipedia article, and a bunch of self-published websites and blogs. Fails to meet the WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources that could WP:verify notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable web series, that the only coverage available is a single mention in a purely regional publication. Purely local coverage is almost never considered valid to establish notability, and there is nothing else out there that talks about this. Even if the single article was a reliable source, this article still falls short of the multiple reliable sources needed to establish some sort of notability. Its actually kind of embarassing that this article was kept the first time, since keeping an article without valid sources with the argument that there might be more sources appearing in the future goes against standard Wikipedia practice. Rorshacma (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 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) 00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The find sources created by the AFD template is not always the best at giving results... and the web series has not gone completely without coverage since the keep of 2008. For example, using other parameters I found the series spoken of in detail in an article at Film Threat,[1] and another at Avril.[2] And behind a paywall we have The Journal News.[3] Not exactly what might have been hoped for in the last 4 years... but more-than-one becomes the "multiple" sources requested by User:Rorshacma up above. The fat lady has not yet sung. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The one hidden behind a paywall, is actually already linked to in the article, and while that particular link is dead, looking around on the site it used to be hosted on (the author of the article's page, who keeps an archive of all her work), I found a non-paywalled version of the article here. As you can see The Journal News is a purely local newspaper, covering "the lower Hudson", and is, in fact, the one piece of coverage in a local paper alluded to in the original AFD, and the above comments from myself and nominator. The Avril link is just a forum post, and is thus not a valid source. And not only that, the forum post itself is just a copy/paste of the article from The Journal News. That leaves only the Film Threat article, which, alone, as I said, is not the multiple sources required. Also, I find it kind of amusing that the only reason that article was written, according to the lead, was because someone tried emailing the site to try to get support for the series during the previous AFD here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "amusing" or not, the anticipated coverage resulting in a keep 4 years ago were not forthcoming. If there were an article on the series creator, I might have suggested a merge and redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:23, 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)} 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Trivial mentions aren't enough. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:22, 7 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) 23:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Able

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

Wikipedia is not a resume posting service. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails general notability. No coverage in reliable, independent sources. The subject is not mentioned on any of the web pages supplied as "references". Tigerboy1966 00:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the WP:GNG due to the absence of reliable independnet sources. Vcessayist (talk) 01:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't get the encyclopedic notability dongle to even baby spark on this one. FeatherPluma (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

?Delete' Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:28, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Libera (Book)

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

Unsourced article about non-notable book. Prod removed by article creator, who just happens to have the same name as the book author. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, book is self-published/pay-to-publish. Hairhorn (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hairhorn. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability for this book, published this year through AuthorHouse. (It would be good to have a CSD category appropriate for books, given the increase in print-on-demand publication.) AllyD (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the WP:GNG because there are no reliable sources about this book. Vcessayist (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable book. (Article created by spam-only account with username matching the name of the author.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, Self promo defintly in violation of WP:PROMO per Amazaon.com: About the author, where it says, "About the author: Adrian Jeens has been a passionate LIBERA fan for many years. Based in the UK, he is the webmaster of www. libera-fans-uk.com which caters for thousands of UK fans of the group, as well as a growing number from overseas. He enjoys attending the group's concerts and listening to their music. By writing this book, he hopes to expand the fan base of LIBERA across the world still further from what it already is." Thanks, — Jason Sosa 08:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As spam. Does not meet notability requirements. Although some self-pub books eventually do, it's rare, and this is not one of them dangerous panda 11:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, article has neither reliable citations nor notability. Title of article also seems wrong. Article doesn't seem to be responding to my searching for a Lazarus of Bethany Factor. Suggest delete the article, and if the book is just fabulous, let someone add it as an external link to the choir article.
Delete Not notable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of telephone operating companies

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

This list is a magnet for spam and red links. It is too large and unwieldy to be of encyclopaedic value, and in most cases is a duplicate of many country-specific lists or articles. Biker Biker (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a target for spam is not a valid reason for deletion. The redlinks look like possible articles and the list itself is on a notable topic. I see no issue. Lugnuts ^{And the horse} 09:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up non-notable entries. Navigational aids like this exist outside the usual standards of notability, along with disambiguation pages and so on. But without an article, there's nothing to navigate to. Wikipedia isn't an avenue to promote minor companies that haven't been noticed by reliable independent sources. Vcessayist (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, too large and too many red links. But this is not a valid reason for deletion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, mostly. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:30, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pustak Mahal

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

The cited independent sources in the page history do not confirm any of the claims which were in the article. [4] and [5] are announcements of book fairs in which this company gets less than a one-line mention as one of fifty or eighty exhibitors. [6] is a blog post which has no text other than a photo caption. The rest cites the company's own website or cites Wikipedia. The history is a WP:COI mess, with contributors including user:Aman Arora PR (there was an Aman Arora as "Manager Public Relations at Pustak Mahal" at the time that edit was made, in 2010, per [7]) and user:rrashmissingh (Rashmi Singh (author) has been attempting to promote her own books on Wikipedia, two WP:AFD's are already open on this). Some of the IP editors are also in the same 117.22x.xxx.xxx range used as IP WP:SOCKs to edit Rashmi Singh and her books (which may fail WP:AUTHOR as evidenced by repeated WP:AFD rejections as "Singh Rashmi", "Rashmi Singh Author" and each book title individually, including "Love's Journey"). The text being inserted is corporate advertising, pure and simple. Once the unsourced and promotional claims are removed (which other editors have done already) there's basically nothing left of the page. It would appear the company actually does exist, but with little more than a passing mention in the WP:IRS there's not enough verifiable info for an actual Wikipedia article. I'm not denying that any article on this topic could ever exist, only that one built only with these sources and this mess of WP:COI self-promotion cannot possibly be viable. K7L (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 - I'm doubtful that simply stating that they claim to be "the largest publisher in India" with a reference to the publisher's official website qualifies notability. It's unambiguous advertising if you ask me.Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources that establish notability Independent sources have been added to the article, although the coverage of the subject in the sources is little less than desired. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 21:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I was responsible for stripping it back some months ago. I am still unable to find any acceptable sources that would suffice. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - switch to Keep, mainly due to good work of Rayabhari - Sitush (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Given the 101 articles that reference "Pustak Mahal" in mainspace, editors need to either find minimal sources or find a merge target...or just leave the article as stand-alone based on satisfying WP:N as being "worthy of notice". We are here to build an encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So find either of those things. Talk about "drive-by" ... List of publishers in India, perhaps? Your suggestion, of course, is dependent on the 101 citations etc which you refer to being valid in the first instance. For example, there were once many citations to books published by Gyan, another Indian outfit, but they are gradually getting weeded out because the publisher is hopeless for our purposes, by consensus at WP:RSN, WP:MF, WT:INB etc. - Sitush (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question An editor !voting delete in this discussion just removed a sourced sentence from the article. Should this go to ANI? What do the other editors think? Unscintillating (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report me if you want. Good luck. - Sitush (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Rayabhari, whom I have been helping out on and off, has come up with a useful newspaper report. As things stand, the article could probably be renamed "Rapidex English course (book)" or something similar. The source has only passing mentions of the company but does go into some detail about the book. - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you, Sitush. Pustak Mahal has encyclopedic value, as it publishes large number of books in India, which include Hindi books, low cost editions of Shakespear, Sherlock Holmes (copyright period expired) etc. Regarding numbers, for example, it has published 118 fiction works mainly by Indian authors, 36 books on language learning, (mainly english), 75 books on health etc. (However, quality of some of its publications is below average. eg. : Some of the authors are Pustak Mahal Editorial Board!!!) - Rayabhari (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simple reprints of books originally published elsewhere are rarely notable in their own right, for much the same reasons that Route 66 (song) gets one article (about the original version) instead of one hundred different pages (it's been re-hashed by too many musicians for each version to be noteworthy). K7L (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rayabhari. The books published by it are available at most railway book stalls and other books shops in India. A highly visible name among book publishers in India.--Shyamsunder (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep are well known for childeren books and DIY books for kids , definitly needs a stay Shrikanthv (talk) 13:30, 9 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IQ Press

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Refs are mainly from the subject. Contested PROD. PROD removed by the SPA who created the aricle. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:35, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The provided refs are primary and I can find nothing elsewhere to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a small, young, niche publishing house. Nothing notable about it. PK T(alk) 16:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a promotional article with no reliable independent sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:26, 7 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) 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crescent Bahuman Limited

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

Delete. Non-notable company. No redeeming encyclopaedic value. Reads like an advert or a business directory entry. Essentially spam by stealth. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:56, 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) 21:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are sources, but none are reliable or independent enough to establish notability. Fails the WP:GNG. Either misunderstands the guideline, or seeks to slip by it by providing enough references that no one cares enough to check. Vcessayist (talk) 01:28, 7 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) 01:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aiko (cartoonist)

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

This autobiographical article does not establish notability with the 3 references given, and a search finds nothing usable. A news archive search returned nothing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a published living artist and is written with a neutral point of view, external published sources are verifiable and describe the person. Thanks! Aikolugbara (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nom) The issue is WP:Notability which does not appear to be established by the sources.

1) Facebook Account of AikoGraphics: this illustrates the artwork but is apparently from the artist, so is not "independent"; in any case Facebook pages are not normally usable as reliable sources.

2) ADLG Blog: Blogs are not normally allowable as sources. The word "Aiko" does not occur on the page.

3) AikoGraphics Page: same Facebook page as (1).

Ext link to Ugandan Insomniac: this is also a blog, not a reliable source. Again, "Aiko" is not found on the page.

Ext link to UNESCO Survey: cites a paper by Aikobua but does not discuss it.

None of this comes close to establishing notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 30 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) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete interesting to see the cite in UNESCO... but still, we need reliable independent sources that talk about this author. Otherwise it fails the WP:GNG, to say nothing of the stringent standards we keep when talking about WP:BLPs. Vcessayist (talk) 01:30, 7 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) 01:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sellmark

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

I can find no secondary sources of any significance to support this article. WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be another non-notable company, I have found zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Considering that the article gives little information such as history, there is little to help broaden the search aside from that it is Texas-based. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This company is somehow related to the Belorussian Beltex Optics (Russian: Белтекс Оптик). I do not know if it is a distributor or a subsidiary. The Belorussian company was one of the largest producers of binocular and military optics in the Soviet Union, at a time when Soviet binoculars dominated the cheaper end of the world market. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:39, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be a notable company. Sources do not exist that meet the WP:GNG. Might support a redirect if someone can verify a stronger connection to Beltex Optics. Vcessayist (talk) 01:32, 7 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 Thomas_&_Friends#Films.2C_specials.2C_and_miniseries . DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Mountain Mystery

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

May be not notable per vlaid criteria nor WP:THOMAS and WP:EPISODE. It may be a non-notable HIT Entertainment product like Day of the Diesels. Petike (talk | contribs) 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 22 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) 13:33, 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) 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thomas_&_Friends#Films.2C_specials.2C_and_miniseries - Google News found insignificant mentions, one of them is an officialcharts.com chart listing which appears to be insignificant and non-notable. Google News archives found two additional small mentions. Unfortunately, several children's videos won't receive the usual news coverage required for Wikipedia articles, therefore, redirecting seems to be the best option as the film appears to be significant for the Thomas & Friends series. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of reliable sources. But might be worthy of a mention at the article about the franchise. Vcessayist (talk) 01:33, 7 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Gyan Foundation

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

Promotional article that is clear fail of WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are weak, only shot at notability is having organized a one-off peace festival (there are Google News hits for that) but that is not enough. Logical Cowboy (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 22 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) 15:13, 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) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article currently reads like an advertisement and focuses more with promotional information or information about the founder, rather than significant content about the foundation. Google News found links that were either insignificant or promotional. As mentioned by the nominator, the only significance appears to be organising the World Peace Festival. Additionally, considering that the author has been the only significant editor, it's not surprising that this article has remained promotional. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a promotion piece. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article as I am familiar with the organization. While looking to create the article I found the old deletion discussion [8]. From that discussion, I believed that creating the article with more reliable sources would establish notability. The old discussion stated that one of the notable sources was Indian Express but that it did not have an author [9]. I actually looked up the article and there is an author listed. I have since added it to the article. There is also an article from the Nagaland Post which although not a site visited by people of the English language, it is a very popular news source in India [10]. Not sure if YouTube counts but there are many videos about the organization that are uploaded there [11]. Here is an announcement from the website Life Positive [12]. The other articles that I have in the article that I feel are notable are [13], [14], and [15]. The foundation has numerous things that make them notable including the different references that go towards notability, their world record, and the attention that they get for their work. How many non notable organizations have that many celebrities including the Dalai Lama supporting them? Yes there are plenty of press releases that do not count toward notability. I will point out that although they do not count, the press releases that they published are republished by numerous websites that are note worthy. I understand that my vote does not count as I created the article, but I would like people to look at the article again with the above in mind and hopefully allow the article to stay. The foundation is truly a good organization and I have tried what I can to show their notability. --QueenslandPlayer (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Indian Express reference that you provided, it only mentions the group once and, like several of the links, is insignificant and mainly focuses with the founder. The Nagaland Post reference is slightly better but also insignificant to support an appropriate article. Also regarding your press releases comment, republishing press releases through notable news sources would not be third-party and appropriate as nearly all press releases are promotional, vague and rarely focus with the significant activities of the subject. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 7 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. But refocus on software. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maluuba

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

Unremarkable company with a brand new piece of software. Notability has not been asserted for either the company or its product. Biker Biker (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like an ad and reads like an ad. Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any blatant promotion in the article. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, it is a new company, however, their product has been noted and reviewed by notable tech and business media, see TechCrunch, Business Insider, The Globe and Mail. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I intended this to be an informative article on Maluuba Inc and their product. It has received attention from notable sources such as TechCrunch and Lifehacker. I am happy to modify or add to it if seems too much like an ad, but I don't believe it does. Pdatnic —Preceding undated comment added 15:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind to expand the article and cite the sources listed above, Pdatnic? Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think this should be removed either. The company is notable from a number of different reviews. I added some more information and sources. Will add more soon. -- Bbmff (talk | contribs)
Comment Just made more updates from articles I found about the company. Should be more relevant now, no need for deletion.-- Bbmff (talk | contribs)
Thanks for adding. looks good to me Pdatnic (talk | contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(see below) Weak Delete - There's a press release mention: Business Wire September 10, 2012. There's a mention in San Francisco Chronicle September 15, 2012. That's not enought to meet WP:GNG. From the Wikipedia article, "Maluuba: Where are they now?". Velocity. Retrieved May 1, 2012. and "Maluuba Is a Voice-Activated Personal Assistant for Android that Gives Google Now a Run for Its Money". Lifehacker. Retrieved September 18, 2012. provide additional info for the article. If they are Wikipeia reliable sources, then weak delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:32, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change focus to software: there seems to be enough sources about the software product in the article (probably more sources elsewhere, didn't search for those) to pass WP:GNG, but definitely not enough sources about the company (the current subject of the article). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:55, 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, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refocus topic on software and weak keep: appears to be a potentially notable application. Sources are mentioning the software. Not enough to establish notability as is, but I'm convinced there's WP:POTENTIAL to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Along with what is posted above and in the article, there seems to be enough source material to meet WP:GNG: Maluuba raises $2 million in Series A funding (February 29, 2012); San Francisco Chronicle September 15, 2012 "'Sicker than Siri'Sam Pasupalak, CEO of Maluuba, a startup from Kitchener, Ontario, was chosen as one of the Startup Battlefield contestants."; Minyanville October 1, 2012 "Maluuba Launches Its 'Siri for Android' in the UK, Australia, and Ireland."; Life Hacker October 7, 2012, The Record October 11, 2012, Guardian.co.uk October 12, 2012 "10 Best Android apps this week: Beat Bang, Zagat, Quicken 2013, Noozy Studio, The Grint, Maluuba and more". -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added in some more information about the technology and removed all citations that do not meet the notability guidelines. Pdatnic (talk | contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jack

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

Does not seem to pass any criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Could not find any more coverage on Google News. Appears to be autobiographical. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any reliable and significant sources to establish notability, several of these sources are simply blogs rather than news coverage. I also added "hip hop" and "artist" to the search but found nothing. Considering that the subject has a simple and common name, it's easy to receive irrelevant results but from what I see, Kevin Jack is not notable at this time. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 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) 20:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources available to establish notability, per the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:48, 7 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) 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Bernard (watch manufacturer)

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

Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PROD'd this sometime ago. Completely unreferenced. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 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) 20:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources available to establish notability. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:49, 7 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 WP policy were given more weight. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Korean literature in translation

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

This is going to be an infinitely-expanding list of...what? Works written in one language that are available in another language. Highly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTCATALOG - other than being books that were translated, there is nothing here that would separate it from a "repositor[y] of loosely associated topics" Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too indiscriminate. Could have literally hundreds of entries. Too loose and large to create an encyclopedic list. Maybe a category makes sense. Vcessayist (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know something about the literary world and there is not much literary works in translation from lesser known languages. This list very likely could be mostly complete. Even in the United States, one of the biggest translation markets in the world, each year there are less than 300 literary books published from all languages in the world combined (incl French, German etc), and that includes re-trans of classics like Tolstoy etc. I am not surprised to see only a handful of Korean texts get translated each year (into any language). Keep in mind a fiction-specific list, not every book. Literary works in translation is something specifically tracked by people interested in world literature. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something like List of translated Korean fiction literary works or List of Korean fiction literary works in translation (but "in translation" sounds to me like the works are right now in the process of being translated, but it could be a literary term of art.) Green Cardamom's expertise in this area and assertion that the list mostly is complete is good enough for me and the list being almost complete makes is a very valuable resource of information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:37, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wormhill dragon

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

No evidence for existence of any place or hill in Sussex called (the) Wormhill. Text appears to be based on the Bignor Hill entry in http://www.sussexarch.org.uk/saaf/dragon.html#main2, which says "Similar legends have been told of ridges around other hills, such as at Wormhill in Derbyshire." My CSD nomination as hoax was removed with comment "Not a hoax. Folklore", but without any comment on the above comment which I had made on the talk page. PamD 18:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not in the Modern Antiquarian, can't find any credible sourcing. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't seem to find reliable independent sources to establish notability. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. Zappa O Mati 02:34, 10 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) 17:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aisle (political term)

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

Deprodded without comment. This is entirely an unsourced dicdef which amounts to nothing but "Aisle means X or Y". I couldn't find any sources explaining the term, nor anything that suggests this could ever be more than an OR-laden dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's similar material already in United States Senate and United States House of Representatives. Worst case is that we merge into something like bipartisanship. Warden (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There's tons of jargon and neologisms around on Wikipedia. But we don't create an article on all of them because there wouldn't be much to write other than what it means, and perhaps a series of examples of how it's been used by a bunch of editorialists. Vcessayist (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can a term that is hundreds of years old be a neologism? Please, read WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a neologism, has plenty of history and wide usage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Bearian & Beyond My Ken, not a neologism & has history as well as wide usage. Article needs more sourcing, however.--JayJasper (talk) 20:35, 10 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 Allen Independent School District#Schools. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flossie Floyd Green Elementary

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

Bringing this article on grounds of WP:GNG. Content on page is standard "viatal statistics" of a elementary school. Already verified that there is no special citation/award for this individual school therefore this article can be deleted in favor of being merged to Allen Independent School District, of which this school is a part of. Standard sources on the web of rankings/location/news blotter that don't contribute to the notability of the article

Fair Dislosure: I grew up in Allen and can assert that this individual school is no more notable than any of the other 16+ elementary schools that don't have a individual article. Hasteur (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Allen Independent School District ensuring it is listed there. Per standard practice for nn schools: (WP:OUTCOMES#Schools). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kudpung, with all respect, Did you even look at the Allen ISD article before you made the reccomendation? In no way does it make sense for a tombstone redirect make sense. Hasteur (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I did. Are you trying to tell us that the school doesn't exist? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a school that does not meet the WP:GNG due to the absence of sources. Might be worthy of a redirect if a suitable target is found. Vcessayist (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allen Independent School District#Schools per standard practice. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:21, 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 no consensus. No prejudice to subsequent renomination or userficiation. I think that this discussion tilted slightly towards deletion, there were a number comments suggesting that while in general clubs of this level lack notability for a season article, this one might. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season

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

As agreed here and confirmed here, clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles. Liamtaylor007 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I consider that we should show some flexibility in our decision-making in cases where informative work is being undertaken as in the case of this article. However, there is a lot of work to do to bring it up to WP:GNG standards. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season for a recent AfD decision. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please note that the seven previous seasons also have articles and would need to be covered by this debate for consistency. See Template:F.C. United of Manchester. League Octopus (League Octopus 18:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – largely fails WP:GNG. I will reconsider if improvements are made. – Kosm1 fent 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As creator of the article, I have pointed out a couple of times already that the article is only just a couple days old. I haven't had nearly enough time to develop the article to where I would like it to. Two people here have already said that in currently doesn't meet WP:GNG standards, and I don't necessarily disagree with that. But the season is just underway. The article was created only three days ago, and there is way more that can be added to the article, if given the opportunity, that would greatly improve its quality.

And as I said on Talk:2012–13 F.C. United of Manchester season, I'd like to use the example of 1889–90 Sheffield United F.C. season. The reason for requesting an AfD for this article is "clubs lower than the Conference National are deemed below the notability threshold for season articles". However, the Sheffield United article is currently assessed as a good article, despite the fact that the team that season didn't even play a single league game that season. So exactly how "official" is the Conference National cut-off that was reached as a "consensus" in 2009 and 2010, when 1889–90 Sheffield United F.C. season (again, a good article), was created in May 2012?

As was stated on my talk page by Liamtaylor007 (talk · contribs), "The notability rule suggests that all clubs who have reached Conference National level and are currently playing their football at that level, can have articles for past seasons." This suggests that the notability of the individual articles themselves are based on the notability of the actual club. And isn't the notability of the club established by the fact that the article F.C. United of Manchester exists? And wouldn't that mean that, if somehow Sheffield United fell to the Conference North/South level, that the article would have to be deleted because they aren't "currently playing their football (above) that level"? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That all being said, I'm a bit hesitant on working on the article at all while the AFD is active. I still think the article should be kept, and I would work on improving it greatly if it is kept, but I don't want to do the work for nothing. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if I can give an opinion or I should stay neutral, as a fan of the club I'm not sure how that affects "conflict of interest" etc. I would have been pro-deletion regardless if it were not for the fact that there doesn't seem to be a great consensus on this as another non-Conference National team season I nominated for deletion in August was kept (see Eastleigh mentioned above). Unless I'm much mistaken, FC United has a greater fan base and much more national coverage than Eastleigh ever receives. For example, the FA regularly report on FC United's progress through the FA Cup (see here, here etc.). They are also regularly featured on local ([16], [17], [18], [19]), national (BBC, Guardian, Independent) and foreign ([20], [21]) news websites and media. They also have the 12th highest attendances of any non-league club [22] (thus far this season, despite rarely having more than 20 away fans). Just saying that as far as non-league football goes, FC United's situation is quite unique and maybe an exception should be made. Also, AFC Wimbledon, a team that was formed in similar circumstances (although they have of course since reached League football) have season articles stretching back as low as the Combined Counties League (see Category:AFC Wimbledon seasons). Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was referring to, as far as their regional and national coverage, but I didn't have time to dig up links. But like you said, there is a lot of attention paid to what they do in the FA Cup, and as far as non-league football goes, they attract a lot more fans to their games than a lot of Conference National games. I believe that you can make a strong care for an exception for this team because of the unique circumstances surrounding the club (as was alluded to in the AFC Wimbledon example), as well as the fact that (as Delusion23 (talk · contribs) said above) they do receive an unusual amount of coverage regionally and nationally for any non-league club, Conference National-level or lower. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Plenty of external sources have now been added, and seeing as it's only a couple of months into the season I have every faith that the article will grow. Despite being at level 7, FC United are an exception. They have as much coverage as any Football Conference side, as much as some League Two sides. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks impressive, but on deeper inspection lacks any real substance. Non-league seasons articles are not considered notable by WP:FOOTBALL and this certainly fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - WP:NSEASONS states that team season articles without a well-sourced prose should be redirected to the team page, and this may be the right thing to do here. But I think we should move the article into the creators userspace, and if/when there is a well-sourced prose it can be moved back into main-space. Same goes for the seven other season articles about the same team. --Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - while Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season was closed as non-consensus, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Boston United F.C. season who was nominated the day before, was closed as delete. The difference between those two were the well-sourced prose. --Mentoz86 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - A lot of people seem to be favoring this article being deleted on the basis of it not lacking any real content. Once again, I'd like to state that I haven't had any opportunity to work on it past what I've already done to it. The article was only two days old when it was listed for deletion, and I haven't been able to do the work to dig out the sources and begin to write any actual prose. All I'm asking for is an opportunity to do that. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's why I'm proposing to move the articles into your user-space, so that you can finish the articles there before moving them back into the main-space. --Mentoz86 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(this one) - Yes they may be in a lower league than what's usually considered the cut off point, but i think some flexibility does need to be given in this case. FCUM are probably one of the most notable clubs in non league at the moment, and they receive a lot of publicity that most clubs would be jealous off. More people have probably heard of them than my own team despite over 100 year headstart! I would also add a comment to the creator though too, perhaps its better to focus on one article at a time on the main space or make them all in your own userspace and move them across when more substantive. This article looks promising with the tables/fixtures/maps and with it being only early on the season too it will obviously grow, however the other ones (while clearly young) offer nothing really bar a league table and if the AFD's were brought against them i'd have probably have voted to delete. Narom (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article as it stands at the moment lacks independent sources for anything other than attendance figures. Perhaps the most likely source for regular independent material is the main local newspaper, the Manchester Evening News. It carries exhaustive coverage of the League teams in Greater Manchester, plus larger Conference teams like Stockport and Macclesfield, but for teams further down the pyramid such as FC United and Droylsden, the depth of coverage is significantly reduced. Most of the MEN's FC United-related headlines are introductions to a general non-league round-up ([23] is an example from this week). This is below the level of coverage I'd expect in order for a season article to meet WP:GNG. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I have added sources and a considerable amount of prose to the sections for the FA Cup and FA Trophy, as well as a small intro to the League section (much more to come), and re-arranged some things and cleaned it up. I would like to add way more links from more different sources, but I have so far added sources to The Grantham Journal and TheFA.com. Most of the sources are match reports and tournament draws, but I think it's a good start. And I think the prose I have written so far shows the potential for the article, once I'm able to find more sources. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would keep it. FCUM is quite a notable club relative to other non-league clubs. With exception to the clubs that have previously played in the football league in recent years, I would say it is probably the most notable non-league club. The club has attracted a high amount of attention since its formation, and has higher attendances at some matches than those at a League Two match. Usually, for a club this far down the football league system, I would vote delete on the basis of little notability. However, I believe an exception should be made, especially if this article is given time to improve further. Reddev87 (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, if Chester F.C. a club in a higher division, do not have a season article, then I don't see why FC United should. The content largely appears to be what you would expect in a league season article, with just the matches and a bit of prose added. NapHit (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your argument isn't a strong one. Your argument is pretty much "if Club A doesn't have an article, then neither should Club B". That's why I think you should look at the circumstances surrounding the clubs. As has been said by several people already in this AFD discussion, FCUM are a special case because of the attention they receive overall (not just within their league) compared to most other non-Football League clubs, including Football Conference clubs. And using the examples of good article 1889–90 Sheffield United F.C. season and 2002–03 AFC Wimbledon season, I don't think it's fair for the only criteria to be the division that the club plays in. (Sheffield didn't play in a league at all in that season; AFC Wimbledon played in the Combined Counties Football League at level 9, two divisions below FCUM.) I believe that FCUM is notable enough nationally (certainly regionally, in Northwest England), that they should be an exception. Red Rebel 05 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you don't have enough secondary sources to provide notability. The majority of the sources are the Evo-Stick League or the FA, they are not enough on their own to claim the article is notable. If FCUM are a special case as you state, then surely it would be easy to find secondary sources commenting on the club. The lack of these, suggests that is not the case and I stand by my argument that the article should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the individual season articles? Is it not to show what happened during the season, such as match results, transfers, et cetera? I understand the importance of secondary sources to assert the notability of the club and, more specifically, that club's individual season, but it shouldn't be a bad thing if a lot of the sources are there to serve as sources to the club's results and their league standing. And ultimately, what does it matter where those come from? Wouldn't the official Evo-Stik League page and the official page of The Football Association suffice? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need secondary sources because according to WP:GNG:"for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." As secondary sources such as news outlets appear to be thin on the ground regarding FCUM's season, then in my opinion this article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. The purpose of the season articles is what you state above, but the purpose of wikipedia is to provide engaging accounts of events that are deemed to be notable. [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information], thus just because we can document results does not mean it should be included, as that does not have encyclopaedic merit. On another note the other season artivles for FCUM should be deleted as well, as they also fail WP:GNG. NapHit (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. So what qualifies as a "secondary source"? There are some in there, but because of the large number of sources for match reports from the official team website, the official league website, and the official FA website (which should be good enough at the least to prove validity of the match reports), they get drowned out. I do have sources from The Grantham Journal, Quays News, Mancunian Matters, The Hereford Times... The actual content in the article I feel is adequately sourced, which would leave the only issue being the one to establish notability. What websites would suffice? Red Rebel 05 (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are not enough references in independent media to support the assertion that this subject is notable. Sure, there are references to say that all this stuff happened, but there are also sources on the internet that say that 85-year-old Bertha Jorkins broke her hip last Tuesday. – Pee Jay 00:48, 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love's Journey

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

The author of this book, Rashmi Singh (user:rrashmissingh), has been engaging in self-promotion and has repeatedly attempted to create autobiography (as "Singh Rashmi" or "Rashmi Singh") and create promotional articles for each of the individual books. The notability of this person or the books has yet to be established. There have been complaints Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive122#Accusations of bias as these have been repeatedly submitted to (and declined in) WP:AFC and there appear to be multiple IP's and userid's in use. User:Love's Journey should likely be taken to WP:SOCK investigation as possibly being user:rrashmissingh; although the point may be moot as the userid is blocked, there's also a mess of IPs involved. Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for this user to promote her own books. K7L (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone poses as the President of America, will you believe it? And makes used id BbrackkObamma? Then why you are deviated to believe that this user is the author herself? It is so because it is easy for you to believe the same. When Sitush doesn't know whether she is Hindu or Christian and deleted 'Hinduism' as her religion only because she studied in convent schools then I think such kind of assumptions is possible. Well, in India, there are thousands of convents and mostly Hindus are studying there. So if someone says, he/she is the P.M. of India and makes id's as Pmpm, will you believe it? I think some crank user must have done so, probably any of her fan. Kindly refrain from putting this everywhere as she has been doing this. This shows quite a biased behavior.Ananyaprasad (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been trying to find sources to support notability for much of today and there is nothing out there. - Sitush (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I spent part of yesterday helping the editor Ananyaprasad revamp this article for AfC and passed it earlier today. I wasn't aware of previous attempts by other editors to write articles related to this particular author. All four of the previously declined AfC nominations for Love's Journey noted that the tone of the writing was too casual, not that sourcing was an issue. The editor who declined the two most recent attempts, Wywin, had noted that "The sources are pretty solid, but the text of the article feels a little too much like an advertisement.". I found the sourcing on Love's Journey to be sufficient to fulfill the first criteria of WP:NB, but the writing was woefully hard to read and formatting was an issue. I approached Ananyaprasad with ways the article could be improved and when he/she clarified the prose, I passed the article. While I applaud efforts to defend against self-promotion on Wikipedia, I do think this particular article has demonstrated the subject's significant coverage in reliable, independent sources about Indian literature. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to author article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion presupposes the results of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rashmi_Singh_(author). Do you have a preference in the event that the author article is deleted? - Sitush (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the two articles combined would have stronger sourcing. Too bad the merge wasn't done before the duel-AfD. I'd do it now but would probably be reverted since both are under AfD. But if the author article is deleted, I suppose someone could recreate it as a Frankenstein a combination of previously deleted articles all-in-one combined with all the sourcing in a single article, which would be substantially different from the previously deleted author article. Not saying I'd do that but just seems unfair to "divide and conquer" with a duel-AfD when these two combined would be a pretty decent article. I don't think it was done on purpose, just how it worked out. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are three AfD's (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pustak Mahal, her publisher's article is also a WP:COI nightmare of self-promotion where removing the advertising left basically nothing). Rashmi Singh appears to have been editing there too in order to promote her own books; there's also a user:Aman Arora PR (Aman Arora was "Manager Public Relations at Pustak Mahal" in 2010, when the edits were made, per LinkedIn) editing that article. There's also a long string of proposals ("Singh Rashmi", "Rashmi Singh", "Rashmi Singh Author" plus the names of each individual book) which were declined in WP:AFC through multiple resubmissions without seeing the light of day as articles. This looks to be three registered userid's, a long list of dynamic IP's (mostly in the same 117.22x.xxx.xxx range) and multiple pages; the decision to create this mess (instead of just one article, using only the info in independent reliable sources, citing the source and remaining neutral) is the author's alone. K7L (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there was articles being made on Rashmi Singh and Loves Journey by a novice maker or editor, it did not mean that the author might have herselsef tried. Anyone imposing as her could have done so-though i am not sure. But yes attempts were made and I guess everyone is allowed to make attempts. I don't think so it was the author herself as the one who was making it before has clearly said that this kept the name rrashmisingh as to let ppl knpw sumthing sumthing- ahatever.. I think the book deserves to be be here so KEEP it- rest all on you people. Ananyaprasad (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Next, I think it can never be the the author herself as to make user names like Loves Journey! Without evidence we can't say anything. It is all supposition. So we must see it in frsh light and check if the book desrves to be here, we can keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananyaprasad (talk • contribs) 01:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While surfing Wikipedia, I have found almost all Indian famous books without references! See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Night_@_the_Call_Center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_2020:_Love,_Corruption,_Ambition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Young_India_Wants

Only I see the articles are filled with synopsis/story without any referencedAnanyaprasad (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC) So in such case at least the tag of deletion should be removed as Love's Journey has! Ananyaprasad (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through some more famous Indian books and let me know how they have been included before you delete Love's Journey. They are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thoughts_%28Shobhaa_De_novel%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thoughts_%28Shobhaa_De_novel%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialite_Evenings So pointed earlier by thatTokyogir that Indian books and Indian authors do not have good coverage is true. Before you decide anything for this novel you'll have to redo your entire wikipedia(talk) (talk) So, I think (talk) is correct that solid and reliable sources are valuable, even if one or two. Ananyaprasad (talk) 09:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ananyaprasad, you need to take a read of the essay called Other Stuff Exists. Your arguments concerning the state of other articles is commonly put forward in deletion discussions but, really, has no merit whatsoever. - Sitush (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks for the guidance,Ananyaprasad (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book very well meets this criteria as listed for notability for Books 'A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]' Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29.Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Economic Times and The Telegraph Calcutta hence verifies it. It is independent of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. Ananyaprasad (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional piece. Needs significant coverage in reliable independent sources, or else it fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline delete. There appears to be one reliable source (the review in the Economic Times) that discusses the book in detail. The Telegraph, of course, is a reliable source, but it only briefly mentions the book. The rest appear to be blogs and other SPS, and thus don't meet WP:RS. The book does not seem to appear in WorldCat, unless I'm just searching badly; however, if memory serves, Indian books and libraries are not as well covered there. If, however, even one more solid, clear review in a reliable source were available, I'd change this to a keep, per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Perhaps this is a case where the article should be deleted for now until such time as it receives wider critical review (if it ever does). Qwyrxian (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for understanding the fact that Indian books are not covered so widely. Though the author's another book Taming the Restless Mind is there in the Worldcat but I am very sorry to say that the article for its creation was hastily deleted before it could move to main space or even discussed properly. No bad feelings but I have been surfing Wikipedia and have been putting facts together. If you read the article of The Telegraph Calcutta little seriously, you'll find that Love's Journey has been mentioned in three to four times and with sufficient references of its story and the Protagonist, Jennifer. But I know, all depends on a general consensus. Next, I am citing the third link of a notable on line site Oneindia.in http://www.boldsky.com/insync/pulse/2012/rashmi-singh-author-interview-030960.html If at all you people are not satisfied well and good! In fact Love's Journey has more reliable and independent citations than many of the books present on Wikipedia, hence a request to all the editors to not make it a question of ego.Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ananyapprasad, you have been involved in other discussions where the WP:OSE essay has been mentioned. It seems not to be sinking in. Furthermore, you are trying to use the same crappy sources for this book as for the author's own article, which is also up for deletion. One India, for example, is often found to plagiarise of other India news sources (and Wikipedia). As someone implies above, if that is all you have the the two articles perhaps should be merged. It is flimsy and it is PR fluff. - Sitush (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sitush. It was my way of explaining things in a gentleman's way! Finally, I know it all depends on the editors. You can do whatever you think best. Ananyaprasad (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of substatial coverage in relaiable independent secondary sources. All I see is WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, which turn out to be book reviews and interviews in rather low quality tabloids with deceptively high-sounding names like the Economic Times and the Telegraph of Calcutta and blogs, none of which pass WP:RS. Most of the material seems to ultimately derive from self-promotional press releases. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Even taken together, they do little to establish notability. Perhaps, some day, reliable sources will cover this book, at which time this article can be recreated. But that day is not yet here, and WP:TOOSOON applies for the time being. The article in its present state will not be a useful starting point for a future well-referenced article, and can be deleted in its entirety with no loss to the project. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to say but it seems you are trying to bring down the names respectable Indian newspapers. Your reasononing shows that you have no idea about these publications. You have written book reviews and interviews in rather low quality tabloids with deceptively high-sounding names like the Economic Times and the Telegraph of Calcutta Why don't you check the links yourself and see if they are deceptive? And I think you should feel sorry for pulling down the names of respectable newspapers of any countryAnanyaprasad (talk) 10:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Next Dominus please read this about The Economic Times The Economic Times is an English-language Indian daily newspaper published by the Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.. It is the world's second most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal.[2] The Economic Times was started in 1961. It is the most popular and widely read financial daily in India, read by more than 8 lakh (800,000) people. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from 12 cities—Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Chandigarh, and Pune.Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found source coverage of the book "Love's Journey" by Michael Gurian. I did not find source coverage for "Love's Journey" by Rashmi Singh. Oddly as it sounds, we may need to run the Economic Times and the Telegraph sources through WP:RSN. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:03, 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 merge to Jeopardy!. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! theme music (2nd nomination)

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

This article contains much useless trivia, fancruft, original research, and unnecessary details which cannot be reliably sourced in any way. I have merged any and all encyclopedic or useful information from this article into the "Theme music" section of the main Jeopardy! article, as I feel that this article contains too much unnecessary detail and does not appear to be encyclopedic. -- Seth Allen (discussion/contributions) Friday, October 5, 2012, 17:34 UTC.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's what should be done with the little bit of sourced content in this article. What is merge to Jeopardy!? Most of this is unsourced yammering and OR, with little verifiable content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is Keep? Described in an article in The Atlantic as "one of the most iconic tunes in television history", this article about a game show theme song clearly meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability? Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - That may be THAT editors opinion, but are there multiple sources to back that claim up? from what I can find the tune didn't even make the top 100 list according to Ranker.com. Even the notion that it won an award is suspect, when it is disclosed that the year it won, was the first year of those awards. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the program. Not every aspect of a TV show needs a stand-alone article, even if it got 3 sentences in Merve Griffin's obituary. ( Not that it influenced my vote, but own childhood version of the never-heard lyrics started: "Who's afraid of the Big Bad Wolf? Goldilocks and Klem Kadiddlehopper," had a forgotten phrase in the middle, and ended with "Tip me over and pour me out." since the ending of this song sounds like the ending of "I'm a Little Teapot." This has been a lifelong earworm whenever I've chanced to watch the show. (Perhaps it will be now for others as well). Edison (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize and Merge largely unreferenced and original research. Does not meet the WP:GNG quantitatively: the coverage establishes that it's popular, and how it was created. But is there really anything reliable to say about it beyond that? This should be reduced to a stub and then merged into the main jeopardy article. Vcessayist (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge ACMEWikiNet (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, mostly per Vcessayist. That is, I'm good with losing the WP:OR material and having the rest placed in the theme's section within the main Jeopardy! article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's quite well-known and recognizable, and there seems to be material for the article. Everyking (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jeopardy! per above. As said, copious amounts of OR and trivia are present that should be removed, and there is a lack of reliable sources to show that the theme song is independently notable from the show it originates from.Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brodie Punk

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

Band apparently fails notability criteria for WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Article has been tagged since 2009 for lack of any reliable sources and my recent search uncovered no substantial coverage -- only Wikipedia mirrors or insubstantial mentions. (Previous PROD was removed without addressing the issues, so I've brought this to AFD.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They appear to be a non-notable group, Google News found this minor review and Google News archives also found this Seattle newspaper article suggesting that they were a local band so it's not surprising that there is little coverage. Google News archives also provided this event listing. Google Books found radio airplay listings including this one. The article mentions that they received "great popularity" in Japan so it is possible that additional sources may be Japanese. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching for sources brought similar results as Twister has described in detail, article fails WP:GNG. Article is from 2007 with still no sources, despite one author was active on it the last days (same author got seven A7 or G12 warnings in the last six days - fan or former band member?). Article has constant traffic [24], but this amounts similar to the traffic on Brodie (disambiguation), also Brodie is a given name, surname and a name for geographical objects. --Ben Ben (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are of insufficient quality and quantity to establish notability. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:GNG, even in Japanese. Japanese sources are readily available, but I've found exactly zero reliable ones. Livedoor blogs, announcements, and the like. I couldn't say they're any closer to notable in Japan than anywhere else. JFHJr (㊟) 02:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Also delete dependent article Split With Glasshead. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:05, 9 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 Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Special editions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call 90s Dance

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Now That's What I Call 90s Dance

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

Just another "special edition" volume for the popular Now! series. These albums never receive significant coverage in reliable sources, are rarely reviewed, and chart high on a compilation chart because 1) there're not that many compilation albums and 2) they are well promoted. This one, in particular, hasn't even been released yet and fails the requirements of WP:NALBUMS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Now That's What I Call Music! discography#Special editions. Unable to find sufficient coverage for this to-be-released compilation to warrant a standalone article. It does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. Plausible search term; the earlier attempt to redirect seems reasonable to me. Gongshow ^Talk 12:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This author has created similar articles in the past, such as Now That's What I Call Chill, which was deleted per AfD. He refuses to take part in the deletion discussions, and his only response on talk pages in defense has been that they provide useful information for people to decide if they want to buy the albums, as shown here and here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I suppose I went with redirecting at first here as a sort of compromise, but since that was already tried before the AfD and didn't stick, I do support deletion over it being kept. Gongshow ^Talk 17:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow. It definitely exists, and we can verify that and cover that in context with the CD series. No sources to establish separate notability, which is typical of these kinds of quickie compilations. Vcessayist (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - the above makes sense. --No unique names 22:50, 7 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) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uranian astrology

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

In-universe sourcing only, couldn't find independent significant coverage required per WP:FRINGE "A Wikipedia article about a fringe view (or organization) should not make it appear more notable than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources" and Wikipedia:FRINGE#Independent_sources.

Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable sources: "A Fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject—such as the creator of a theory, and not the theory itself—should be given far less weight when deciding on notability."

In essence, this article can't put the topic into perspective with respect to the mainstream because the sources don't seem to exist, and so neutrality can never be satisfied. There is no content suitable for merging since weight is only given in articles covered by WP:FRINGE to what is discussed in independent secondary sources (the article is mostly WP:OR anyway). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a fringe theory that hasn't been covered in reliable independent sources. Might be worth mentioning at another article about astrology if some small amounts of reliable coverage can be found. Vcessayist (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Multiple Google searches turned up nothing even faintly resembling significant and substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, and the sources used do not establish any notability outside of the fringe community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:12, 10 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) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redscroll Records

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

Lacks coverage in multiple reliable sources. No evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Kinu ^t/_c 16:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are the references and copy that have been added today sufficient enough to fulfill your requirements? ECR (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous cited references as well as discography have been added to the article in addition to templates, inclusion in Connecticut portal, as well as a proper infobox. It is in much better shape than it was when initially recommended for deletion. ECR (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absence of reliable independent sources to establish notability. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Pitchfork, Goldmine_(magazine), and Record-Journal should count as reliable independent sources, no? ECR (^tlk/_ctr) 16:36, 8 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. Though the available sources show a limited level of notability, the general consensus from this discussion is that they are not enough to satisfy WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rashmi Singh (author)

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

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

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

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

This is a blatant advertisement to sell a book by a non-notable author and is likely autobiography. There have been repeated rejections of both "Singh Rashmi" and the individual books as topics on WP:AFC as this is WP:COI advertising with relatively few sources to establish notability. I'm not sure how this page got past WP:AFC. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue to advertise books for commercial sale. K7L (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nowhere near satisfying WP:AUTHOR. --regentspark (comment) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(fleshing out for GC) WP:AUTHOR says: the author should be regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. That's not true here. The author has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Of these, she's been the subject of a couple of magazine articles, all fluff interviews. No reviews (the economic times article is also an interview). Item 4 says the author has won significant critical attention. Not true again. That's why she doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --regentspark (comment) 12:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.- How can you say this is not true when she has been mentioned in so many popular and widely read media? The Telegraph will never take a PR kind of interview and in Economic Times, she has been mentioned independently. I am not advertising or anything for the author as I know many would either immediately delete my comment or hit hard at it, by saying what all I say is crappyAnanyaprasad (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ananyaprasad, a couple of interviews is not the same as "widely". All sorts of people get interviewed in newspapers (heck, even I've been interviewed in a generally reliable newspaper!). What we'd like to see is a couple of book reviews in newspapers, a discussion about the author that is independent of the author herself (an interview is not independent), that sort of thing. regentspark (comment) 13:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? No-one has described your comments as "crappy". There was a deletion elsewhere, with an explanation on your talk page of what you needed to do in order to fix it. It was, in fact, fixed. Why resort to this distortion? It is unnecessary. - Sitush (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, I think you need to be more magnanimous in your outlook. I am not asking you to be charitable by accepting the article but you did mention somewhere the sources as crappy But here I see Wikipedia says if The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.. But if sources are termed as 'crappy' and resorting to plagiarism even when they are coming from prestigious sites, then I guess, nobody can help. Moreover peers and successors can mentioned only in the best possible means/sites available to them. They can't wait for Times to come and take their interviewsAnanyaprasad (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are so biased that you have mentioned the highest circulated Indian nespaper this way The Times of India, who publishes the Economic Times: it has gone massively downhill in recent years and is increasingly a gossip/showbiz rag. Then who will publish for Indian authors?Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per RegentsPark. I've spent much of today attempting to find useful support for the article but have failed. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pity, but it looks like a delete. I was hoping some of the refs I couldn't access would be articles or something. I will wait till the end to weigh in. Until then, maybe she wrote stuff in Hindi, and there are some Non-English media refs out there. It's a long shot, but after all the work you folks put it, it's worth a shot. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Anna. Putting all the COI accusations aside, I think this article ought not to have been AFDed so hastily. It's not like the subject is totally unsourced. She has been mentioned multiple times in popular media. There were after all over 14 sources when I edited it yesterday, now there are only 3 (some of them got deleted per WP:CITEKILL and claims of unreliability). I hope I am not sounding prejudicial when I say this article regardless of the wikiquette incident mentioned below, need not be deleted. Yes, she may not be as notable as Shakesphere but she is not exactly "Mrs nobody". Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 19:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we have to look at the good references. The others don't really add up to anything. There are 3. (Actually, the timesofindia.com one is a pay site, so I can't see that.) That's not enough.

Maybe because the creator was so hopeful, and was on such an emotional roller coaster, it softened a few wiki-hearts, and led to approval of something below the bar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MRT, this does not reflect badly on you. Anna has hit the nail on the head here and you are probably aware of discussions such as this. - Sitush (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You understood me correctly. Yes, I was apprehending that it is going to reflect badly on me. But it's also true that I believe what I wrote and there was no ego involved. And again, I will humbly accept the consensus reached. Thanks for trying to understand my share of the predicament. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anna says it is "not enough" sources, but does not say what "enough" would be. Not to repeat too much from below, the number of sources is irrelevant. The question is the strength. The sources are all major periodicals in India. In fact the biggest in terms of circulation, significantly for notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original attempts to get this through WP:AFC were made by user:rrashmissingh and are the subject of a Wikiquette incident, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive122#Accusations of bias. The proposed articles on "Singh Rashmi" and the book "Love's Journey" were rejected under some combination of WP:ADV and WP:GNG along with the usual catch-all, lacks reliable, independent sources. There may be more than one account, multiple IP's and more than one page title in use here. The user or users rather vociferously deny the WP:COI and are confrontational when the pages are declined. This page was already declined as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rashmi Singh Author and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Singh Rashmi. I've also listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love's Journey which also looks to be WP:COI (User:Love's Journey, a likely WP:SOCK of user:rrashmissingh, is already blocked). K7L (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Elockid might be able to handle it with grace. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 19:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't know about other issues like COI etc.. but the question for AfD is very simple: are there ~~two~~ independent reliable sources that cover the topic in a non-trivial manner. They appear to be:
- "Her pen does the talking", The Telegraph (vies with the Times of India for the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in Eastern India).
- "A Pristine Surmise", The Economic Times (published by Time of India, see note previous)

Both of these articles are dedicated to the subject, are of medium-length, not trivial. This seems to meet WP:GNG requirements. Welcome dissenting opinion. AfD is very simple: two sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? How to you square it with WP:AUTHOR? - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two counts as "multiple sources", the requirement per WP:GNG. Given the sterling strength of these sources (sort of like India's New York Times or USA Today) it seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The WP:AUTHOR is an optional method, but as it says under the "Additional criteria" heading: 'Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included'. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Telegraph is nowhere near the Indian equivalent of the NY Times. Nor is The Times of India, who publishs the Economic Times: it has gone massively downhill in recent years and is increasingly a gossip/showbiz rag. Only The Hindu comes close to the NY Times, and you'll find that most experienced editors involved with the WP India Project would agree (it has been discussed, on and off). Circulation is not everything, otherwise we'd treat The Sun as a reliable source for UK news and book reviews etc. (We don't). I agree that WP:AUTHOR is not the be-all and end-all of things, but I do think that "multiple" is generally considered to mean > two. If not then we should revise the wording to say "at least two". Interviews and PR stuff do not usually count for much, either. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For notability, newspaper circulation is significant. Two sources really is the minimum though not always depends on how strong the sources are. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious. Where does it say that two sources and you're good to go for an article? Multiple is many, and many is usually more than two. Could you please point to a specific policy page that states that articles with two or more independent reliable sources is the only requirement for keeping an article. I'll take the triviality issue once you've pointed to the policy page. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, multiple is not the same as "many", many is "an indefinite large number". The rules do not say you need "many" sources. The rules say you need "multiple" sources.

Wiktionary: Multiple (adj): Having more than one element, part, component, or function.
WP:GNG: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."

I believe these sources have depth of coverage and are of quality source. Two sources meets the definition of multiple. This is not some trick or lawyerism, AfDs often pass with two reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"AfDs often pass with two reliable sources". They do? When the grounds for deletion are notability? I'd be really interested to see some examples. Let's ignore dictionary definitions, though, because they are in fact lawyering in situations such as this. Just stick with how T. C. Mits (The Celebrated Man in the Street) would see it: multiple is many. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush & regentspark - I hope you have read and understand the above discussion. The fact is, an article can pass notability with one source. There is no set number. The question is if these two sources are strong enough to establish notability. I believe so since the papers have such wide circulation and visibility in India, for the purposes of notability. Please note my initial understanding above was two is a minimum so I have been corrected on that point. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom - I must say - you've got a point. How many is reliably "many"? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am very surprised, although drawing conclusions after three hours of discussion might be a bit hasty. India has a population of over a billion but the literacy rates are not great (75% or so) and not everyone who can read, reads English. Still, the Telegraph has a readership estimated as 1.2 million and the Economic Times adds a further 800,000 (assuming our articles are correct). Is that significant coverage? - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F I think we can safely say that it is inaccurate to assume that two reliable sources are sufficient to keep an article ("AfD is very simple, two sources"). The better question is whether the sources indicate that the author is notable and we should be looking at WP:AUTHOR to see whether this person satisfies the notability criteria laid down there. As a reminder, the reason we have these detailed criteria is because there is no simple rule that says "X sources and you're in". I can't see her getting even close to satisfying any of the criteria laid down there. --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said immediately above, two sources are not the minimum ("I have been corrected on that point"). But the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#What_is_.22multiple.22_sources.3F is very clear: there is no minimum number of sources, it could be one source, if it is strong enough - the number is irrelevant. So the question is why you are requiring more than these sources that have the widest circulation in India. The number doesn't matter, what else is needed other than some of the widest circulating newspapers in India? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who said "two sources" and "It's simple". Now, since that is not the case, your initial rationale is no longer valid. You need to come up with a reason for keeping the article that is grounded in policy and that is not based on the number of sources. For example, it would be helpful if you would point to something specific in WP:AUTHOR that indicates notability. --regentspark (comment) 01:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who doesn't respond to the rationale of sources in the widest circulated papers in India. You need to come up with a reason why not. For example, it would be helpful if you responded why sources in the most widely circulated papers in India is not considered notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GC, it should be clear by now that merely counting sources is not enough. You have to show that the coverage is significant and meaningful. The criteria set down in WP:AUTHOR are designed to help us figure that out. I'll flesh out my rationale above to keep the discussion grounded. --regentspark (comment) 12:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two newspapers are not "the most widely circulated papers in India" and in fact are not even the most widely circulated English language papers. You appear to be constructing an argument based on a false assertion, as you also did with the two-sources point. - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some details of officially recognised circulation figures, please see this website. - Sitush (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India: "According to Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has the largest circulation among all English-language newspapers in the world, across all formats (broadsheet, tabloid, compact, Berliner and online)."

The Telegraph (Calcutta): "According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.. is the fourth most-widely read English newspaper in India"

Cites are in the linked articles. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are not able to see Economic Times ref, please when you land up on the main page of Economic Times, hit the back icon and the related write up will open. The write up is quite of a length! For (talk)The author is no doubt widely read and her books- rest all up to youAnanyaprasad (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am not so adept with editing of Wikipedia, as I am not so well versed with it.Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the independent and depth of coverage required for notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify on why the sources are not independent? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because an interview with the article subject is dependent upon responses from that subject? Because it is the usual PR push that occurs when an author has a new book published, and such things are often based on "who you know" (very significant in Indian society, btw)? Interviews can be useful, obviously, for verification of personal info in a BLP; but these are fundamentally PR pieces and we should prefer third-party assessments etc: that is, discussing her rather than discussing herself. I note that "depth of coverage" was also in the rationale of Stuartyeates. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Sitush, you would at least agree that they are some of the most widely circulated English-dailies in India? Besides, I think the minutiae of the circulation numbers are not so relevant. What matters is that many people read these. If a high school or a Village of 593 people in ukrain with no reliable sources can be kept, this article deserves an entry. But feel free to weigh in. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 15:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I have explained why above. A couple of million readership (not circulation, which is less) is nothing, especially when the stuff appears in supplement sections and - in the case of the Economic Times - it does not even appear in its flagship organ, which has a far bigger readership. In any event, the content of the interviews is PR fluff, as I have also explained previously. It is unfortunate, and you know that I did some work on the article at AfC, in an attempt to improve it but if we let something like this through then we'll have articles for every single author who has ever had a book reviewed/done a standard release interview etc. WP:AUTHOR exists for a reason and while it does have a get-out clause, which GC has been attempting to use, if we go the route that GC wants then we perhaps should be opening a discussion for removal of WP:AUTHOR entirely.

Btw, the WP:OSE essay explains the oddities that are geographical and schools articles. I don't agree with the approach to those but it is how it is. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A couple of million readership (not circulation, which is less) is nothing" - well I think it's something and it deserves a mention on Wikipedia. Who are we to decide whether or not that number is enough? Come on, readership of over a million people amounts to nothing? That is not the case dear. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 19:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush, slippery slope is a logical fallacy and a derail to go into. Let's stick with the facts of this case: For some reason you disregard these papers which are among the most widely circulated papers in India - and the world. See (The Telegraph (Calcutta)) the second paragraph: "According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.. it is the fourth most-widely read English newspaper in India". Look at (The Times of India) where it says "According to Audit Bureau of Circulations, it has the largest circulation among all English-language newspapers in the world". Not just India, the world. I don't agree these pieces are "PR", it's the normal type of interview and profile piece found in periodicals used throughout Wikipedia. If these pieces were Press Releases I would agree with but they are not press releases, they are independent of the subject (the interview questions were made independent of the subject presumably). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous descriptions, both of source requirements and these two newspapers, have been grossly misleading and could affect outcomes here. Period. And still you mislead: The Economic Times is not The Times of India but rather a separate publication, with a tiny readership by comparison. It is this sort of distortion that I am uncomfortable with. Yes, we all make mistakes - no big deal - but you are persisting in them now and I cannot understand why this is so. - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this was also effectively a distortion. No-one with experience would trumpet the outcome of a noticeboard discussion after it had run for roughly three hours and was still open. I accept that you have just stricken your mention of "two" but what is going on here? Yes, people should read through entire discussions and should try to do their own research, but we all know that sometimes this does not happen and anyone reading the first few entries on this page would potentially be making a decision based on flawed information. Not the usual back-and-forth about what a policy does or does not say, but mis-statements of fact regarding outcomes and specific sources. It is no way to conduct an AfD but the issues are now so entangled that they would be nigh-impossible to excise. . - Sitush (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assume Good Faith and stick to the facts. If you think I am acting in bad faith and maliciously telling lies etc.. than open a case against me in AFD Noticeboard or somewhere, we'll examine both sides of the story. Otherwise, stop that kind of behavior during a content dispute, it doesn't reflect well on you. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Times of India is the parent company of Economic Times, the article is part of timesgroup.com and hosted on timesofindia.com URL. You are correct it's not the same paper, but a subscription to The Times website is apparently what gains access to the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I very deliberately did not accuse you of telling lies. You are putting words into my mouth. And, no, a subscription to the Times website is not necessary, or at least not from here: the back button works, as someone else said above. There is a world of difference between being the ToI and the ET and I am glad that the penny is finally dropping at your end. A bit late, but we are getting there. Now, if you retract all those statements that confuse the ToI with the ET perhaps we can wrap up this issue (another pun, alas). - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently independent sources to establish notability. The WP:GNG calls for reliable independent sources. Vcessayist (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tepid keep — Since there is no minimum number as per-requisite for inclusion and the reliability is contingent upon the strength of the sources cited, I think this article ought to not be deleted for this particular reason. Plus, the sources which are there are otherwise considered reliable. And I think, per WP:BEFORE, this article is not unsalvageable. BTW, it's my impersonal view (I know the deletion doesn't reflect badly on me). Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 08:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just weighing in here to explain about the "cite kill" I'd done earlier with the article. On a side note, I removed the parts that went to Goodreads and various merchant sites from EL.

[25] I'd kept this one on the article since it's in-depth and is by a newspaper that's considered to be trustworthy.
[26] I wasn't overly familiar with this specific site but it was a nice in-depth interview so I left it.
[27] This is a link to Google Books for Singh's Love's Journey. It's primary and can't show notability, but more importantly it was one of six sources that followed the first sentence. It was source overkill and that she wrote this was mentioned in the sources that remained on the article, so I removed it.
[28] This one comes up as a broken link, but I don't really remember deleting this one. As long as this shows up for someone and shows that it's more than just a picture, listing for a signing, or a brief mention, I have no problem with this being re-added.
[29] This was just a group of pictures at a book signing and couldn't show notability, although I did move it down to EL.
[30] This article was incredibly dodgy looking and content is user submitted. That its content has changed since the last time I saw the page doesn't help much. The last time I saw it, it only listed the Wikipedia article for the college Singh attended and stated that she's listed there.
"Rashmi Singh Author" National Daily. I couldn't find a whisper of this article on the internet except for in this article. Considering the amount of dodgy sources, I removed it. If someone can prove that this article exists and that it's in-depth, I don't see why it can't be added back. I would just like some proof that it actually exists, as the only thing we really have to go by is the newspaper name and supposed article title- no date of publishing from what I can see.
[31] This one went to a pay site for the Times of India. Despite this, I left it up.
Debolina, Sen "A Pristine Surmise", The Economic Times, Kolkatta, 1 July 2011. This is the same article as the previous one, so I removed it.
[32] Non-notable blog. Blogs are rarely usable as sources and the only time they are usable, they have to be by someone who is an absolute authority, which almost always translates to the individual being notable in some context themselves. Not always, but almost always, which is why I think I've only seen one blog used as a source in my time here on Wikipedia as far as books go.
[33] Google books. I removed it because it's primary and what it's sourcing has already been mentioned in the articles that were left. No need to source it with a primary source.
[34] Non-notable book blog. It's in the EL section, though.
[35] This site sells Singh's books. That means that they have a conflict of interest and no matter how big the corporation may or may not be, once they have that COI the reliability of the source is suspect because it's in their best interests to represent someone in a particularly good light. I'd say the same thing if she'd done a review through Amazon.com or Barnes & Nobles.
The Bihar Q2 2011. page no. 41 This is another one that lacks some information to really give any information on the article or how in-depth it is. Like the other article, if someone can prove that it's in-depth and focuses on Singh then there's no reason it can't be re-added with the full article information.

I'm not trying to be difficult and as I said on the talk page, I'm impressed that enough people have worked on it enough to where it got to where it is now. The earlier versions of the article were pretty bad. I actually wasn't going to nominate it for AfD since it had a good start and had people that were working on it rather hard, trying to find sources. I do agree that the sources here are very light, but there's the potential for more to be added once it can be at least somewhat proven that they're in-depth and have all of the source info posted. If someone can get the broken image Yahoo link to work, that'd push it to four sources, which has been shown to be enough in the past for various articles to show notability. Once someone can fully provide all of the info for the two non-Internet newspaper articles, that'd bring it to six. As far as issues of promotion and COI go, that isn't always a reason to delete an article. If you can show that there's some notability going on, measures should be done to improve rather than delete. Like I said, there's at least 3 sources that just need to be validated somehow and then there'd be no question of notability. I'm leaning towards a weak keep but haven't made my mind up yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to [36] the Yahoo link was in regards to "Giving out degrees, in a convocation ceremony" so it may or may not be in depth about the author. (BTW thank you for taking the time to list these with rationales). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found The Bihar Q2 2011. page no. 41. Looks like a solid source with biographical details. The magazine has an Editorial board. It's web-only but that's not unusual. It's a house organ of the Bihar Society. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a press release-cum-book review. The press release bit counts for nothing much (the usual fluff) and the society does not have any great presence. The editorial board consists of, well, who knows? They do not even share the same domain name in their numerous email addresses. Of course, Patna is in Bihar and that local connection is enough for publication. I'd be interested to know whether the thing is still being produced because the edition in question was their second. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that they have 125 Twitter followers as of now. Which appears to include many names from among those who are associated with producing the magazine. I am not quite sure whether I am missing something here but their Twitter page links to this, which appears to be the first edition of their magazine, whereas what I would like to see is whether or not it got past issue 2. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't really a book review - the article is unsigned and the PR bumpf is followed by an excerpt. There is some info about the mag's aspirations/policy etc here. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that it's a Press Release? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that why is it so important to delete this article as opposed to conforming it to WP-standards and policies. This article is not unsalvageable and we have many articles without any references and yet kept based on the hope that they might be worthy of an inclusion or because of the fact that the problems are surmountable. Why are we arbitrarily raising the bar when it comes to this subject? Why are we splitting hairs about whether or not articles in some of the most widely circulated newspapers with over one million readership is enough to establish notability of a person? We don't ask these questions of entirely subjective importance every time we include an article about a random person. All BLP articles must have one reliable source. This has multiple reliable sources. Hence, what's the problem? We may work on it and improve it. I don't think this article is really deserving a deletion. I don't even understand why it was AFDed in the first place. There are issues, yes, but we can resolve it. Why a deletion is necessary for overcoming these issues is what I don't get. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (lost my web connection) That I did not capitalise "press release" as you did speaks volumes, if you'll excuse the pun. The information presented is clearly similar to that trotted out as publisher's blurb in publicity info sheets when a book is released. Surely you have seen these potted biographies before, often on the rear of a paperback or on the inner face of a hardback dustjacket? Add to that, there is no proper review of the book and, well, it doesn't take a genius ... Now, to get to the real points, was this source an amateur operation or a professionally produced reliable source? Is it still going or was the second edition its last? Who wrote the piece and was it solicited or submitted? Who are the editorial board? Etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokiogirl79, about this source above you've written that the citation was moved to external links because it's a "non-notable" book blog. Are you telling me we have to try and establish the notability of the sources too before trying to establish the notability of the subject with the sources? If so, then it might result in an infinite regress. I don't understand why the sources themselves are made to run through the gauntlet of "notability"; I thought we were to determine whether or not the sources are reliable. How does the notability criteria apply to the references themselves in an article about another topic, is beyond me. Am I wrong? If I am not mistaken, the book blog was not a primary source. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively, yes. If the source is not reliable then obviously it cannot be used to assert notability. Otherwise, someone could create hundreds of websites, for example, and then claim notability because they are mentioned on all of them. Anthony Wile is an example of someone whose name crops up quite a lot but whose article has nonetheless been recently deleted because the sources simply did not make the mark - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not addressing the concern I raised, Sitush. Tokiogirl79 didn't prove it's unreliable, she simply informed that it's non-notable. That's my concern. How the notability criterion, instead of reliability, applies to the sources themselves is what I don't get. Focusing on whether or not Economic Times is itself notable, falls in the same category of concern by the way. There is no guideline/policy in my knowledge, which this article unequivocally violates nor is it unsalvageable. Yet, you are insisting on its deletion, why? Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 09:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Perhaps you are confusing Wikipedia's concept of notability with the more general use of the term. There are notable companies, for example, that only produce food products for supermarket chains etc. They can be massive - seriously massive - producers and highly significant in the supply chain etc, but never have an article here because their name only appears as "passing mentions" in, for example, directories. (This has actually happened, btw, it is not a hypothetical example). - Sitush (talk) 10:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Passing mention" - you use that term quite a lot. But just to let you know, I don't think the mentions are trivial or passing and also they do not serve as grounds for nominating an article for notability while wherever the subject is indeed mentioned you label it as "passing mention". Come on. Why is it such big an issue? She has been mentioned by The Economic Times, OneIndia, The Telegraph, The Bihar Q2 2011, Spectral hues, etc. None of them are passing mentions. Now, you seem to argue that none of them are reliable because of relatively small readership, albeit some of us don't agree. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 07:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I argued that, for example, the Economic Times or Telegraph is "unreliable"? - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mrt3366, and as your talk page history reveals, you are among the people expressing "keep" in this discussion who simply do not understand policy/guidelines and who are obfuscating things by making false charges etc. It needs to stop. I realise that people have to learn etc but these false statements are making life difficult for the poor soul who has to close the discussion and, alas, will probably cause a "no consensus". - Sitush (talk)

"you are among the people expressing "keep" in this discussion who simply do not understand policy/guidelines and who are obfuscating things by making false charges etc." - I am still trying understand certain guidelines, yes, but what needs to stop here and right now is ad hominem approach while arguing. I have not made any "false statements". You're the one who is stretching this unnecessarily.

Who does understand every guideline/essay (s)he comes across in Wikipedia? I bet the number is very small. The guidelines themselves are not written in stone nor are they complete. That's why we have so many RFCs and a plethora of discussions. I am at least trying to understand the guidelines which I don't get now and I don't make it a secret. I don't hide my inabilities. And I don't wish to continue quibbling with you here. I have said what I had to say on the subject this article should not be deleted, with some effort all the issues can be surmounted. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 05:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not enough that a page have a few sources, hastily added after the fact. It also needs to be WP:NEUTRAL and actually based on those sources. If the original page was based on original research or self-sourced promotion, to take something created as advertising (and repeatedly re-submitted to WP:AFC under multiple titles with multiple userid's), to stick a WP:CITE tag on after the fact "oh, by the way, she was mentioned in the Times" and expect that this simple addition will magically transform blatant self-promotion into a balanced article is naïve in the extreme. It doesn't work that way, despite the tendency of WP:AFC reviewers to tag "needs WP:RS" instead of biting an author by asking the WP:COI self-promotion cease. K7L (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To address some of the issues, I've re-written a good chunk of the article. Just to be clear, I was actually pretty vocally against this article in the beginning so I have no agenda to promote the author.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your neutrality. The only users which look a bit odd are user:rrashmissingh, user:Love's Journey and user:ananyaprasad - all of which appear to be single-purpose accounts. commons:image:Rashmi Singh Writer.jpg, for instance, lists ananyaprasad as author but claims "Previously published: https://plus.google.com/u/0/105801147709572890718/posts/cji9WLQGJgr " where the external link points to Rashmi Singh's Google+ page. That doesn't necessarily mean that ananya is rashmi - maybe she's someone who just works for rashmi (or her publisher) taking photos, who knows? K7L (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Pustak Mahal are such stingy people who would never keep a PR for their author. Surf the internet and see, all their Writers are crying!. I just happened to be in the World Book Fair, where she too was there. That's it. Probably she might have forgotten also as many were taking photos. autographs etc. And this one was not with Pustak Mahal but with Pigeon Books. I then while uploading the pic got confused what does it mean, whether the pic has been published before or not? As a similar pic was at Rashmi Singh's Google page so I gave that link- my naivety, you can say as I am a newbie and don't know much about all this. Ananyaprasad (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I'd mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pustak Mahal, this publisher has had a PR in the past who has been editing the article on Pustak Mahal here. user:Aman Arora PR is listed on LinkedIn as having worked for Pustak Mahal for half of 2010 before leaving to join a competitor. K7L (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only thing I can vouch for is that the users have repeatedly denied that they're anything but a fan of Singh's. I agree that it does sort of look a little dodgy, but they've been made aware of COI repeatedly so there's not much else to be done as far as that goes other than to just accept it at face value unless someone can prove otherwise. In any case, I was given another news source to put on the article, which I added. It looks to be a brief article in a local Lucknow paper/magazine. It's on the author's blog and while normally I'm of the "no way" variety when it comes to anything placed on a website that has anything to do with an author, this is an image of the clipping rather than a posting of the content, which does make a bit of a difference because it's more verifiable to see the clipping directly. [37] I've added it to the article, so it can be looked at as a source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:AUTHOR. No substantial coverage in serious reliable independent sources. I've looked at the sources, and have to agree that they are low quality tabloids and insufficient for establishing notability. The "reporting" seems to be a rehash of press releases or other promotional material, and the interviews really don't add much because of the low quality of the publications they are in. My own searches turned up nothing promising, either. Perhaps in the future, this person might deserve a stand-alone article, but, based on the available sources, that hasn't happened yet. WP:TOOSOON applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Economic Times, The Telegraph are not low quality publications. They are India's Times equivalent. Yes it is true that sometimes any Tom, Dick, and Harry are too interviwed but I don't think, one would be interviwed so many times! JUst think logically, why would so many interviews come uo of a non notable person? And if she is herself doing all this then, why not the other newspapers in parallel with The Economic Times and The Telegraph. Think this before deleting this page. Wikipedia has made its name and is respected worldwide. As I have been asked not to ask why other stuff exists, I will not ask, but yes if deleted, comparison would be made and many eyebrow raised! Rest all up tp you all obviously Ananyaprasad (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:TOOSOON does not apply for an author I guess and if it does also then it is more than a year back when her Economic Times review about her book was published. Her one book as I have already mentioned above is in Worldcat. So a request to all that before making any effort to delete this article, read Wikipedia first.Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC) Next Dominus please read this about The Economic Times The Economic Times is an English-language Indian daily newspaper published by the Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.. It is the world's second most widely read English-language business newspaper, after the Wall Street Journal.[2] The Economic Times was started in 1961. It is the most popular and widely read financial daily in India, read by more than 8 lakh (800,000) people. The Economic Times is published simultaneously from 12 cities—Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Chandigarh, and PuneAnanyaprasad (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"WorldCat is a union catalog which itemizes the collections of 72,000 libraries in 170 countries and territories..." I presume this means that, if out of the seventy-two thousand libraries, just one has one copy of one of her books, that would qualify as "listed in Worldcat" even though that comes nowhere near meeting WP:AUTHOR? (In practice, hitting exactly one participating library would not be easy... maybe the "History of XYZ County" as a print-on-demand book with one copy on the shelf of XYZ County Library as an item of specialised, local interest or a university thesis placed on the bookshelves of that university and then forgotten?) K7L (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I can't find any book by this author on WorldCat. I found "love's journey" but it was by Ethel Clifford. --regentspark (comment) 15:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Maybe you can check this link http://www.worldcat.org/title/taming-the-restless-mind-winning-tips-unfolded/oclc/775646688?loc=

I know what you are trying your best to seek out the notability of the author. Actually it was mentioned that none of her books are on Worldcat. So hence this link. Maybe it helps. And Tokyogirl has already mentioned that how difficult it is for the INdian authors, specially females to make it to the news etc and respected libraries.. So perhaps you agree.. Ananyaprasad (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem. Your link resolves to Alibris which is a bookseller not a library. And, unfortunately, even Alibris doesn't actually have the book to sell (zero available copies), they're just using the ISBN to indicate that the book exists (we already know it does). Having an ISBN does not mean anything since any book can have one. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I check this link and get "Sorry, we cannot find libraries in India that have this item. The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include: California". Substitute China or Canada for "India" and the result is the same... Worldcat finds one copy in Emeryville CA US and that's it. If Buzz Lightyear happens to have that copy checked out this week? There are no others on Earth. K7L (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's worse than that. The one result for Emeryville points not to a lending library but to Alibris, an online network of independent booksellers which does not have the book. Effectively, a Worldcat search ends with this as unobtanium. An author search launched from this Worldcat page gives plenty of books... by some other author or authors with similar names. Nothing useful here. K7L (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, maybe whatever you are saying is true but the issue is here is not that if her books are on Worldcat or not- the issue is about the sources and the article has it. Ananyaprasad (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as has already been pointed out by several of the editors participating in this AfD, the sources are poor in quality and do little to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not all. Some very notable editors have pointed out the The Economic Times source and The Telegraphsource along with others very valuable! Ananyaprasad (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not independent because they merely repeat the person's words. These are fluff interviews and the sources are meaningless. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No substantial coverage in serious reliable independent sources fails WP:GNG . Mt king ^(edits) 19:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need to worry about FUTON bias. There is a good chance Indian reliable sources are mostly not online, and what is online represents the tip. Print sources are acceptable if they are reliable, full citations are provided, and if editors are willing to post relevant excerpts under fair-use when requested to. Not voting keep since, well, I can't just assume there are print sources based on interviews in newspapers. Churn and change (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

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

174.22x.xxx.xxx IP addresses?

It looks like user:rrashmissingh and user:ananyaprasad are posting from the same Internet provider. Ananyaprasad is 117.224.142.131 in this edit and Rrashmissingh is 117.225.89.236 in this edit. Both are following the same edit pattern, if not vociferously "I am Spartacus" then at least both insisting just as aggressively "I am not Rashmi Singh". The addresses are dynamic IPv4's where every attempt to connect lands on a different address in a ridiculously huge block of 147454 IP's, so not everyone posting from the 174.224.0.0-174.226.63.255 range is Rashmi or is among the single-purpose users here to discuss these articles (Rashmi Singh (author), Love's Journey, Pustak Mahal) or edit the associated WP:AFC and WP:AFD pages.

% [whois.apnic.net node-4]

% Whois data copyright terms www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html

inetnum: 117.224.0.0 - 117.226.63.255

netname: BSNL-GSM-NorthZone

descr: BSNL GSM North Zone, O/o Sr GM (CMTS), NC, Chandigarh

country: IN

admin-c: JS2127-AP

tech-c: RV131-AP

status: ASSIGNED NON-PORTABLE

mnt-by: MAINT-IN-PER-DOT

mnt-irt: IRT-BSNL-IN

changed: hostmaster (at) bsnl.in 20110917

source: APNIC

The addresses belong to a mobile telephone provider (which may explain why they are highly dynamic) and cover much of northern India.

As such, a checkuser would likely neither prove nor rule out the possibility that multiple accounts connecting via the same ISP to edit just the Rashmi Singh discussion are the same user. Any determination would therefore have to be based primarily or entirely on a comparison of edit histories of user:rrashmissingh, user:Love's Journey, user:ananyaprasad and any others which turn up in future with an identical pattern of promoting this single topic. K7L (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whatever you are saying about my IP address could be true, but I don't know about other accounts- and yes it is single purpose because I wanted to create an article. Before this I was not knowing about Wiki. But if you don't want me to stick around, henceforth, I'll not post or refute anything. I guess I am not doing anything criminal and uselessly I don't want my parents to be in trouble. Thanks for the wonderful reception. Ananyaprasad (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC) bye forever.[reply]

Any reason for changing "Yes, whatever you are saying about my IP address is true" to "Yes, whatever you are saying about my IP address could be true" in your post? Which is it? K7L (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a very honest person, and as I told you, I don't want my parents to be in trouble. I am young and don't have any idea of things. You may delete or keep discussing this article. I am not interested amymore.I leave because, I don't want to get involved in this manner.Ananyaprasad (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC) You can call me coward but yes I have my younger brother and sisters also- I have other responsibilities in life. You do one thing- you delete it.[reply]

To be very honest, I learnt many things about Wiki, during these days and maybe when I am emotionally better I'll check out other articles tooAnanyaprasad (talk) 16:20, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bismil Azimabadi

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

Seems to lack notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. GSearch and GBooks produce not a lot of information about the article subject. He seems to be an Urdu poet who wrote a poem that was later popularised by Ram Prasad Bismil but there really is not much coverage at all even in non-English sources, and mostly his name is just mentioned rather than discussed. I'll flag this AfD at WT:INB in case it is a systemic issue. Sitush (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tough one Hmm. The poem is not clearly attributed to him. I'd lean toward delete with a reference to the possible attribution in the article on the poem. --regentspark (comment) 14:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really skeptical how things are being connected Shrikanthv (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. search results doesn't return anything significant. --Anbu121 (talk me) 09:37, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ithaca Bakery and Collegetown Bagels

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

No indications of notability. A company that gets the standard amount of local coverage, but no indications of any depth of coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a promotional piece. Mostly first party coverage. Nothing independent and reliable enough to establish notability, as required by the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please note this is an educational assignment. The students have been informed of the notability issue, and hopefully they'll reply. It is possible that sources may exist to show this is a notable establishment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree its not a promotional piece, but I don't see much hope for notability. It looks like the instructor raised this potential issue before the article was written ("does it really matter that Ithaca Bakery appear in an encyclopedia? If you believe so, then you should convince the Wikipedia community - otherwise you will face deletion.") Few local restaurants are notable, especially in what is apparently a fairly small city. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bodo's Bagels (August 2012), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul's Pastry Shop (February 2010). Now, its good as a matter of capturing human knowledge that students are recording the history of the establishment(s), and clearly research has gone into the article, but that does not mean Wikipedia is the place for it. The students are getting an education in Wikipedia procedure right now. Perhaps they can write a paper about why this bagel shop is like or not like Mzoli's or Moosewood Restaurant (which from a quick search appears to be the only restaurant article we have from that city).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not promotional material - I am the instructor guiding the students on this article. This specific business is important to the cultural scene in Ithaca, NY, plays a role in efforts for environmental and cultural sustainability of the area, and appears in guide books for the Finger Lakes area. Please do not delete it to not push potential Wikipedia editors away from editing articles, but instead I'd be happy to see other Wikipedians contribute to this article, adding sources and improving the article to add to its notability, and discussing these matters with the students who wrote this article. Thanks. LeshedInstructor (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand that these students are attempting to create meaningful Wikipedia content, and I applaud them for that. Unfortunately, this article doesn't appear to meet the criteria for inclusion. My own search for evidence of signficant coverage of this local bakery outside of local media (mostly the college papers of Cornell University and Ithaca College) proved fruitless. If others are able to find more significant coverage, I'd love to see it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also failed to turn up sources. It's in the creators (students) ballpark to find them, we can help, but we cannot magic them out of thin air. Perhaps the students or you will be able to provide them (perhaps you can find something through a search of local newspapers that we missed, or perhaps you know of some books or academic articles that discuss it, and so on). If you cannot find such sources, the article will have to be deleted, although I'd like to suggest to the closing admin that it is userfied instead, so that the evidence of this assignment remains (and perhaps at some future point this restaurant will become notable, and the article will be easier to restore then). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources which appear to be from local newspapers, as well as a local history book. It appears the store was originally called "Bruno's Bakery" and owned by Bruno Mazza so that led me to find some of them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such named place has one book mention, too: Ellen Freudenheim; Anna Wiener (1 April 2004). Brooklyn!, 3rd Edition: The Ultimate Guide to New York's Most Happening Borough. Macmillan. pp. 462–. ISBN 978-0-312-32331-8. Retrieved 9 October 2012. . I am not sure if this is the same place, though? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that one is in Brooklyn, New York, not the same place. One article I'd like to find, but I'm sure the students could, is this one [38] from 2003 in the Ithaca newspaper, for which the google snip says "In the October issue, the Ithaca Bakery came in for full feature treatment, with a five-page spread, color photos and an in-depth profile of the five Brous ..." It appears to be referencing some full treatment of the business in some other publication, but I can't see which.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:57, 9 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) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Manfred Klipper

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper TheChampionMan1234 11:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Neither party appears notable for anything other than this event and so do not meet WP:CRIME. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CRIME, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS, and simply because it's written like a news article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Short lived, one time events might get coverage in reliable independent sources, but are insufficient to establish long term notability. Vcessayist (talk) 02:07, 7 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) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LSUC Bencher Election 2011

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

I believe there's no dispute that the LSUC is a notable organization, but an article about the election of its Board of Directors (which is what the "benchers" are) is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. The article is an example of what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the general principles of WP:Notability. For the most part, a routine election of an organization's board of directors is of minor, if any, importance outside the organization and is really a matter of internal corporate governance and administration. The only sources for the article are the LSUC's own website, while the "further reading" consists of blog posts of little interest outside the legal community. The article itself is simply an opening statement that the LSUC election will be held in 2011, followed by a list of all the canidates. This is not supposed to be a directory or a data-dump. Agent 86 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly inside politics. The organization is notable but the election was not. Needs reliable sources that are independent of the organization that actually care enough to cover it with any significance. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:08, 7 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. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IQ Press

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

Delete. Non-notable company. Refs are mainly from the subject. Contested PROD. PROD removed by the SPA who created the aricle. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:35, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The provided refs are primary and I can find nothing elsewhere to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a small, young, niche publishing house. Nothing notable about it. PK T(alk) 16:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a promotional article with no reliable independent sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:26, 7 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) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ogün Samast

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

Article about the assassin of Hrant Dink. Falls under WP:1E all the relevant information is covered in Assassination of Hrant Dink George Spurlin (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:EVENT. The murder already has an article. SalHamton (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Sprutt (talk) 13:47, 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, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 07:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the victim's page. Siuenti (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not news / 1 event / etc. Notability needs to be a long term interest, and not merely a flash in the pan. Vcessayist (talk) 02:11, 7 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) 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal (2012 novel)

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

Here's the big issue with this book. While no one can deny that Steel is notable, I'm not entirely sure that I can say without a doubt that she's so notable that all of her books are automatically notable by extension. Part of me says yes, part of me says no because while she's influenced so many I'm not entirely certain that she's at the point where it's absolutely undeniable. Rather than just redirecting it to her article, I thought I'd bring it up to AfD for a wider consensus since this isn't a cut and dry notable/nonnotable discussion for me. As far as sources go, I found three: two trade reviews and a spot on ABC News, but three sources are not enough to show notability. The book did achieve NYT Bestseller status but that doesn't actually extend notability and is considered trivial in the grand scheme of things. The Kirkus Review is so bland and non-descriptive that I almost didn't use it. A search only brought up trivial mentions. I'd love it if someone can dig up more sources that actually go over the novel, but this appears to be non-notable outside of the author's notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another reason I wanted to bring this up for AfD, aside from issues of notability, is that if this is kept based on Steel's notability then we can use this as an example if any of her other books get brought up for deletion in the future. Setting a precedent, in other words.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I found reviews in Publishers Weekly, the Malaysian Star, and Bangkok Post, as well as the coverage on Kirkus and ABC. There's also a rather implausible Book Reporter review that looks more like an advert.[39] On the other hand, it does sound like it's a really bad book. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified so far are enough to show notability. A dedicated segment on Good Morning America is not insignificant.[40] Another one: Times of India[41] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All that's really needed for WP:GNG is two book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only two book reviews? I know there's more now, but I've always been told that it's more along the lines of 4 sources or so in order to show that it's gotten any depth of coverage for any given thing, whether it's a book, person, event, or film. I say this because I've seen AfDs closed as "delete" on articles where there's only been two sources. Also, as far as the Times of India goes, I didn't include that because it's considered to be a rather unreliable source because they've been caught on multiple occasions for printing outright falsehoods or stretching the truth to the point where it was pretty much a falsehood at that point. The reason I've been trying to shy away from using BookReporter.com is that someone recently informed me off-Wikipedia that the site pretty much just collects reviews from various book blogs that sign up for the site and I'm not exactly sure what criteria, if any, is used to tell what makes one of the blog reviews more valid than another. Until I can find more things that would make me feel comfortable about using the site, I'm a little leery about including anything from there. Also, what does everyone think about stating whether or not Steel would be someone that would be someone that's so notable that her books would become notable by extension? I'm not really all that devoted to deleting this, really. I just figured that this AfD could be valuable in the future as far as setting a standard for her books in general- especially those that might've been released pre-Internet and might not have a lot of visible sources, thus giving them an automatic "save" from being AfD'd in the future.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to meet the threshold for notability. Even so, I'm persuaded there is more coverage out there. Vcessayist (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think two significant reviews should do it. I don't see anything in my search for "The Times of India" to indicate significant concerns; the WP article pretty much portrays it as a major newspaper there with some controversies. The book review itself looks good; yes, the book does seem to be bad. Not our criterion, though. Churn and change (talk) 04:53, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benzinga

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

Article describes a "financial news" site of extremely marginal notability in typically sugarcoated promospeak. Going through the "references" provided, we find most of them to be self-published material (or simple reposts thereof) or simple passing mentions in this or that publication. The strongest thing this has going for it is probably its Forbes blog, but I'm not sure that alone is sufficient. Overall, the article is written almost entirely in an unencyclopaedic fashion and seems to fail WP:ORG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a scraper/aggregation web site of no particular notability. --John Nagle (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:14, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Several of the references are either posts by Benzinga or insignificant. Google News provided several links to benzinga.com. One of the third-party sources is this promotional press release (but then again, aren't nearly all press releases promotional?). There was also another small mention here. There is little significant content and coverage about the company itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to establish notability. Cannot meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:12, 7 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) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leadstart Publishing

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

Appears to be a vanity publisher that has attracted no notice from reliable secondary sources, hence failing WP:GNG. Claims to be India's largest book distributor, but that is unsupported. Batard0 (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As my prod said, "Unsourced article about non-notable company. Page was previously nom'd for CSD, but userfied for the article creator to add sources. Article then moved back to mainspace without references being added." Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is a notable company based on the numerous incidental sources found (over 20) in commercial databases, mostly Gale archived newspapers from India. The publisher has collaborated with Crossword Bookstores and Oxford Bookstore, two major Indian bookstore chains, so the books they publish are not "vanity press" in the normal sense of "not sold in stores". However all the sources are in reference to a book published by Leadstart and not really about Leadstart (beyond one sentence at best). So it's technically problematic for Wikipedia purposes. Some example source quotes:
- "Crossword Bookstores and Leadstart Publishing hosted a book reading session of the book 'Incognito'..."
- "Seven years ago, Sunil founded the fiction imprint, Frog Books, as a platform for the writing talent he saw around him. It was later incorporated under Leadstart Publishing, where he functioned as editorial head fiction."
- "imprints like Little Squirrel put out by distributor Leadstart Publishing [is an example of] booming children's writing in India"
- "Oxford Bookstore, Mumbai and Leadstart Publishing host the launch of 'A Journey Forever'... "

That's the best I can find for now. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like incidental coverage at best, none of it rising to something we can all agree is significant attention in any reliable source. I may be wrong, but these could easily be press releases picked up by local newspapers. In any event, the notability of books it publishes and their authors doesn't confer notability on the publisher under the guidelines, I believe. I'm open to finding something better, though -- perhaps there's significant coverage in widely circulated Hindi publications. --Batard0 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not press releases. Believe the above quotes to offer some evidence of notability. It would need more in-depth coverage nonetheless. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I found two more sources ([42], [43]), but both are just passing mentions. Does not meet WP:ORG --Anbu121 (talk me) 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable publishing company based in Mumbai and encourages upcoming writers from India and other South Asian countries. Published hundreds of titles. The article is pruned to a great extent, some reliable sources added. -Rayabhari (talk) 17:29, 9 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) 01:28, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bedbug (comics)

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

Article was PRODed by User:Argento Surfer but had previous contested PRODs. I didn't notice this and deleted the page (*trouts self*). PROD concern was "Non-notable minor fictional character. Very little real-world information on subject." Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the article's content fails neutral point of view TheChampionMan1234 05:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale by nom. A search didn't bring up anything that would show that this character is notable in the slightest. Even if the comic it appeared in was notable, notability isn't inherited by being part of a notable comic. Although since the article for the comic series doesn't exist and also doesn't appear to be notable, this is a moot point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, comic book characters will rarely receive outside world references, and if any, they are insignificant. Google News found one link here but this appears to be the only evidence of significant third-party sources. As mentioned by Tokyogirl79, considering that there isn't an article for the series, redirecting wouldn't be an option. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Reyk _YO! 02:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to establish notability as per the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the comic this character is from doesn't have an article, what more the character? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:16, 10 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) 01:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Sun Recording Studio

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

fails WP:ORG. declined speedy, not sure why. zero gnews hits and zero in trove [44]. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not belong at all. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good refs show up - I mean, it's possible - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any evidence of reliable third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to establish notability, as required by the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advert. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:44, 8 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) 01:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colour names in Sinhala and English

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

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal TheChampionMan1234 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly not in line with policy stated above. —Zujine|talk 06:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The rest of the content, about which Sinhala words sound like English words, is trivia and doesn't really belong here either (if the resemblances are due to loan-words or common ancestry, then wiktionary allows etymology to be included). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colapeninsula. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as wikipedia is not a dictionary. Vcessayist (talk) 02:15, 7 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) 01:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walao

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

Page whose purpose is unclear. Dictionary definition of a term, sourced by a bunch of websites dedicated to the use of that term. Possible promotion. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition or possibly speedy delete as link spam (except that the links appear to be dead). Cnilep (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism and a dictionary definition. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:18, 7 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) 01:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djondb

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

Non-notable software. No independent sources and nothing obvious in google. No evidence of awards. Created by an WP:SPA with a similar name to the self professed author of the software. PROD removed as the first edit of a brand-new account. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News provided zero results so the software must not have received any news coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no 3rd party references to establish notability of this software, SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete software doesn't appear to be notable. No sources that meet the WP:GNG can be found. Vcessayist (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Does not meet WP:GNG especially as far as reliable sources go. JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 9 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) 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Side of the Moo

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

Non-notable bootleg. Getting a review at Allmusic, having a few mentions in print, and selling 15,000 copies establish that this exists, but it fails WP:MUSIC. Bootlegs are usually not notable and this is especially true for a band like Pink Floyd who have hundreds or thousands. This one is of mild interest for the main article, but doesn't warrant one of its own. (Google search for sources.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't matter - coverage in three reliable sources as seen in the article's references means it meets WP:GNG. Most bootlegs are indeed not notable, but if a recognised expert on bootlegs writes about this one to exclusion of hundreds of others, that's somewhat different. By the way, the relevant policy here is WP:NALBUMS, which is what I've been referring to here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 06:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response One of this is literally a single mention in a book that mentions several dozen bootlegs, so now you only have two. ~~The other book (to which I do not have access) only mentions it on one page out of several hundred, as well.~~ (Edit: You can find it on Amazon under a different name: the reference is ephemeral.) Again, this exists, but those don't constitute substantial coverage and effectively there is only one source, which is Allmusic. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other source, Clinton Heylin's book (which is not the same one you refer to above) has a few pages, but you can't search for it. But nobody said sources should be easy to find. Also, WP:42 suggests that "there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it." - which it does. Past precedent has also shown that when I suggested creating Elvis' Greatest Shit, and when I went to AN talking about it with the same amount of sourcing, consensus was reached by a number of administrators to bypass the blacklist and create the article - which suggests such a topic with that sourcing is borderline notable. Yes, it would be great if every article on Wikipedia had 8 billion sources against them, but you should have least proposed a topic to merge to, not removing coverage cited by reliable sources. Anyway, I disagree with your conclusions. End of argument. Let's see what consensus other people come to. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ritchie's comments, it has enough sources to be kept. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 11:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources for this unusually well-known bootleg album from a major band. The official sales figures are in this case a gross under-estimate too, as you'd expect for a bootleg. But quite simply, this passes GNG as being properly sourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keepIt's about coverage in RS, not coverage by Koavf. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like it has good sources to talk about it. Meets the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:16, 7 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) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Domains

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

not notable (contested speedy) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep United Domains is clearly relevant, though it's quite short. Speedy deletion set by the same user (Pigsonthewing) has already been declined. With more than 700,000 registrations of new generic TLDs, it's the major domain registrar in this area. If we keep stuff like Hover and all the other , we should keep this, too. --Furnessi (talk) 07:01, 24 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) 00:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that a speedy deletion prod from the nominator was contested does not invalidate a subsequent AfD nomination. All four "sources" are from the company itself and can not possibly be considered "independent". Cannot find anything even close to "significant coverage" of the subject - looks to fail WP:CORPDEPTH fairly clearly. For the record, Hover (domain registrar) is also in fairly bad shape and should probably be considered for deletion also. But WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a good argument for keeping this article. Nor is WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Stalwart111 (talk) 02:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this news article appears to be reliable, but a single reliable source does not a notable subject make. Can't find anything else. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evident notability, though needs more verification by reliable sources. --87.177.85.90 (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some reliable sources? Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage from lots of different secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect (and you are an experienced admin so you certainly have my respect), which ones? Two of the "sources" are from the company's own website, one from the parent company's website and the other is from the company's own blog. None of them are independent. I did try to look for sources not included in the article itself - there are a few German news sites that give the company passing mentions but I couldn't find any that gave "significant coverage". More than happy to change my notation above if that's not accurate. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:41, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there may be lots of secondary coverage, which I highly doubt, WP:SOURCES says that these references must be of high-quality. I cannot find any --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as most of the sources are either not independent, or barely mention the company. Does not meet the standards outlined in the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: United Domains was part of Lycos Europe, see this source. --82.113.122.165 (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INHERIT. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 09:22, 8 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Fair Cop

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

An article about a self-published account of how a UK police officer has been gravely wronged by the public and by the system of justice in the UK. The plot summary speaks for itself (note, I have removed a worst element, but it was minor). Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia does not exist for this sort of account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Books which are not that significant ie 'chick lit' are included on Wikipedia. Why have they not been nominated for deletion? I am not trying to create an argument - I am just curious. I think that 'A Fair Cop' is significant because it provides a first-person account of one person's experience of the justice system in the United Kingdom. (😺Galaxycat😺 talk 20:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Articles about insignificant books (of any sort, including "chick lit") are, and should be nominated for deletion. If they haven't been, then we just have not got round to them yet, under WP:OTHERSTUFF. I could provide a first-person account of one person's experience of working on projects that require a security clearance, but that would not make me nor my book notable. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't appear to meet any of the five criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Ubelowme _U ^Me 23:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For now at least - meets criteria 1 WP:NBOOKS (Google search) - however, the page does need more work and many more references from reliable sources. Book has been used for Adult Learners' Week so nearly (but not quite) meeting criteria 4 of WP:NBOOKS. I would say give it a reprieve for the time being and give interested editors time to address the pages' failings? Simuliid talk 11:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can interject here for a second, the amount of Google hits is not indicative of a book's notability or the lack thereof. I'm still researching so I'm not going to make a definite vote at this point in time but I have to say that so far the hits have predominantly been the type that do not show notability. Most are either merchant sites, primary sources, junk hits, and links to various non-reliable and non-usable blogs and websites. I've been looking through the news archives to look for stories, but most of the stories predominantly focus on the assault and arrest of Bunting rather than on the book. When taking that into consideration, I haven't seen enough of a depth of coverage to where I'd say that an article based on Bunting himself and/or the assault should be written at this point in time. It got a smattering of coverage, but not really all that much when you get down to whether it's enough to show that the incident passes WP:GNG. Now what I'm thinking might be a good compromise for the article is that if we can figure out exactly which precinct Bunting was working in at the time of the assault and charges, this would be worth a brief mention in the article for the precinct, with his name and the book's title redirecting there. It looks like it would be the West Yorkshire Police force, but I'd like to be 100% sure. I think there's enough for a smallish paragraph but so far I'm not really certain that there's enough here for an entire article. I'm still searching, but so far that's where I'm leaning. As for criteria #4, you'd have to show that it's widely used in multiple classrooms over a broad stretch and not just something that's used in a handful of classrooms.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Google was that there are usable references, rather than a indicator of notability. As for criteria #4 I did say "nearly, but not quite". The criteria in WP:NBOOKS are , as it states Rule of thumb, not cast iron, and there are other considerations. My gut feeling is that this work could fit the criteria, if the interested editors want to put the effort in.The page was only started on the 21 August 2012‎. In my opinion many acceptable pages are Flagged Articles for deletion far to hastily, without giving them a chance to grow and develop first. I have have had new pages flagged for deletion less than 60 seconds after creating them. Many first class Wikipedia pages where fairly minimalist for a long while. Yes I agree, as it stands, maybe is should be deleted? My recommendation would be for benefit of the doubt, remove the Flag for now, let the editors address it's shortcomings, then review the situation in a month or two? Simuliid talk 20:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which references? I found many primary sources and various unusable sources, but very few things that could be usable as far as showing notability goes. The only things I discovered were a handful of articles that mentioned the assault, but not really anything specific about the book itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 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) 00:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book has not received the necessary significant coverage from independent reliable sources. A search at Google News finds minor coverage in minor publications, with the single exception of an article in the Yorkshire Evening Post. Both the Wikipedia article and the book (and even the book's title) are blatant examples of special pleading, telling one side of the story - what I call "ain't it awful" reporting. The article should be made more neutral if it is kept, but IMO it should not be kept because it fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --MelanieN (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wade, Stephen (22 December 2009), "INJUSTICE EXPOSED--THE CASE OF PC BUNTING.(A Fair Cop)(Book review)", Contemporary Review is an in depth review of the book. There is also a bunch of sources that discuss the case and the book held at the books official site [45]. Not the right place to source them from but enough is provided to make them independently verifiable. There is also more similar sources out there. Something should exist here wether about the book or about the case is another question. Note that the Contemporary Review review states "This book is a product of an initiative inherited by Harper Collins called the Friday Project; they took over this project in April, 2008 and it has to be said that the results are impressive. The aim of the project is to find potential creative writing in blog texts and to work on them, developing them into full-length books. Michael Bunting's story is a very worthy inclusion in this programme" so this is not just a self published book. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[46]] Contemporary Review at Highbeam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:20, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I fail to see what is notable about a book about Michael Bunting who is not notable enough to have his own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an article about a book, not about it's subject. And just because it's a red link does not mean he is not notable (maybe just no one has made made one yet). And it should be noted that Wikipedia is more strict ( or something) when it come to WP:BLP's as any article about Bunting would be than it is about books published by reputable publishers. duffbeerforme (talk)
Keep - meets criteria 1 WP:NBOOKS, also as stated above this is an article about the book and not the subject. If you havent found that out you havent read the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:57, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Brooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of coverage in reliable third-party sources to WP:verify notability, as required by the general notability guideline. Nomination three years ago ended in no consensus, mostly on the good faith belief of the "keep" commenters who believed that there was potential for this article. I've looked into that potential and concluded that further searches WP:WONTWORK and won't turn up more than a single sentence mention here or there (which are not enough to establish notability). The coverage we need doesn't exist, and so this must be deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain but possible merge to TV series - You have to keep to mind that there may be few significant sources because this is a story character. Google News found several mentions with Patricia Breslin. Considering that I'm not entirely familiar with this TV series, I wouldn't know how significant the character is. SwisterTwister talk 01:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The reliable source information generally only notes, "She also played Laura Brooks on the prime time soap opera Peyton Place." as part of Patricia Modell's October 2011 obit.[47] After deleting, redirect to Peyton_Place_(TV_series)#Characters if needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:17, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:57, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources barely mention the subject. Not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:20, 7 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kawika Crowley

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN, suggest redirect to election article. Arbor8 (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii, 2012 per our usual practice for unelected candidates without evidence of other notability. The article does include a claim that Kawika Crowley co-wrote the great song "Hawai'i '78", best known for the two versions by Israel Kamakawiwo'ole on his landmark Facing Future album. Crowley's claim is detailed at his website hawaiiseventyeight.com; but all the independent sources that I can find give the credit to Micky Ioane, and I find no reliable independent sources that back up Crowley's co-authorship claim.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprisingly for an unelected congressional candidate, Crowley has gotten coverage from national sources including the Huffington Post. I will work on the article and try to make his notability clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article and added several references. He is mostly notable as the first homeless person to run for Congress on a major party ticket. --MelanieN (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this is incredibly resourceful, as to becoming unelected candidate, the Huffington Post and of course the NY Times really do help the standing sources for this article.--GoShow (...............) 04:27, 22 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:27, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I suppose my query would be whether his nomination for Congress would be a matter of WP:BLP1E. I mean, what else is he notable for, except for that nomination? Of course if he is elected he would pass WP:POLITICIAN but assuming that he will be would be a matter of WP:CRYSTAL, so... on balance, weak delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if he doesn't get elected, his nomination has been notable enough to get media attention, so I think an entry in the encyclopedia is justified. As the election draws nearer, I would expect there to be increased covered of him, which would hopefully include some more biographical information. I'd be open to revisit this issue after the election though. —Zujine|talk 06:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: looks to risk the fate of other single event / WP:NOTNEWS types of candidates. There's a lot of novelty in a homeless guy running for congress and it would pick up coverage for a few weeks. I'm not persuaded it would go beyond this. Not everything mentioned in the news is actually suitable for Wikipedia, because our articles need to cover something's legacy beyond what you might find in the brief bursts of media fascination. Vcessayist (talk) 02:23, 7 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) 22:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinder Kumar

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

Non-notable footballer, has not received significant coverage, never played for a fully-pro team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and more importantly WP:GNG. Also the sources he gave to a match report dont help as the player is not listed as playing. PROD was contested without giving a reason. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - claims he has played in I-League are unverified; he appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL and definitely fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 18. Snotbot t • c » 13:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. Unless the claim that he played in the I-League can be verified, he fails WP:NSPORT and he has not received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - article claims that Kumar has played in a fully pro league, but that claim is unsourced, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY, and should be deleted unless the claim can be verified. Article also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as he has played in a fully pro league and passes WP:NFOOTY. Article needs improvement though. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fully pro cup. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator Comment: He has now officially played in his first official match today (see here) but of course he fails GNG still so I will let you guys decide. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the article, needs more reliability edits, although, from the sources the projects, clearly shows a good verification and the documents it needs while the athlete was in the pro league.--GoShow (...............) 04:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not meet GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 10:48, 23 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:34, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable imho. —Zujine|talk 06:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:07, 5 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 . Already moved to new title, should be edited so as to be an article about the event and not a biography. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corryn Rayney

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

Classic WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. High profile murder case currently underway, but I cannot see any prospect this will have lasting historical significance. Certainly, the article does not explain why there would be any. Moondyne (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of almost any murder trial. The same could also be said for a huge amount of the stuff in wikipedia concerning the current lineup of football teams, for example, which changes all the time.

As to notability, this is the most sensational upper-class intra-family murder trial that has occured in Australia for decades, since the murder of Megan Kalajzich murder. It is one of the most notable murder trials since the trial of the man who murdered Peter Falconio. It is the first murder, to the best of my knowledge, that has alleged to have been committed by a barrister. It is notable as to the delay between the death occuring and the suspect being charged, and the apparently circumstantial nature of the actual evidence. The fact that the articles about these murders years ago still tend to attract comments and edit-warring from POV partisans of the cases is an inherent indicator of notability.

As to your complaint that the article does not explain notability, that is intentional at this point in time. Only very basis, undisputed facts have been included. Details about the subject of the article and the circumstances of her death which are in any way controversial or disputed have not been included, precisely to avoid any POV issues. It certainly would be possible to enhance the article to address notability, but to do so would tend to require the inclusion of currently disputed facts which are the subject of a currently on-going trial, and in my view that is not a desirable situation at this time.

As to POV, after I created this article two weeks ago, I found out that there had been a previous one, which had been deleted. And now there is a campaign to delete this one. I have no connection to anyone connected with this case and no agenda, I'd wonder what the connection, POV, and agenda is for the proponent to delete it.Eregli bob (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The same could be said of almost any murder trial"—which is why almost all murder trials aren't Wikipedia-notable. For both your examples above, books were written, they were internationally reported and telemovies made. Sensational is your own and the newspapers' POV and has nothing to do with notability. Your concerns in the last paragraph are unnecessary. Moondyne (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the extensive public interest and media coverage, this case might be worthy of a mention in the article List of specific crimes in Western Australia. However, the story has a long way to run yet, and the possibility of a heart attack has even been mentioned by a pathologist in the trial. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well indeed. Most murders involve one drunken lowlife murdering another drunken lowlife. Or their spouse. Or one crim bumping off a rival crim. The suspect is usually obvious and usually dealt with, without it being front-page news for years. Most murder cases are not particularly notable. Thats what makes these upper-class murders unusual and distinctive. Books and a TV series were made about the Kalajzich case, and this case may be headed the same way. This case is also legally interesting, because it appears that the police have only circumstantial evidence. If they had a murder weapon, or DNA evidence, or could pinpoint the actual scene of the crime, the evidence would have been mentioned by now. This case has had some overseas media coverage. I think that your arbitrary personal decision, that this case has no prospect of enduring notoriety, is wrong.Eregli bob (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not arbitrary. WP:CRIME guideline re victims of crime is specific:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

So far the article hasn't explained how this has any long-term significance. That it might sometime in the future is crystal ball gazing - I strongly doubt that it will but thats only my opinion. And its only my opinion, not a decision. And I never used the word "notoriety"—that has a slightly different connotation. Moondyne (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I already pointed out, I have only included basic and undisputed facts about the victim of this high-profile murder. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and I am not going to try to keep up with the daily claims and counter-claims of the evidence as the trial proceeds. It would not be appropriate to do so. If the defendant is acquitted, in the absence of any other suspect, it is quite likely that this event will acquire an enduring notoriety similar to the OJ case in the United States. If the defendant is not acquitted, the trial will be somewhat notable as there appears to be no murder weapon, no definite actual cause of death, and no evidence directly implicating the suspect. They had to borrow a judge and a prosecutor from other legal jurisdictions to handle the case. There are over 77,000 Google hits for the name of the victim. It has been reported daily in the newspaper for months. This is evidence of notability.Eregli bob (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have twice now demanded that an explanation of notability should be included in the article itself, I'll now go and add some as per your instruction. But don't you go coming back tomorrow and complaining that it "opinion" or "speculative". Is that what you want ? I'd actually suggest it is better to leave it alone, with just the basic, undisputed, and uncontroversial facts about who this person was, until the trial is completed. As for changing the title of the article, I'd suggest leaving that alone for the time being also, because "Murder of Corryn Rayney", "Unsolved Murder of Corryn Rayney", or even "Trial of LLoyd Rayney", may turn out to be the most suitable title.Eregli bob (talk) 00:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Wanda Beach Murders and the Beaumont children disappearance seem to have articles, which nobody is clamouring to delete. And who, under 60 years old, remembers them ?Eregli bob (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child murders during Australia's age of innocence™ and committed before the internet, which enabled the cases to develop historical significance before the articles were written. I have no problem with either of these. But please, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is applicable here. Moondyne (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Moondyne (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a minimum, this must be moved to Alleged murder of Corryn Rayney or similar, as she isn't notable independently of the crime. The coverage to date far outweighs the routine, and whilst in an ideal world, waiting for the trial to conclude would be ideal (leading to a userfy outcome) if enough calm eyes remain on this to maintain it in a neutral state, then I'll vote keep. If I was to do some crystalballing, this is the OJ Simpson equivalent for Perth. I'm sure a few journos/academics are already writting books about it. The-Pope (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is an "alleged murder". It is a murder with an "alleged suspect". Even if she died of a heart attack during some kind of assault, as one doctor suggested, rather than a direct injury, thats still a murder. Nobody has suggested that she just died of a heart attack naturally and the rest is some kind of cover-up.Eregli bob (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We must calm down and await proper authority for use of such technical terms of which, thankfully, Wikipedians are not the judges. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current title is probably not the optimal title for this event. However I do not think the article should be deleted, because the death of Mrs Rayney and subsequent events are notable. I've posted a list of factors which I think make this event more notable than typical murder cases, on the talk page for the article. I don't think this article should be deleted, I think its contents should be moved at some point to a more suitable title.Eregli bob (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Corryn Rayney covers the situation as it stands. Hack (talk) 07:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only points of interest beyond the normal run of murder trails is that because she and the alledged perpertraitor both worked in the courts the Judge and prosecutor for the case have had to come from other states. Thats possibly sufficiently unusual to warrant an article but this article doesnt cover this particular aspect in any detail from memory available sources dont either. Gnan garra 11:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps the name of the page should be changed to one of the suggestions above, but this is certainly a case that will be discussed and written about for many years. There is a lot of information than can be added to this page as it is, but I am refraining as the trial is in progress.Athomeinkobe (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but (for now) move to Death of Corryn Rayney per several views above and to more fully conform with notability guidelines. Comparable with Death of Azaria Chamberlain. Bjenks (talk) 04:18, 30 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 02:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at least move to Death of Corryn Rayney or similar. Pretty simple case of WP:ONEEVENT here, and unfortunately being a murder victim is not unusual enough to make one notable in this day and age. This is in no way comparable to Azaria Chamberlain as suggested above; that case became well known internationally, this case is not well known outside of WA and legal circles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Moving to Death of Corryn Rayney, because there is clearly no consensus for deletion and sufficient consensus for such a move. Bjenks (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Death of Corryn Rayney, would be more appropriate to be sufficient within notability guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations

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

Does this vanity piece about an obscure service provider (with a whole eleven employees) that pimps for brand names qualify under WP:CORP? I don't see it; but will readily admit there may be cultural barriers involved. (Just reading the article nauseates me.) Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability criteria, also WP:MILL, also the references provided do not review the company itself but only mention it in the context of reporting other things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable independent sources to establish notability. Blue Rasberry is right that the sources don't directly mention it, and there are worse sources than that. Vcessayist (talk) 02:24, 7 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. There are some valid arguments made by those who wish to delete this, but there are also some very odd objections with a dubious basis, as well as some backhanded accusations of bad faith. I would suggest that the page's author seek help at WP:RSN to help them determine which of the sources they wish to use would be suitable and which would not. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO reddogsix (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no obvious reason that this page should be deleted. Edits were made to resolve the earlier criticism by reddogsix on three points:

"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page."

(1)The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. (October 2012)

(2)This article may contain improper references to self-published sources. (October 2012)

(3) This article's references may not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. (October 2012)

In response to the above:

(1) Armstrong has a long and established record in his area.

(2) There are no self-published sources on the page

(3) All the sources are reputable and independent third party publishers.

I strongly support this page being kept on, and am not sure why the deletion notice is continuing -- I have asked reddogsix to explain (his) further objections, but without a response. Durandus (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Forgive me for not responding sooner, but I was involved in "real-life". 8-)

As indicated above, the "individual [is] lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO." Please provide support as to how the individual meets the criteria in WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Also please provide valid references in the article to support those comments. reddogsix (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject does not pass our notability guidelines. The general notability guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article cites three sources: the subject's blog [48], a profile he wrote for Amazon [49] and an apologetic work written by the subject [50]. None of these are independent of the subject. A Google search reveals more things written by the subject and discussion of the subject on unreliable blogs and apologetics websites, but none of these is enough to confer notability. I see no reason to think that the subject meets any of the other criteria at WP:BIO. Hut 8.5 14:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

From WP:AUTHOR:

Extended content

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors."

A. The Foreword of Armstrong's first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (2003), was written by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: advisor to Pope Paul VI, catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity, a major Catholic catechist and author, whose cause is now being considered for sainthood. He gave a glowing recommendation of Armstrong's apologetics in the Foreword, and he is listed on Wikipedia, too.

B. Dr. Scott Hahn: probably the most well-known Catholic apologist today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's book, More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002; albeit self-published). He has a Wikipedia entry as well.

C. Joseph Pearce: arguably the leading Catholic biographer alive today, wrote the Foreword to Armstrong's latest book, The Quotable Newman. He also has a Wikipedia entry.

D. The esteem and importance in which Armstrong and his work is held by virtually all the most important fellow Catholic apologists across the board is shown in what they have said about him, in unsolicited remarks. These are listed on his Literary Resume page online:

Dr. Scott Hahn: "Good stuff. Keep up the great work . . . rather remarkable cyber-talents." / "Thanks again for the great work you're doing for Christ and His Church."

Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas (prominent Catholic apologist and author): "I always appreciate your work."

Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the live call-in TV show on EWTN: The Journey Home): "You utterly amaze me! Such good stuff . . . Dave, keep up your effective and eternally valuable apologetic journalism!"

Patrick Madrid (well-known Catholic apologist and prolific author [listed in Wikipedia]; editor of Envoy Magazine): "I admire, as ever, your fantastic and penetrating work for Christ and His Church." / "Keep up the fantastic work with "Biblical Catholicism." All of us at Envoy love it and often refer people to it."

Mark Brumley (CEO of Ignatius Press): "Your site continues to look good and to be among the most useful."

Amy Welborn (well-known Catholic author and blogmaster; listed in Wikipedia): "There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong."

Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books; listed in Wikipedia): "I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site."

Moreover, the fact that Armstrong has been published by four major Catholic publishers of apologetics is significant: Sophia Institute Press (it specializes in Catholic classics, and Armstrong is its best-selling author): five books; Our Sunday Visitor (the largest Catholic publisher, with a Wikipedia entry): a pamphlet (Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked) and notes for the bestselling New Catholic Answer Bible; Catholic Answers: the largest Catholic apologetics organization, and Saint Benedict Press (eight books in all, and a very popular pamphlet) shows that he is widely respected in this sub-community, as an author and apologist. He also worked on staff for three years as an online moderator for the forum at The Coming Home Network: a major and well-known Catholic organization.

He has been published in many of the important Catholic apologetics magazines, multiple times: This Rock (now Catholic Answers Magazine), The Catholic Answer, The Coming Home Newsletter, Envoy Magazine, and The Latin Mass, among others.

He has appeared about twenty times on Catholic radio shows,several of them nationally syndicated (EWTN), such as Catholic Answers Live (twice), Catholic Connection (Teresa Tomeo), Kresta in the Afternoon (three times), and Faith and Family Live (Steve Wood), among others.

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique."

Armstrong specializes in "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism" (the name of his website), and this is considered an important aspect of modern Catholic apologetics. He consciously writes books for the masses and tries to make Catholicism more understandable to them. If it is objected that he is not an academic, it should also be noted that many of the most famous and influential and respected Catholic apologists were and are not, either, or (like Armstrong) had no theological degree or formal training. G. K. Chesterton had no college degree at all. Peter Kreeft, Thomas Howard, and Malcolm Muggeridge were academics, but not in theology, as was the Anglican C. S. Lewis (an English professor). Karl Keating and Frank Sheed were lawyers. This is nothing new. There are plenty of lay Catholic apologists, fully encouraged by the Catholic Church.

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Armstrong's work has been the subject of numerous prominent feature articles and interviews in the Catholic community. He has these listed online, on his Literary Resume page:

A. He received the award, Website of the Year (for 1998) from the staff and advisors of Envoy Magazine, and was a finalist (with three others) for "Best New Evangelist" (Envoy, January/February 1999, 10).

B. His website (online since February 1997, with nearly 2,500 articles) was positively reviewed in New Covenant magazine, August, 1998.

C. "Dave Armstrong: Catholic Apologetics' "Socratic Evangelist," interview with, and article by Tim Drake, for the regular feature "Diplomatic Corps," Envoy Magazine, Spring 2002, volume 5.6, 8-9.

D. Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004.

E. Review of The Catholic Verses, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, October 2005; reprinted in Ignatius Insight.

F. Review of The One-Minute Apologist, by Carl E. Olson, in National Catholic Register, August 26 - September 1, 2007 issue.

G. His book, Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (Lulu) was reviewed by Fr. Peter Stravinskas in the January / February 2009 issue of The Catholic Response (Vol. V, No. 4, pp. 31-32). Fr. Stravinskas will also in the near future write reviews of Armstrong's two "officially published" books in 2012: 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (Catholic Answers) and The Quotable Newman (Sophia Institute Press).

H. "'Can I Get a Quote on That?': An Interview With Dave Armstrong," Gilbert Magazine (Vol. 13, No. 5, March 2010, pp. 14-17; interviewer: Dale Ahlquist (who hosts shows on Chesterton on the EWTN television network), is a leading expert on Chesterton. This periodical is published by the American Chesterton Society (Ahlquist is President). It was devoted primarily to Armstrong's book, The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton.

I. "My Two Conversions: An Interview with Spanish Journalist Itxu Díaz," of the Dicax Press Agency (April 2011)

J. "Ten must-see web resources for Catholics" (by Mark Shea; OSV Newsweekly, 21 February 2012; Armstrong's full-time apologetics ministry was one of the ten profiled).

K. "Lessons from Catholic Evangelists," by Jim Graves, The Catholic World Report, 22 August 2012. [Armstrong was cited at length as one of five interviewees in the article]

L. Reviews of Armstrong's books on Amazon come from a variety of well-known, active fellow apologists, and his books are rated highly (usually four stars or above).

"The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Armstrong's body of work (even ten of his self-published Lulu books, as in this instance), was regarded so highly that a set of them was published by Logos Bible Software: the leading company devoted to online / computer / electronic Christian and biblical resources. They offer the Dave Armstrong Collection. This is doubly significant because Logos is primarily a Protestant organization. They do have a Catholic division now, and Armstrong is one of the few living Catholic authors included. If we include these published works, it brings Armstrong's total of "officially" (not only self-published works) to eighteen, which is quite notable and significant for any author to achieve.

Furthermore, the libraries that stock Armstrong's books indicate the importance given to them:

A. A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003) -- this can be verified at Google books -- is carried in the libraries of Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, Marquette University, Harvard Divinity School, and at least 23 others.

B. The Catholic Verses (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is in eleven libraries.

C. The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2004) is also carried in eleven libraries.

D. Even Protestant seminaries and colleges carry his books. Dallas Theological Seminary has three of Armstrong's Sophia books. Liberty University has The Catholic Verses. Hope College, Geneva College, Abilene Christian University, Master's Seminary, and three others have one or more of his books.

Moreover, his thus far self-published book, The Quotable Wesley, is being seriously considered for publication, by a major Wesleyan publisher, Beacon Hill Press (no small feat for a Catholic apologist, if it is accepted).

Lastly, if it is objected that Armstrong publishes books on his own, in addition to his eighteen "official" ones, it should be noted that they (or a revision, as in one case) were later published by conventional publishers in four instances (and with three of those, even with minimal additional editing). This includes his most famous title, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. If The Quotable Wesley is "officially" published, that will be the fifth time this has happened. This, along with the Logos Collection, indicates the high quality even of his self-published work, and of his editing skills (in the case of collections of quotations). His body of "official" work (eighteen volumes published by reputable five publishers, including a Protestant one) is indeed substantial and noteworthy: hardly deserving of the disdain shown by the reviewers who wish to delete his entry.

Logos-Word 15:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC) — Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm not going to wade through everything you've posted above, especially since much of it is obviously flawed. The standards of the people who have published his books has nothing to do with notability, the libraries that carry his books have nothing to do with notability, his theological qualifications have nothing to do with notability, the people who have said nice things about his books have nothing to do with notability, the number of times his books have been printed has nothing to do with notability. Hut 8.5 21:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright; granted I am new at Wikipedia and am not intimately familiar with every jot and tittle of Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me that I addressed (at least in part of my remarks) what you were asking for. If you dismiss all the elements you cite above, they still (it seems to me) have relevance for the inclusion of an author (but maybe not), which is one thing "reddogsix" was critiquing. If we stick to notability alone (your big beef), let's look at what you yourself objected to. You wrote: "The general notability guideline asks for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I provided plenty of those (if you even read them), and they are (seems to me) significant:

1) Book reviews in well-known Catholic periodicals: Homiletic & Pastoral Review, Ignatius Insight, National Catholic Register, The Catholic Response, and Gilbert Magazine. If you are unfamiliar with these (depending on how much you know about the Catholic and Catholic apologetics worlds), you can look them up (especially the first and third).

2) Website award (1998) from Envoy Magazine, and website reviews in New Covenant and OSV Newsweekly.

3) Interviews in Envoy Magazine and The Catholic World Report.

Between all of them, that is eight different periodicals. Is that enough? How many are required? Does a high number of published books (by independent publishers) have to do with notability? Does being published by five notable publishers have to do with it? If 18 books of such a nature is not "notable" in a field (Armstrong's number), what is? 30, 40 books? Virtually no Catholic apologists have accomplished that, nor many authors in any field. So it leaves me scratching my head, as to what is required here. As I read the notability guidelines, Armstrong seems to qualify.

Logos-Word 19:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete As already stated above, that's a lot of text to read; and frankly, I don't know where to begin. While some of it does bring up a few points, most of it still doesn't help the article meet notability guidlines. Strictly as an editor reviewing at the article, this doesn't even have enough citations. The three references are made up by two from the subject's blog, and one from a blogger that reccomends the subject's work. While the last one was from a reputable source, it can still be argued if that really counts. To have notability you need to have citations from a number of sources, which the article does not have. How many books that subject has published does not contribute to notability, as already stated above. I'm going to have to put my vote in for deletion on this one. CharmlessCoin (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a few hours today adding several links to the article, precisely in order to overcome these objections, but that has been deleted[51] (some kind of "conflict edit"): apparently because I added a link to Armstrong's blog and this was impermissible (as I said above, I'm new at this Wikipedia stuff). Now we have to re-invent the wheel. The last comment again gives the same tired objection of not having "citations from a number of sources," which is what I described above and tried to add to the article. But if the new material is simply deleted for some reason, then I have wasted my time. Armstrong's credentials: which I believe meet notability criteria, are mentioned above. I described them in detail because people were making out that he had none (the original complaint implied that he was self-published only). So I provided plenty of his credentials (what I thought was relevant for notability; perhaps some of it was not), only to have people complain that I write too much. Oh well; I tried. Logos-Word 20:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)— Logos-Word (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - What continues to be missed in the above dissertation is the lack of verifiable, independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, Logos-Word, you still are not getting it. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a reliable source needs to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. One signal that a source engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections. Since anyone can post at amazon.com and amazon.com does not publish corrections, amazon.com is not a Wikipedia reliable source. Deleting your posting of amazon.com was correct.[52] Under the same reasoning, Wikipedia itself does not qualify as a Wikipedia reliable source. Your posting to the site socrates58(dot)blogspot(dot)com triggered the automated User:XLinkBot. Not only is socrates58(dot)blogspot(dot)com not a Wikipedia reliable source, it is a URL that has caused problems in Wikipedia to the point to where it was added to an automated bot so that a computer can be on the look out for it. Forwards in your books are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG. In fact, forwards in your book are physically connected to the topic! What you say in an interview is not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG, although what the interviewer says in the interview is independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Your books are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic as required by WP:GNG, but reviews of the book, what others quote from your book in their newspaper article, magazine article, and book may be independent of the Dave Armstrong topic. Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources because they usually do not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. You need to forget the sources that are not independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and the sources that are not Wikipedia reliable sources. Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone articles). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't have any sources at all. Though this is often a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM type of problem, I don't think it is in this case. I couldn't find anything I would consider to be a reliable source so the subject fails WP:GNG as far as I am concerned. Happy to consider sources if someone can find some. This issue here seems not to be that notability has not been asserted; more than it has been asserted but not verified. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I collapsed a portion of Logos-Word's analysis (it is not deleted; reviewing admins will still read it) just to make the whole discussion easier to read. It's not an effort to remove someone's opinion or censor comments - it's just to allow people to move right to the subsequent discussion about the arguments Logos-Word has suggested should be considered. If anyone is unhappy, please feel free to revert. The edit was made in good faith. Have also cleaned up some indentation which was messing with the AFD log and some other formatting stuff. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong' - User:Jimbo Wales/Quotations: "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing." The Biography of Dave Armstrong does not meet W:GNG. The keep iVotes above assert that a Writings of Dave Armstrong topic meet WP:GNG, and I don't think there is disagreement on that. We keep running into this same problem with scholars, authors, and other writers: the independent reliable sources do not write about their life but do write about their writings. They cite their writings, they quote from their writings, they comment on their writings. Wikipedia has only two "Writings of" articles,[53]. WP:GNG does not require the writings of a person to be famous writings. GNG only requires that there be enough independent coverage on a topic for a stand alone article on that topic. The sum of all human knowledge includes topics that are limited to the writings of scholars, authors, and other writers. At present, we force writer topics to qualify for a biography article to allow their independently sourced writing information to appear in Wikipedia in a stand alone article. Wikipedia needs to change that to align it's efforts to match what the reliable sources in fact are writing when it comes to scholars, authors, and other writers. This Dave Armstrong topic is as good starting test case as any (perhaps an even better test case due to the nature of the writings). Keep and rename to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong. If the closing admin closes as keeps renames to 'Writings of Dave Armstrong,' I would be happy to bring this same argument at DRV as a test case. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added many sources to the entry in accordance with the requirements helpfully explained above (as far as I understand them, as a rookie). They were all published articles, reviews, etc., in paper periodicals (NOT web pages). Also, I wonder why Armstrong would be considered less worthy of a Wikipedia page than fellow Catholic authors / bloggers / apologists like Mark P. Shea, Amy Welborn, and Carl E. Olson? How are they so different from him? I'm trying to understand what makes for a "notable" author. 18 "officially published" books in a field and numerous articles and book reviews and features in print (real magazines) do not indicate this? In this instance, it is a sub-genre of writing, "Catholic apologetics." According to Karl Keating (author, apologist, and President of Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential Catholic apologetics organization), a book that sells upwards of 10,000 copies is considered a bestseller in this niche field. Armstrong has many of those (at least five), and has had twelve books published by three different reputable publishers (one not even primarily Catholic) this year alone. What does it take, then? The comments from Uzma Gamal (12:57, 12 October 2012) were very interesting. -- Logos-Word 15:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[54] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic. You may want to add URL links to each of those further reading sources by placing the information in Template:Citations. The Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) article does not cite any references. "Citing" to references means placing a footnote at the end of a sentence as described in How to place an inline citation using ref tags. As for being worthy of a Wikipedia page, that is meaningless. Importance notability or significance notability is not what Wikipedia:Notability is about. Have you looked at the WP:GNG link I posted multiple times? The information from that link is why AfD deletion decisions are based on quantity of coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. How many sentences do you think you can write about Armstrong having at least five books that have sold upwards of 10,000 copies and has had twelve books published by three different reputable publishers? I can get one sentence out of that. Should Wikipedia have a one sentence article? That would not make any sense.
You ask what makes for a "notable" author. Are you asking what makes a what makes a Wikipedia "notable" life of an author or what makes a what makes a Wikipedia "notable" writings of an author? The two are different topics and AfD is about whether one topic listed at AfD qualifies for a stand alone article in Wikipedia. The topic for Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) is about the life of an author and that is what is being reviewed now at AfD. Do you think the Wikipedia reliable sources are writing about his life or writing about Armstrong's own writings? For example, does "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" write about Armstrong's life? No. It writes about Armstrong's own writings. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" counts under WP:GNG towards a Wikipedia article on Writings of Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) qualifying for a stand alone article at AfD. "Review of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, by Michael J. Miller, in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2004" does not help at this AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you added to the article, "He married Judy Kozora on October 6, 1984 and they have four children: three boys and a girl and live in a suburb of Detroit. She returned to the Church on the same day Armstrong was received."[55] What happened to the footnote at the end of each of those two sentences? How are people reading the article going to check -- to verify -- that the information in a sentence comes from a Wikipedia reliable source independent of the Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) topic if you do not add a footnote to the end of a sentence? Wikipedia:Verifiability was made one of only three Wikipedia core policies so that it would be worthy of people's attention above just about all else. Wikipedia articles are built from reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If "He married Judy Kozora on October 6, 1984 and they have four children: three boys and a girl and live in a suburb of Detroit. She returned to the Church on the same day Armstrong was received" is not a summary of the writings of a reliable source that is independent of the Dave Armstrong (Catholic apologist) topic, then there is no basis to include that information in the Wikipedia article. The same is true for all that text under the "Biography" subsection. Where is the footnote at the end of each of those sentences that will allow a reader to verify that the information in a sentence comes from a Wikipedia? I see above that you wonder why Armstrong would be considered less worthy of a Wikipedia page than fellow Catholic authors / bloggers / apologists like Mark P. Shea, Amy Welborn, and Carl E. Olson. That actually is addressed in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Gamal asked: "You put further reading sources in the article, none of which have a URL link.[7] People sometimes do not use URL links when they want to make it more difficult for others to check that information while giving the impression that there are plenty of sources for the topic." Nice try. I did that precisely because you wrote, above: "Websites and blogs generally are not Wikipedia reliable sources . . . Posting those will only bring resistance to the topic. Instead, concentrate on sources that are independent of the Dave Armstrong topic and are Wikipedia reliable sources (which usually are newspaper articles, books, and magazone [sic] articles)." Thus, I posted articles from periodicals. Most of them do not have a link since most are not online, or no longer online (and you said websites and blogs are unreliable anyway): but they can be checked, just as any bibliographical source can be. These articles are "out there." They exist. Others have a link, but it is to Armstrong's site (he cut-and-pasted the articles onto his blog in several instances; e.g., the interview with Dale Ahlquist of Gilbert Magazine, about Chesterton), and I was informed above that links to his blog are automatically deleted, because (who knows why?) it has caused problems of some sort in the past. Thus, those sources can't be added, and no one can go read them (unless they search independently). Yet other articles are only available in a temporary archive at Catholic Answers (e.g., four articles published in This Rock in 2004), so I thought it best not to make those links. Links to the articles I added (where they exist at all: and some are already obsolete) can be found on Armstrong's "Literary Resume" page on his blog (linked from the top right of the home page): this is where most of the info. I have added was found. Other possible links would be on Internet Archive only, which I deemed best not to bother including (figuring -- the way it has been going -- the validity would be disputed).

This is my explanation for what I did. It was a perfectly rational response from a "Wikipedia rookie" (I probably screwed up again in some fashion, regarding these endless guidelines, but I'm explaining my rationale, from where I sit and what I know about Wikipedia policies at this point: which obviously ain't much! LOL). The whole process is far more complicated than I ever realized. In any event, I've spent more than enough time here (way too much, in retrospect). If the article goes down, it goes down. It's pointless for me to spend more of my time on this when it seems to be a futile effort, on all counts. I will say, however (on a positive note) that it's heartening to me to see that Wikipedia has such high standards, because I'm an enthusiastic advocate of Wikipedia and use it all the time (and always defend it when folks run it down as a supposedly altogether unreliable, unscholarly source). Thus, despite my present exasperation and frustration over having wasted so much of my time for what may end up as "nothing", I'm truly delighted to see this rigor and high concern for accuracy and substantiation. I'm one with y'all there. But I don't have time to keep pursuing this, and it's no high priority to me at all. It's become a "diminishing returns" scenario, so I'm done with the effort. Thanks for listening to my opinions and bearing with my considerable ignorance of Wikipedia policies (for which I apologize). For what it's worth, I agree with the reasoning that the article could or should be kept as a "Writings of" article (presumably modified accordingly). That makes sense, but others (who know the ropes around here) will have to argue that case. Logos-Word 11:07, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SpeedCommander

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

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 00:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable software. Only reference is a spam link to download the software. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No 3rd party references to establish notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have reliable independent sources to establish notability, as per the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:RED: there are numerous articles from Golem.de, PC BILD, PC WELT and some other reliable sources, all of which show that the software is notable enough for inclusion. That said, the article can't be solved with editing – it needs to be rewritten entirely, so it probably should be deleted with a summary indicating that a properly written non-promotional article should be written based entirely on reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:40, 7 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, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Austrian School of Economics

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

No independent sources. No evidence of any notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Part of a walled garden including Antal E. Fekete and Sandeep Jaitly (the latter also at AfD). Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No outside sources, no evidence at all of notability. LK (talk) 09:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:17, 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, KTC (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sure the lack of participation in the AfD has more to do with people being scared of, or hating, economics. But I agree with the nomination. The concept is a creation of Prof. Fekete and has not attained any notability generally or in published research that I can locate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't appear to be a physical location for this, can't find any references of substance to support an article. PK T(alk) 15:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be notable. Lacks coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:26, 7 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) 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Enderby (rock band)

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

I declined the speedy deletion, as it may be a bit difficult to find sources for a Spanish band that has not been around since the 1990s. But I've tried searching for sources using search combinations of the band's name with their various song titles, and have not been able to find any sources that support the content in the article. Perhaps other editors will have more success than I have. The article asserts the band had "hits" but it is not clear what that means. Also, I could not find a corresponding article on the Spanish Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... with my apologies for creating the article in the first place (long ago), without checking the notability of this (alleged) rock band. Actually, the content itself was created by 83.118.48.83 (talk · contribs) in June 2005 and I moved it from an existing article in November 2005. I would be more careful nowadays... Anyway, I have just searched for sources that would show that this band is notable but I couldn't find any. --Edcolins (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 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, KTC (talk) 00:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News España found no relevant evidence to establish notability and it's possible that sources may be print. If the article can be improved, a Spanish article should be started and translated when appropriate. I also believe that this may be a hoax, considering that the songs are English but there aren't any English sources to support this. SwisterTwister talk 20:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to establish notability. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:27, 7 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) 01:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SeeVolution

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

This company does not appear to be notable. Only news hits found were press releases. Eeekster (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Originally blatant spam created by a spam-only account. The article has been substantially despammed, but there is still no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:18, 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, KTC (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional, no indication of notability. A search for news sources brings up no results outside of PR releases.--SGCM (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've picked up a few articles about the subject, including those found in the article ([56] and [57]) as well as [58], [59] , [60], [61]. I see no problems with using only the facts found in the company's press releases, such as [62], [63], and [64]. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sources to establish notability. Sources out there barely mention the organization, or largely regurgitate press releases. Vcessayist (talk) 02:28, 7 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, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Sing! (musical)

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

A musical that never garnered any notability. The only external link present is the (now defunct) official site, and I am unable to find a single reference online mentioning this stage show. Rorshacma (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this (4th result from the top) and I found additional results when I added "Sam Forman", including this playbill.com article, the other results are payment required so I'll list the Google News results here. I'm not an expert with musicals so I wouldn't know if these would be sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 05:01, 24 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:20, 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, KTC (talk) 00:12, 5 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.