Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 14

< 13 August	15 August >

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. causa sui (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sâmbure de drac[edit]

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

no independent notability notability shown for this album. lacks coverage. nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2011 (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) 00:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bejinhan talks 02:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. The coverage I found, at best, looks trivial (e.g., [1][2]). Gongshow ^Talk 04:45, 3 September 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Smoked It All[edit]

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

Non-notable music release. The only references are to the authors' own MySpace page. Prioryman (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of wp:notability. Also deceptive. Said it was known for a particular top 40 song, but the apparent top 40 is the SONG, not this recording of the song. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A9. One artist has wikipage, but features in only one song. That song has an article, but that is no reason for the album article to exist. --Cerejota (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A9 requires that all artists be redlinked, so I've declined the speedy. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:55, 15 August 2011 (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) 23:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dom4j[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Google books and Google scholar hits. One of the most popular Java XML libraries, included in endless number of software products. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised to vote to keep. I'm usually a deletionist and my initial impression was this was another wikicruft WP:CATALOG article. I didn't find anything useful from a simple Google search. But I agree with ElComandanteChe that Google books returns mentions that, if added to the article, would certainly establish notability. The fact they aren't yet cited isn't a reason to delete. Msnicki (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2011 (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) 23:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LavaRnd[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - I didn't see third-party coverage on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog DVD[edit]

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

Can't find any mention of this game, or the console, anywhere in reliable sources. Possible hoax. The Cavalry (Message me) 23:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep September 1967 (talk) 03:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonna have to do better than that if you want the article to stay on Wikipedia. As an FYI, unless you can site some actual policy or guideline to keep it here, this kind of vote is generally disregarded here at afd. I would suggest a look at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and encourage you to update your keep !vote. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to Sonic the Hedgehog CD, from which it seems to have been mostly copied. That's if it's considered a valid search term - otherwise, delete. (I also can't find anything in reliable sources, although there are Sonic DVDs in existence, so it's hard to tell...) --Beloved Freak 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no sources for this game and according to the article the game is going to be on Sega's next console the Sega DVD. The ods of a new Sonic game not getting any coverage is implausible at best while Sega's return to the console market not being covered is frankly impossible to believe I also don't think we need a redirect t Sonic CD either.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 07:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Nonsense. The title could just as easily refer to a DVD release of one of the Sonic cartoons so redirecting it anywhere doesn't seem appropriate either. Someone another 15:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such game, no such console. Almost CSD:G3 worthy as a blatant hoax. gnfnrf (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Complete lack of verifiability; likely madeup. –MuZemike 20:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as CSD#G3, but since that didn't happene, delete Come on! Had this been some trialer park rap-rock band it would have ben CSD'd a long time ago. Someone dropped the ball here. Proves we are all nerds :P--Cerejota (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2011 (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/merge to Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012#Gaffes Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Bachmann submissive controversy[edit]

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

Not notable enough in its own right; no reason why this can't just be covered in the article about her own campaign. At the risk of sounding silly, we don't have "John Mayer David Duke Penis Controversy" as a separate article, do we? Difluoroethene (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean "her own campaign" (unless that was a Freudian slip)...where do you propose this be merged to? I think the comment has received sufficient coverage....and it will likely continue to receive coverage throughout her campaign.Smallman12q (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant "her" not "his"; thanks for pointing that out. See Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012. Difluoroethene (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of her growing list of gaffes, this one appears to be the most controversial and the most noteworthy (notable). I'll expand this article with more WP:RS...there are articles regarding the viewpoints and statements of politicians...this article is about Bachmann's notion and subsequent coverage that female submissiveness equates respect (contrary to the wiki article on female submission). Smallman12q (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article is about BDSM, and Bachmann obviously wasn't referring to submission in that sense... Difluoroethene (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This "controversy" has remained relatively minor. It's short enough that it's better covered in either the bio or the campaign article. If it grows in notability it can be recreated. Will Beback talk 22:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV Fork. I am not even sure this is a "controversy", from what I have seen the only controversy is the possible sexist nature of the question as it was stated. I don't think there is a Hillary Clinton controversy about whether Bill Clinton would be running the show if Hillary was president article. Arzel (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to campaign article. Nominator is right in that this is nowhere near notable enough for its own article. The fact that the issue has come up multiple times means that deleting the content entirely might not be appropriate, though. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly doesn't deserve its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV nonsense. This is not a "controversy" of encyclopedic proportions. Carrite (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No way this should have its own article, but it should be discussed in the campaign article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Fork, no reason to be believe this so-called controversy deserves its own article. Truthsort (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see enough sourcing to demonstrate this is a notable event. No prejudice against including the gaffe in the article: I just see no use for the redirect. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is currently a POV fork and I can see no evidence that the "controversy" itself, if it can be called that, has any independent notability.--Beloved Freak 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Obvious POV Fork, no evidence of independent notability.--JayJasper (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has recieved continued coverage: Salon, National Catholic Register, etc. Is it that the topic is not notable, or that the article is viewed as lacking neutrality in its current form?Smallman12q (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Calling something a controversy when it isn't (and seems to have more to do with Byron York asking the question) and the fact that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. Truthsort (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy is defined on wikipedia as "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion."Smallman12q (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what evidence is there to suggest this is a prolonged dispute? Truthsort (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing debate as to how to define/redefine submissive. For example see CNN video entitled 'Debate question spawns debate', and accompanying CNN article. For how long should a topic be debated before its considered prolonged? Smallman12q (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic continues to receive coverage from WP:RS such as Sun Times,Sun News, and Christian post. If the article isn't viewed as nuetral, that can be corrected. However if the topic is viewed as not notable, that should be explicitly noted in the votes for clarity.Smallman12q (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:NOTNEWS. Just because there are reliable sources does not automatically mean an article can be created on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthsort (talk • contribs) 21:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that having some WP:RS coverage doesn't automatically confer notability. However, a week's worth of commentary and analysis by dozens of different reliable sources meets WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. The amount of coverage and controversy generated by her comments suggest this is more than WP:ROUTINE or WP:MILL.Smallman12q (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-The topic continues to receive coverage from rs including Understanding Michele Bachmann’s “Submission” (Time), Prejudice alive and well against political women(The Australian), Women, religion and fishnets (Washington Post), Susan Harrison Wolffis: Asking the tough questions, fairly (MLive.com), etc. Smallman12q (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a mess. I've heard of "tiresome controversies", "exciting controversies", "long-running controversies" and more, but a "submissive controversy" is a new one to me. Surely either a "submissiveness controversy" or a "'submissive' controversy". Its odd title aside, the article starts: The Michele Bachmann submissive controversy refers to the controversy surrounding Michele Bachmann's response to a question that she would be submissive to her husband. Oh? I'd thought that the response was one of the few things said by Bachmann that was not controversial. Her earlier comments may have been controversial, the question about them may have been controversial; no answer to this question could have satisfied all, but the articles in the (not conspicuously right-wing) papers I glanced at admired her handling of the question, even suggesting that it was deft. And anyway, the submissiveness seems a predictable and unremarkable part of the world-view of a graduate of Oral Roberts University. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as POVFORK. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A POV fork. This is a good example of a storm in a tea-kettle. Hardly suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 08:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - more hog-piling than informative. Can br merged into her main article - if possible. Dinkytown talk 05:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is notable, meaning it is well documented by reliable sources, but the essay WP:COATRACK, and policy WP:BLP, limit tangential issues about people. 'Smerge to save attribution. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to add positive commentary/reception about her remarks...would that be sufficient for the article not to fall under WP:COATRACK? The tone of the article can be changed...Smallman12q (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T. G. Baynes Solicitors[edit]

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

Deleted in 2007 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T G Baynes (G4 declined due to the age of the AFD). Having searched, it does appear that the firm is no more notable now than they were then, I can still only find directory-type sources. Most of the content has been removed due to a copyvio but can be seen here. January (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, and nothing on their website that suggests to me that they meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Notability. Notable cases do not make the firm notable, since notability is not inherited.--Beloved Freak 16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo aside from business listings.SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Likewise I have had a good look for sources and found none that would enable this firm to meet WP:ORG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ban on Sri Lankans in Chennai[edit]

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

This story was simply not true. Sri Lankan tourist were not banned from Chennai. The police simply asked hoteliers to inform the police about foreign guests so that can ensure their safety. See http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-tamilnadu/article2338309.ece and http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/nation/south/no-ban-sri-lankan-tourists-say-police-505

The Sri Lankan media got the facts wrong in another nationalist hysteria. Just like they did in reporting the US air force jets had violated Sri Lankan airspace. All nonsense and not worthy of an article. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This incident is nothing to do with the Tamil Diaspora. Just to tarnish the Tamil Diaspora's name only this article is created. There might be some incidents, but that is nothing to do with the Ban on Sri Lankans in Chennai and not been qualified for an article.Hillcountries (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — ~ AdvertAdam^talk 07:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an event that was reported in the regional media, not just Sri Lankan as these articles prove No hotel rooms for Lankan pilgrims; Chennai police diktat? Chennai police to hotels: Ban Lankans. And how many times have there been controversy surrounding police action in India ? Cossde (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the owner's vote. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this was based on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. No such thing has been clearly published, unless more sources are provided. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a not a newspaper, which is how the article is written like. Intoronto1125 TalkContributions 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article covers an important current issue in the region. Hence it should not be deleted. --Shehanw (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hence, bring a source of your support, as the current phrasing is SYNTH. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 10:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The relevant guideline is WP:EVENT, and I can't see how this passes any part of it. The coverage is fairly minimal and (for the most part) regional in nature, and there's no sign that there have been any lasting effects - all the coverage comes from the period straight after the first report of the "ban". Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niall McLaren[edit]

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

Had been improperly proded by another editor. Lets evaluate. Greg Bard (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF - no mentions of him in a Google books search other than in his own works, one article came up via Google scholar but I am not seeing any evidence he has had a significant impact in his field.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs more sources not necessarily electronic sources--Herjee (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any notable biographical sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 19:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a wikipedian so I'm not sure exactly how this process works but I'm very familiar with this author's work as I'm a psychiatrist in the US. I'm guessing none of you have read his writings so I'll petition why I think he deserves a place on wikipedia. First, he's published many papers, while many do not have large citation counts most have only been in publication for several years and thus have not had the time to accumulate lots of citations. His citation counts build slowly, mainly because his work focuses on philosophy of science and more esoteric issues in the field. Philosophy of science writings DO NOT get published in high impact journals so all citations he gets are basically from word of mouth due to the importance and merits of his writings. You can see this based on his paper "Critical Review of the BioPsychoSocial Model" which currently has 64 citations, many more than when I checked a couple of years ago. If you do a simple Google Scholar search for "Niall McLaren" you'll see many of his papers. I'm not sure how only one article came up for the first editor but he's published quite a lot. You can check out his one paper at http://www.scribd.com/doc/57443035/Niall-McLaren-A-Critical-Review-of-the-Bio-Psycho-Social-Model-1998.

I do believe he satisfies the notability criteria 1, namely "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." The paper that would satisfy this criteria would be "A Critical Review of the Biopsychosocial Model." If we look at the wikipedia page for biopsychosocial model you can look at the history and see that this page has drastically changed over time specifically because of McLaren's work. If you look at the 64 citations for this paper you'll notice a lot of books refer to this paper many of them philosophy of psychiatry texts (of which is a very small field hence the small absolute citation count for a paper of this importance). The first one is by an extremely well known expert in the field Nassir Ghaemi. Go to this link http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q69zDCED9ssC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&ots=Um0eU1VaoR&sig=3ExzNQDIkLumcJ5Slzk2jQTBZaU#v=onepage&q&f=false Type in Mclaren in the search box and you will see his contribution. The short version from this book is this. "The biopsychosocial model only lists relevant aspects of psychiatry; it is silent as to how to understand those aspects under different conditions and in different circumstances. As a consequence, it becomes eclecticism, where the clinician essentially does whatever he wants to do (McLaren 1998)."

I have looked at several of the other books that cite him and here are some examples of what they say.

The philosophy of psychiatry: a companion By Jennifer Radden "Moreover, the composite "biopsychosocial" theory, which attempts an amalgam of several of these types of explanation has fared no better when subject to a careful analysis; it is not a model in any scientific sense (McLaren 1998)."

Health psychology: a critical introduction By Antonia C. Lyons, Kerry Chamberlain "In psychiatry McLaren (1998) has strongly argued that the biopsychosocial model is seriously flawed and should be abandoned."

The rise and fall of the biopsychosocial model: reconciling art and science ... By S. Nassir Ghaemi "The biopsychosocial model lists relevant aspects of psychiatry but is silent as to how to understand those aspects in different conditions and in different circumstances."

It must be understood that Engel's "model" was published in SCIENCE and has 4681 citations. Another paper of his regarding the biopsychosocial model was published in the American Journal of Psychiatry (the highest circulated journal in the field) and has 1528 references. If this "model" were wrong then showing this would certainly constitute a "major" contribution to the field. Indeed, McLaren has done just that through careful and scholarly analysis. I can tell you personally that in the field the biopsychosocial "model" is mentioned quite often as a rationale that psychiatry is a scientific discipline (when in fact the "model" doesn't exist).

If you want a very quick rundown of this contribution just read the wikipedia page for biopsychosocial model. Look at the line "The model was theorized by psychiatrist George L. Engel at the University of Rochester, and putatively discussed in a 1977 article in Science, where he posited "the need for a new medical model"; however no single definitive, irreducible model has been published. The part in bold is new as of the last year or so. I'm sure you can check the article history to see. The bottom criticism section is a good summary of the paper.

Granted, McLaren's wikipedia page should be written better and we should probably focus on his contribution to the field specifically in regard to the biopsychosocial model. Nonetheless, I believe my arguments above satisfy the criteria outlined in wikipedia. If you need more references please just write on this page and I'll get to it over the next couple of weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.179.248 (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Can we address these claims, please, and comment on the sources. )

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This author and his books are mentioned many times on WP, see [3] and so his ideas are adequately covered. But I don’t believe that he (or any of his books) are notable enough to have a separate article. Johnfos (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I might be new to wikipedia editing but right at the top of this page it says "All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." As wikipedia policy states at WP:PROF "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable." The reason I have made bold "they are notable" is because the poster above has stated that since McLaren's ideas are "adequately covered" he therefore doesn't deserve an article. However, reading the policy above explicitly states that if notability criteria are met the person deserves an article. Also, Johnfos recent delete vote does not address any of the arguments above. Johnfos "believes" he doesn't deserve an article.

Additionally, the notability criteria note that "Generally, more experimental and applied subjects tend to have higher publication and citation rates than more theoretical ones." The paper that would make Dr. McLaren notable is most certainly theoretical ("A Critical Review of the Biopsychosocial Model"). Also, "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." I'm not sure how many sources we need to find but there are many more than the poster had listed above. After reading the link to his paper http://www.scribd.com/doc/57443035/Niall-McLaren-A-Critical-Review-of-the-Bio-Psycho-Social-Model-1998 it appears that he has shown that a well known concept in the field does not meet the definition of what it claims to be (ie the biopsychosocial "model" is NOT a model in the scientific sense of the word). Also, based on the references above it appears that those who write books on the topic agree with him. I did a quick pubmed search and it turns out that 669 academic papers have the word "biopsychosocial" in their title alone. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=biopsychosocial%20%5Bti%5D. A generic pubmed search for biopsychosocial returns 2667 papers. It would certainly appear to me that this "model" has permeated medicine when in fact, as the author has argued it was never a model. Sounds like a relatively important contribution to science. I've seen a lot of people get wikipedia pages who've done a whole lot less. I think it is also very important to note that it's MUCH harder to be notable for philosophy than it is for more direct forms of science. Perhaps his page should be kept but the portions regarding his books should be minimized and his contribution regarding The Biopsychosocial Model be the major focus of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogswithawideanglelenswearinghats (talk • contribs) 07:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Addendum- Also, I just noticed that Pontificalibus said "one article came up via Google scholar but I am not seeing any evidence he has had a significant impact in his field." I just did a simple search in Google scholar for Niall McLaren and on the FIRST PAGE all three of his books plus three of his papers show up. Subsequent pages contain many other papers of his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogswithawideanglelenswearinghats (talk • contribs) 07:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as no reason for deletion was given in nomination. Safiel (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diario Frontera[edit]

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

SPARKZY 18:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Delete"" needs more information and source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herjee (talk • contribs) 00:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Herjee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
What's the nominator's reason for deletion? --Beloved Freak 16:50, 15 August 2011 (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. Neutrality^talk 02:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tramaine Montell Ford[edit]

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

Promotional article for a background performer of questionable notability. Article has many false or misleading claims (NBC News "honor" was a local newscast, not national; film and TV appearances were as part of a large ensemble, not a featured performer). I can find no mention of his films outside primary sources - not even on IMDB. A Google search shows little significant coverage from reliable sources - most results were primary sources or social media. Google news search shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any biographical sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT with only minor roles. Lacks significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party coverage (to verify most of the claims in the article)Curb Chain (talk) 17:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost there... His career so far is comprised of minor roles,[4] and background dancer gigs, and so fails WP:ENT. In a GNG consideration when looking at ABC News República Stage Buzz Blogtalk Radio Chicago Now and 'Luxe 7 Magazine my sense is that his career is advancing and he may one day soon meet Wikipedia's notability standards... but WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 21 August 2011 (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) BusterD (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European route E97[edit]

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

No indication of noteability provided through secondary sources. No sources or references at all, for that matter. Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE-- while the road network itself may be noteable in some fashion, this individual branch certainly doesn't seem to be. Jtrainor (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International E-road network as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if additional content from uk:Автошлях E97, nl:Europese weg 97, no:Europavei 97, pl:E97 (trasa europejska), ru:Европейский маршрут E97, or sv:E97 can be translated over. Short≠delete. Imzadi 1979 → 20:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above by Imzadi 1979--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Inzadi1979. Per WP:LENGTH, the 64k+ size International E-road network article is already too long to have this content merged to it. --Oakshade (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article with an obviously notable subject is underdeveloped it is not the reason to delete it. GreyHood ^Talk 11:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing- this is not 'obviously noteable' at all. It's some road somewhere. None of the external links and references added prove it's noteability. Jtrainor (talk) 08:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Template:E-road. Obviously all E-roads are notable, and even if some articles lack references they should exists for the sake of consistency and full coverage of the topic. GreyHood ^Talk 12:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Greyhood. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:29, 21 August 2011 (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) Cerejota (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Robinson[edit]

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

I find no reliable sources in the article and no indication on the internets that this author is of more than incidental and local importance. This is the most reliable source I could find. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with the nomination. As far as I can see this article is very likely to be part of the subject's acknowledged use of viral marketing. The involvement of so many SPAs is usually a bad sign. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that any of his books is notable in their own right; no major reviews in reliable sources; not published by major publishers, etc. A person whose only claim to notability is being an author, and who hasn't written any notable books, doesn't seem to merit a Wikipedia article per WP:N. --Jayron32 19:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep per new sources provided. Good finds, especially the one by Celerityfm. --Jayron32 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nomination. The author is published by a major publisher, Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martin's Press. His books have been reviewed in national magazines including Booklist (not online), Midwest Book Review and Publisher's Weekly. Examples:Threshold, Instinct, and Pulse. These links, and links to other articles, had been added to the Wiki article after the issue of notability was raised, but were then removed by another user.Veago87 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about Midwest Book Review, but Booklist and Publishers Weekly do short capsule reviews of pretty much every book published by major publishers. Such coverage is not an indicator of notability (not "notoriety"). Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More coverage: Sci-Fi's Next Bright Star?, The Long Road, Unusual Marketing Methods, Hollywood Scriptwriter - Image of print article, Screenwriter Magazine - Image of print article, Nashua Telegraph -- scroll to bottom of search results. Can't actually read full article without paying for it. Behind the Paranormal Radio Show -- scroll down or search for "Jeremy Robinson" for archived radio interview. Veago87 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of encyclopedic significance.--Michig (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author has received significant press coverage (eg [[5]] (how I heard of him in the first place) and is a well known contributor to the overall scifi/thriller genre. Authors come to this article to study how he became successful and use his page as a reference when referring to his works. It's not just because he's an author with books published under a major publisher that makes him noteworthy, it's also because of his unique marketing campaigns that he's created that has earned him press as well. Celerityfm (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, If I am correct you think that a local paper with 450.000+ readers (in a state with almost three times as much inhabitants and ranked 42nd among the US states for population) is significant coverage? He has a lot oif hits on the internet, but a quick looks seems to point to booksellers and self-promotion (own website, Facebook and so on). I like to see third party sources, what means: other people who write over Robinson himself. Find me a few (let us say: 10) and I will rethink my opinion about Robinson not being notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Woah, did you see what was posted up earlier? Lots of 3rd party sources there. My work per your request was done for me. Also he was on the cover of June's Suspense Magazine [6], check it out! Hope you will reconsider your delete vote. Celerityfm (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Wikipedia is my primary source for information on nearly everything. Quibbles about the tone of the entry may or may not be warranted, but I can't see how removing the entry would benefit anyone. When I want to know more about an author, one of the first places I turn is Wikipedia. The assertion that Robinson "hasn't written any notable books" is purely subjective. Robinson is a mainstream author, published by a mainstream publishing house; that in itself makes him a relevant subject for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.166.5 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 16 August 2011
Keep. First two delete !votes are based on a lack of sources which has now been addressed, and the newer ones are bare assertions and/or based on misunderstanding notability (regional sources are third-party, significant coverage is based on the length and depth of the article rather than the nature of the publisher and two sources are enough for notability, not ten). The new sources include in-depth coverage in independent reliable published works, and together are more than enough to pass the WP:BIO guideline, specifically WP:BASIC. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. The deletion arguments below are either WP:VAGUEWAVES, addressable by normal editing (i.e., determining whether this should be split into separate lists for each medium, or whether characters who are part of notable works but don't have standalone articles should be included), or otherwise substantively rebutted by the keep !voters. The nom should also be advised that continuing to repeat his disagreement with everyone who posts does not strengthen his arguments nor does it do wonders for building (or "changing") consensus. postdlf (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT characters in film, radio, and TV fiction[edit]

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

Not notable Bread Ninja (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable? I could be wrong, but it seems like this is a topic that has been extensively covered in reliable sources. Every time there's a gay character in any significant work of fiction, it's big news -- especially if he or she kisses someone. Powers ^T 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 15:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that? And that's specific characters of a specific series....it's not general unlike what this list is trying to portray itself. This is a list of LGBT characters in almost all media (not including written literature and video games). It's rather WP:LISTCRUFT. If it was a general topic about LGBT characters in TV and film and radio, then that would be different, but there is no such article, so why have a list of it?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LGBT themes in speculative fiction#Film and television covers a subset of the topic. Powers ^T 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- not really....thats a section off of LGBT characters in speculative fiction....so it would have to be more specific. Has to be specifically meant for the list. it's like making a list of LGBT characters in radio and use an article LGBT comedy with the section of radio.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I point the nominator to these searches for starters. LadyofShalott 16:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Like i said....there needs to be an article to support this notability. It's not all connected, just a giant list of characters that happen to be LGBT. it doesn't matter how much study of it unless there's an article to support this. The least covers fictional characters in general, not from a specific company, or such. If there was "LGBT themes in radio, TV and film" and this would be more of a split. But no....instead this focuses on mainly on a list of specific fictional characters that happen to be part of LGBT and in radio and/or films and/or TV.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I struck through your second !vote (your nom obviously counts as one); it could confuse someone scanning through quickly into thinking it represented additional support for deletion instead of just a restatement of your views. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has plenty of lists, there is no need for it to take the form of a prose-oriented article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also anyone can do a google search...you have to weed out everything that isn't relevant. And it's more than just having the words "Gay characters" and "in [insert name of media]" that happen to be books and assume they're studies. I thought you actually brought in specific sources.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, time was limited earlier, but I think it should be obvious there are books relevant to the topic. I will be in and out, but will try to add listings of specific references as I can. Just how much WP:BEFORE did you do anyway? LadyofShalott 18:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
most of it..id ont see anything i didn't do....let's look at this logically....we could make an incoherent list all based on fictional characters being LGBT without even making a base article. Either that, or split them into 3 (actually just 2, radio doesn't even show up much at all) which just doesn't help at all....and you're only look up of studies. I mean, are we forgetting this is a list article? not of any studies or other?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i just mentioned it as an option, but regardless....i do think it could be deleted and should, sure its turned down a notch. Studies of LGBT aren't exactly fitting into the list criteria. I just want you guys to separate studies such as articles like LGBT themes in comics from list of characters from media in general (instead of characters that appear in a certain series or a number of series). you're mainly focused on how many studies there are, but are you actually thinking this will be useful and coherent enough to justify a list of those characters? in fact List of LGBT characters in comics redirects to LGBT themes in comics. And i know it's not exactly the best example for this, but this is pretty much close to WP:NOT#STATS.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bread Ninja, please strike your second delete. The nomination is the first one, and you don't get to say delete twice. LadyofShalott 18:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful navigational tool per WP:LISTPURP. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i don't have anything against list in general, just list as one-sided and completely vague as this one that seems to be made up of one focus (without any other real connection) which is LGBT. IF there was a study of African-American fictional (i'm pretty sure there would be somewhere) or Asian characters, would that justify a list of fictional African-American or Asian characters? But no, for now, the article barely has any sources at all....For navigational purposes i also thought that at first, but i checked through them, and most of these already redirect to other list articles. it's not a great navigational use. Not to mention i ran into one (potentially more) that aren't "fictional" Michael Alig. Navigational purposes? just because it has that purpose, does not mean it's fulfilling it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The occurrences of LGBT characters in works of popular fiction is a subject that is often discussed in both a news and academic context by a large number of reliable sources and is therefore notable. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it...make an article specifically on radio, TV, and films all at once....find a third party list of them...otherwise...a list finding a source for each individual character is going to make this list completely incoherent.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to write this off as an independent article. Regardless still needs proper sourcing. And, needs to be a lot more coherent. But i don't think you see this list for what it truly is....a list... a list of characters from random series. A list from random series from the range of Films, and Tv series and potentially radio. remove LGBT and we have nothing....but this list has films, TV and radio merged together, and for what reason? For navigational purposes categories actually do a better job.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; categories can't tell you the name of the specific work in which a character appears, for instance. Powers ^T 21:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split - I do believe there may be viable stand-alone lists out of this, but to have clear inclusion criteria and reliable sources, one would have to separate films, tv and radio character lists. It would make clean-up and maintenance easier that way. Right now it's not clear what suffices for inclusion, and there are certainly enough films and TV characters to warrant separate list per WP:SALAT.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article is still rather broad. We're going to list every single character that is LGBT that appears in TV, film, and radio (even if split). A more beneficial article would be LGBT themes in TV, LGBT themes in films and LGBT themes in radio. Stuff that we can actually find proper sourcing and having a focus. WP:SALAT is a very good choice, as it still makes this "too Specific" and "too broad". Or another more beneficial List of would List of LGBT TV series or List of LGBT Films etc. etc. etc. You know, articles that won't be too broad, yet mainly on one focus while LGBT taken more seriously (instead of making a list of LGBT characters that aren't potentially notable {yet somehow the topic itself is which in case a main article would be best}).Bread Ninja (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm saying is that this is highly subjective. Protagonist, or minor appearance, as long as it's a fictional character that's LGBT, they can make it into the list with little to no effort at all. here's something from WP:SALAT Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not that unusual of a list. Meets our list guidelines as mentioned above. BLP concerns, if any, should be addressed individually based on existing sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How? i mean, i'm getting a lil tired of the voting format, but without much of a defense. The only one who did put much of an argument was an anonymous IP. THe list is a bit odd for various reasons.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as written. LGBT characters in shows are definitely notable, but that should be its own article, I'm not seeing the use of a list. It's entirely too broad a scope combined with incompatibilities with other demarcations—as Lists of LGBT figures in fiction and myth demonstrates, there's some serious organization issues, with this list overlapping with two others and then others such as List of made for television films with LGBT characters seemingly spun off and separated. Why are apparently non-notable characters mentioned here? If they don't have their own article, it seems unlikely they are relevant (perhaps article prose would demonstrate otherwise, but then we're back to the first issue.) It's also entirely unreferenced, with some bizarre inclusions that appear to be wishful thinking, or perhaps just vandalism—I see Jack Sparrow is there, but there's nothing in the article about that and I couldn't find any sources besides "the actor thinks all his characters are". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of the list is just far too broad. Additionally, most of the entries on the list have no third-party sourcing to verify their inclusion in the list and most of the entires aren't even notable. And finally, for much the same reasons that the lists of characters by superpowers were deleted, this list is in violation of WP:NOTE as the list is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations of loosely associated topics. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate plants, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate superpowers, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate weather) —Farix (t | c) 19:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different situation here. You can easily find sources for all of these. See below for my proof of that. Dream Focus 17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am amused by the various dichotomies and double-binds presented as arguments for deletion; the characters are not notable, so the list should be deleted, but if they were notable enough to have articles then the list should be deleted because categories would be better. And it should be deleted because it's too broad? One rather wonders how a 'List of transsexual characters in etc.' and a 'List of lesbian etc.' would fare at AfD... --Gwern (contribs) 22:40 17 August 2011 (GMT)

Comment that would still fall under "non-encyclopedic" as Farix has stated. The list is too broad, even if split into 1 individual media, and holds non-notable characters, and it's more of the list itself not notable. Your reason for keep is what exactly?Bread Ninja (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you exemplify the double-bind with your comment. Sheesh. It's a normal list (and better than most). Too broad even if split! Wow. --Gwern (contribs) 17:20 18 August 2011 (GMT)

Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:SALAT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a thought, how does List of Notable LGBT characters in... sound? In the list could be "Notable for:" with references added. There are books about firsts in LGBT people that involve characters that would be proper to put in the list for example, for that to happen though the list would be narrowed down to only include ones that pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's still a lil iffy....characters in general to focus on one element is just non-encyclopedic to me. There's still WP:NOT DIRECTORY.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if this is random, everything is so. This is sourceable, based on lots of scholarship and general-interest articles available online. The 'delete votes' appear to be of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's more than "random". I can see why someone would make this article (regardless was the reason was worthy of making it or not). Still, it's not that great of navigational page and not that search worthy. It's not about idontlikeit, it's about limiting the lists to more relevant topics. And again, scholarships would be more for a main article, not a list. As for general interest, than please prove it, there is very little sources here. For now, saying it "can" be sourced isn't going to cut it. Anyone can say that and once the AFD is over, what will you do?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a couple reasons for this. While the topic is probably notable, it is extremely broad. Nor is it a navigational list like List of Fish. It purports to do more than what a category could do by putting multiple classifications on them rather than the simple alphanumeric listing in List of Fish. Also, while it is extremely broad, it as also arbitrarily focused. It includes many major media types but excludes print media and video games with no rhyme or reason. Film and TV have a basic similarity, but radio just throws a monkey wrench into it because one asks then why video games aren't included if its audio-visual medium? Finally, most of the info here is unverified original research; since this cannot be navigational list, it fails that.陣内 _Jinnai 03:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing - Is there canvassing going on regarding this discussion? LadyofShalott 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule against peopl einviting to this discussion? A moderator suggested it to me before when there was an important discussion that wasn't getting enough views. I don't see the problem. It's not like i'm telling them to delete. that's of their own free will.Bread Ninja (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally it is okay to inform editors in connection with the subject (those who edited the page, or members of a project that might show intrest) yes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to be the situation here, though. LadyofShalott 15:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, like if anyone would notify a random editor personally into their page? For the record, i invited people who i recently had discussions with because those were the ones i knew were active. The Farix specifically for his significant contributions before (not related to AfDs) And as for the others i was still thinking of who to invite, and they just came by. I do know someone who would mostlikely vote delete yet i haven't invited him. I think there's enough. It's not about how many votes there are but how strong the vote is.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were they invited in because they'd be likely to vote the same way the guy inviting them did? If so, that's canvassing. Dream Focus 17:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never interacted with Bread Ninja in any AfD to my knowledge, so he/she would as far as I know have no indication of what opinion I would give. I also found the AfD by looking at his recent contribs, so I was going to end up here with or without the notice anyhow, if it makes you feel better. I believe Bread Ninja was just trying to solicit opinions from people in a separate editing community; however in the future it probably would be better to hold off on the notifications besides related wikiprojects, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly valid list article. Gay magazines and other media sources surely cover this. I'd be surprised if no one published a book talking about gay characters in notable media. Dream Focus 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To find sources just search for the name of the series, the character, and the word "gay". Simple. [7] The first entry is about Sam from Caprica. The first of the 20 news results I find, has that source questioning the creators of the show, and they explaining how they decided to make him gay. [8] Not that difficult to confirm any information someone questions as true. Dream Focus 17:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. add them in yourself.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? I found the first thing on the list easily enough, and I'm certain the rest wouldn't be a problem. But you don't need to confirm every single item on a list article. Dream Focus 11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not agree with the nominator's statement that this is not notable, it certainly does not currently cite enough sources--but this is a topic that has been examined in popular media and academia (see here and here for examples), so it is a little different than a hypothetical "List of left-handed Irishmen in fiction". Mark Arsten (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the topic itself? i think the topic you're referring to is more general than what the list is. For example, list of left handed Irish could be in question if there was a "History of Left-handed Irish in Ireland". I'm not against "LGBT themes in [insert media]".Bread Ninja (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment I honestly don't see the problem here. The existence of a list article without an article on the broader concept is certainly not ideal, but that is more of an argument as to why we should create a new article, rather than delete this one. I just read WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which states that "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". So I don't see where the existence of this article fall afoul of Wikipedia's rules. (Unless your argument is that this page is so poorly written that it is bringing shame on the project? But that's a judgment call, I suppose. Carry on then...) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The category gets coverage, therefore its notable. If people started writing news articles about Left-handed Irish in Ireland then it'd be notable to coverage as well. Dream Focus 11:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Arsten: Because the list itself is trying to put itself in the gaze of a main article for the excuse of listing every single LGBT character (regardless if notable or not, regardless of how relevant the characters role was in the given TV series/Film they appear in). As for the given link you gave it doesn't say "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic". In fact it's not remotely related to that (WP:NOTTVGUIDE is relating to catalogs). This is still against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. i can't see this list escape deletion unless it doesn't affect WP:DIRECTORY (which the only way it can occur if it turns into a more stricter list such as List of historical notable LGBT characters in film, TV series and radio which would rather easily turn into a main article like History of LGBT characters in film, TV series and radio.

@dream focus. that's not really a valid argument, there are hundreds of "notable" categories out there that don't get turned into a list article.Bread Ninja (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly split - the topics of "LGBT characters/themes in X medium" are clearly notable, as pointed out by LtPowers, LadyofShalott and Scapler above. The current article is, as Bread Ninja has noted, not perfect, and might be better as split daughter list articles of "LGBT themes in X medium" pages or as the first draft of potential "LGBT themes in X medium" pages, but I do not feel that the deletion arguments of WP:NOEFFORT, WP:UGLY, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC should hold any weight here. --Malkinann (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the list itself is important (even if split) just because it "relates" to the topic. This still falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It seems like the topic is being avoided. Also note, "themes" and "characters" aren't the same thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . and split. The criterion for lists is being useful to the readers, in finding related articles. The list of important characters in notable works with Wikipedia articles is finite and discriminate, as discriminate as the articles themselves. It will of course grow, as there are more notable works published (and as more of the older ones get articles--though I suspect actually most notable older ones with LGBT characters already have articles.) DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment so is everyone going to ignore WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Also, you also seemed hook on the idea of if the topic in general is notable a list of all individual characters is also notable. It's not the same thing.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and split. It's a targeted concept that gets a lot of scholarship. Not indiscriminate. Worthy of an index to all our notable articles, so long as the sexual orientation of those characters can be verified. I know the list is full of unverified entries, but I have zero doubt that we can verify some or most, and remove the others if necessary. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that's the problem it will be a never ending list. It's a very difficult list (even if split). And again, it's not about being confident in our own opinionb ut to verify what we can.still....WP:NOTDIRECTORY....Bread Ninja (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcability and notability for inclusion on the list as shown by examples above, and by the sheer number of bluelinks that lead back to those many sourced articles listed. That a list may never be complete is not a valid reason to dismiss the list. WP:NOTDIRECTORY inapplicable as this is not a list non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Does not violate WP:NOR as the information on the list is verifiably objective and not subjective nor synthesis. The list's discriminate inclusion criteria are clear: "a list of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender characters in film, radio, and TV". Being discriminate meets the criteria set for such in WP:LIST. Does not violate WP:SALAT as it is NOT too general or too broad in scope have little value. Specifically, as a valuable information source, it meets WP:LISTPURP. Per WP:STAND#Common selection criteria, the shows and films listed meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect encyclopedic article in the English Wikipedia or are otherwise verifiable as a member of the listed group. Splitting can be discussed on article's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about WP:NOR (though it could affect the entries that don't have an article, to verify that they have been confirmed part of LGBT. and i still think WP:NOTDIRECTORY is plenty relevant as it is loosely connected (again assuming LGBT "themes" in media is the same as the list). The list is going to list every single character (again regardless of how relevant their role was, or regardless of how notable the characters are, regardless if the series/film they appear on focuses on the LGBT theme) and could have multiple characters over the same series. This is something a category Easily takes care of. Simply saying it's not too broad doesn't prove anything,considering the only limit there is to this list is what media there in (which is pretty broad already). Also the point isn't that the Series they're from are notable to have their own article. If the list itself focused on the series more than the character than that would be a much easier list to handle and a lot less broad as well as it would only have one entry each per series.

The list isn't focused on the series they're from (reading the title that is). As for the criteria of WP:STAND, i must say that the criteria itself needs proper clarification as the examples it gives aren't really that great list articles to use in case someone wants to mirror them (one of them isn't even a stand-alone list). For now, the criteria is a lil off as it makes itself believe that any stand-alone list is notable. However i suppose the list COULD be kept IF the list focused on characters that appeared in series that focused on LGBT themes (instead of any character out there that happen to be LGBT in a broad list).

Denying it's not too broad seems to be a bit drastic if you're only going to focus on the "series" part that doesn't seem to be truly relevant to the list. Just reading the name you can see how broad it really is. And if it were to be split, it would still be pretty broad of a subject. The list seems to sustain itself only because of the series themselves, not because they are LGBT characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm saying is the list is relying on the fact that it lists notable series they're from as well but tries to say "LGBT in film, TV, and radio" is what makes it notable, because we thinking the topic of LGBT is the same. It's like saying Vampires in television is the same as listing List of Vampire characters in television.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our large lists of this nature appear somewhat narrowly focused in scope, regardless of the notability of the topic. List of fictional Jews exists, as does List of Asian Jews, List of LGBT Jews and List of LGBT people. There are no List of fictional females, List of Asian females, List of fictional Africans or List of fictional muslims. Make of that what you will!--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. and you're not making much of a point. those could be challenged just as much as this one is.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have been, and were kept. List of fictional Jews was in AFD twice and ended in Keep both times. Any list whose subject gets coverage for having the specific characteristics of that list will be kept. Dream Focus 11:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:OTHERCRAP. consensus can change. But i think the #1 reason it was kept is because of every entry had a source, which could sustain notability in general for any article, but still a list of loosely associated elements, a bit of an odd list that doesn't seem that practical at all (similar to this one) for navigation. And its not practical at all if they only reference the entries but not the list itself.Bread Ninja (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a list non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, as the list has defined criteria for inclusion. And having clearly defined inclusion criteria, the list is is not "loosely associated elements" as you repeatedly assert and is practical for a reader's navigation. And your also repeatedly demand that you personally want citations in the list itself, I wish to lead you to the applicable guideline which states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", which sentence means that third party references do not HAVE to be in any article, just so long as they DO exist and can be found by anyone searching for them. As Dream Focus explained earlier, sources can be easily found. And as this list also contains mostly bluelinked items that lead readers to encyclopedic articles with those citations, notability requirements are met. But a wish that each list everywhere on Wikipedia should be themselves be filled with the sources from the encyclopedic articles that link to those list's bluelinks, perhaps that wish might be better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists) and guideline then changed. And then, and if guideline is changed, perhaps a bot can be created that will copy the hundreds of thousands of references from all over the project and appropriately move them to the hundreds of thousands of list items everywhere. However, before you suggest that editors personally supply the thousands of man hours required for such a task, or have a bot created for that purpose, I wish to respectfully repeat that gudideline has not chnagd yet. notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, you still treat this list the same way as the topic itself. Therefore you're looking for something more general than the list itself. Regardless...bringing up WP:LISTPURP isn't really helping your defense at all....it just gives purpose to all lists in general out there. The list isn't a general study, the navigation is more related to "series" over "LGBT characters". the purpose of the list doesn't fit with what the list actually does.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defense? No. Explanation and clarification? Yes.

If one is to treat the list the same way as the topics listed, it is imprudent to ignore the applicable notability guideline which clearly and specifically states "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation", or to ignore the fact that the existance of sources has already been explained very carefully. Any personal interpretation of the intention of the list fails, as it is hubris to assume that one can know the mind of the list's creator or the many minds of those who have edited it since its creation. As the list leads to both various film and television series and LGBT characters, WP:LISTPURP is served. While perhaps the lede could use some expansion and tweaking, such would be a matter for talk page discussion and regular editing... but not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK....the more you use LIstPurp, the more vague your "explanation" gets as it seems to be a "key" part. And you just proved this is "X of Y". cross categorization.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing others for their offering reasonable and polite responses when disagreeing with you is not helpful. However, you have convinced me its time to leave this conversation and trust it will be decided by someone able to separate the wheat from the chaff. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just fail to clarify between guidelines. I just think you misunderstand. You use the list as separate from "LGBT" and "TV, FILM, and RAdio" instead of treating them together.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

???FWIW, the ed. above has also raised what I think is likely to be be a question relating in some way to his arguments at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 August 2011 (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. — Joseph Fox 17:25, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Pakutinskas[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MMANOT. Only a handful of fights,none against a notable opponent, none in a notable organization. Google search primarily finds Wikipedia mirrors, fighter profiles/record history pages. TreyGeek (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and fails WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs look very weak. Szzuk (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2011 (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. Concerns about lack of sourcing addressed per article improvements by Pontificalibus. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Report (nursing)[edit]

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

Essentially unsourced despite being tagged for over 2 years. No in-line citations. Contains opinions and reads like it is about how one hospital gives report. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 14:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is a regular part of the job of a nurse, and is written about and described in detail in many books about nursing. Therefore, meets WP:GNG. The nom's argument is that it hasn't been improved in 2 years - see Nobody's working on it (or impatience with improvement). Tatterfly (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources, I also renamed the article per those sources, two of which I referenced in the article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is our editing policy to improve articles rather than deleting them. Warden (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are plenty of sources. There is also potential for expansion because of how many books this subject can be found in. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nursing topics, or for that matter, anything of interest to females, needs beefing up here at Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing in pakistan as a precedent. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better hurry over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherrybrook Kitchen then, we all know those females like grocery shopping.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Koh Masaki[edit]

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

Porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no notable Japanese awards, so use of WP:PORNBIO criteria 1/2 seem unfair to compare against countries which do have awards. He has been mentioned in three notable mainstream gay media (Fridae, Badi, G-men). He has been mentioned four times in Queerclick, which is more than most American porn stars get mentioned in a Japanese porn blog. In my opinion, he has made a notable and novel contribution to Japanese porn; indeed Badi have led with him in two consecutive features. What else can a Japanese porn star do to deserve an article? Dan88888 (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that English-language Wikipedia has a bias toward English-language sources and events/people/businesses/etc that are based in English-speaking countries (particularly the United States). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, should it? There seems to be no Wikipedian policy to support that bias, no intention for the encyclopedia to be a biased one. I believe that this bias is accidental, as a natural consequence of the majority language of its contributors, and like all biases something that we should all make extra effort to avoid. Dan88888 (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GNG: Significant coverage given main subject of one Badi magazine. Badi and Fridae are both Reliable, secondary Sources, Independent of the subject. While I agree the PORNBIO citeria as currently written are worthy of debate, I can't see your point around GNG. Please clarify. Dan88888 (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious notability. The references given do not indicate significant in-depth coverage. --DAJF (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yahoo and Google didn't show any notable sources for a biography aside from those WordPress blogs. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yup, Yahoo and Google do not do so well in their coverage of Japanese film stars, much less porn stars. Makes dependence on them as a sole search engines a bit useless in such cases. Perhaps someone with access to Japanese search engines (and they must exist}, will be able to find something either online or hardcopy and offer translations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall, consensus supports a result of Keep for this discussion, after a period of preponderance from the community. In addition, consensus appears to have established that the subject matter has received significant coverage in secondary sources satisfying both WP:RS and WP:V. — Cirt (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teleportation in fiction[edit]

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

This list of fancruft was removed from Teleportation as non-notable. As per usual with "in popular culture" sections, this is a list of minor references to teleportation in fictional works, and as mentioned, this unreferenced list was already removed once from Teleportation. The only salvagable content from this article already exists on Teleportation, and no need to create a separate article to enshrine a list of pointless trivia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is clearly notable (e.g. 1,2, 3) but this is not an article with salvageable content - it would be properly entitled List of instances of teleportation in fiction, and as such it would be best to delete it so a proper article on the subject may be written at some future date. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a nonsensical vote. If it's notable, it's salvageable, and we don't throw away articles on notable topics when they can be improved through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what we are saying is that a list of references to teleportation in fiction is non-notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is irrelevant, since per WP:NNC, individual entries in a notable topic (which this is) need not be themselves notable. I've posed a more interesting question for you below, BTW. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Summarize some of the content using the reliable sources available, and don't write it as a list, but prose. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can all be summarized by saying, "Teleportation is often used as a plot device in fictional works," and leaving it at that. We can definitely find a source somewhere to verify that. No need to list every instance of teleportation that's ever happened, or even a summary of such. One sentence, and it's already there, and it's sourced, even (lookit that!). SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep - This article is the result of a content dispute between editors with no consensus reached on if the list should be retained in the Teleportation article. I don't have time tonight to sort out the edit histories and players but see List of fiction containing teleportation, Teleportation in fiction, and Teleportation. These have forked, merged, moved, etc. over time. I'm inclined to go with a Keep as this article clearly qualifies as a WP:LIST as the subject of teleportation itself is notable and nearly all of the items in the list are notable subjects. While the list is sorely in need of citations that itself is not grounds for deletion. One concern is that I read over the list and none of the items seemed worthwhile for inclusion in the new Teleportation article. In other words, none of the items have been judged as noteworthy examples of teleportation by the author, television, or publishing communities. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In other words, none of the items have been judged as noteworthy examples of teleportation by the author, television, or publishing communities." In other words, no third-party sources to verify that notability. Best argument for deletion I've seen all day! SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would be an argument for deletion if Wikipedia's standards for notability were higher. I had looked at the list for examples of recognition by peers as that would pretty much slam dunk that item as useful for the current stripped down teleportation article. There were none but I saw the list as a keep as most of the list is examples of the use of teleportation in notable fiction or shows. Something that tilts towards delete is that a spot check of the supporting articled for various items found a number that did not mention of the teleportation aspect in that article implying that it was not an important plot device for that story. Thus the list could use some weeding but I still don't see a case for full deletion. --Marc Kupper|talk 02:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Even lists must comply to the notability guideline which states that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and I see no reliable source whatsoever that has discussed the topic of teleportation in fiction. And to answer to Marc Kupper, no, the items in the list, that is, "teleportation in Aladdin/The Fly/Harry Potter/etc" are not notable topics, even if they are tied to one generally notable topic. I remind you that notability is not inherited.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A totally unsourced list of trivia. Keep only the sourced material and you'll have an empty article. Skippydo (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the n+1th time, "X in fiction" is discriminate not indiscriminate. Topic is notable since it's discussed in the specific context of fiction in tons of places, here for just one example, all entries are verifiable to primary sources, and many of the larger ones are verifiable to secondary sources, too. I am entirely baffled why "teleportation" does not reference "teleportation in fiction" at all. To the best of my knowledge, all teleportation of anything larger than a photon is either theoretical or fictional. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question to nom: Did you attempt to source any of the statements included here, per WP:BEFORE? I'm sure most of us are familiar with at least one or two of these elements, which begs the question: how can you authoritatively state it's not salvageable, when it's obvious that some of what's unsourced is trivial to source? Consider Teleportation in fiction#Star Trek, for example. Not currently sourced, but consider this Google books search, or this Google Scholar search. Trivial searches to execute, results replete with good sources, and yet somehow not even attempted. Why? Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Teleportation is a fictional concept, at least at this point. The article already contains a sourced statement to that effect. Therefore we don't need a large list of trivia showing every instance where some author has included teleportation in their work. Not necessary, and quite unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you're asserting that this couldn't be fixed by regular editing? I find that implausible. Certianly, unsourceable things can be trimmed, but Star Trek is far from alone where the instantaneous travel aspect has garnered substantial commentary. You're asserting that a list isn't needed... but this isn't entitled "list of every instance of fictional teleportation" nor need it be that encompassing to deal with the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Give it a try, then. So far, the only thing that's been significantly changed since the deletion nomination is the addition of more crap like what is already in there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - For clarification: by "give it a try" are you intending to strike your nomination? Jclemens (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope! The clock is ticking. Get cracking if you want to save this mess. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Then let the record show that you have admitted that the article can be corrected through regular editing, and that the closing admin should more properly classify your vote as keep per the WP:ATD policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Of course, you're welcome to help improve the article, even though WP:BEFORE is supposed to be done by the nominator before the nomination. Jclemens (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I said no such thing. The article is absolutely unsalvagable, and I don't see the point in arguing with you anymore. I have asked you to go put some constructive edits on that article to match your arguments and maybe actually rescue it from deletion, and you will not do so. If you really wanted to rescue this trainwreck, you would make time to do it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's unsalvageable, but you expect me to try and salvage it? You are trying to argue two incompatible points of view: "It's unsalvageable" and "you need to clean it up". If it's unsalvageable, it would be in extremely bad faith for you to suggest that I do anything to the article at all, given that it would soon be deleted and my efforts wasted. On the other hand, if it can be cleaned up, then it's not my specific responsibility to do so, but yours to never have nominated it at all. Either way, you lose. The answer, of course, is that both your arguments are incorrect: it is salvageable (as several folks have kindly chimed in and helped with--the way that {{rescue}} is supposed to work) and the obligation is on the nominator to assure that repair through less drastic measures such as sourcing, cleanup, or merging are inapplicable. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Your proposal to wait forever for decent sources to be obtained is insufficient. If you want to set the bar at let's wait X period of time for Y citations to be obtained, then you'll eventually be proven wrong. This article is a train wreck. Skippydo (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:N "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." I've demonstrated that multiple, non-trivial, third party sources exist for the topic of the article, and I've included them above. They need not actually be added to the article in any particular time frame for the article to be notable and verifiable. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Indeed, I think he just summed his own argument up as WP:ILIKEIT. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, I've demonstrated how the article meets notability and verifiability guidelines, while you have taken a more Wp:NIME approach that doesn't admit the value of the material despite its adequate sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles can meet such guidelines yet be deleted. Take CSD G11 for example, where articles may be summarily deleted if they require a "fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic". See Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over for the benefits of such an approach to article like this.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A good article will discuss the various types of teleportation in fiction, what attempts--if any--are made to correlate those with the current state of scientific knowledge, etc. Just because the current article doesn't do all that is not a reason to delete. Ma^t_chups 02:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A good article is also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the only criteria for being on this list is that it uses teleportation as a plot device, so we end up with a list of everyone who ever teleported somewhere in a fictional work - a mess. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently Alkivar was right when he said that 70% of our time is spent in the creation and removal of pointless pop-culture trivia sections, and that we need to look beyond our televisions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of examples of a very common sci-fi/fantasy plot device. What's next? Red shirts in fiction? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No red shirts but Spacesuits in fiction is close. Just for amusement we have Interstellar teleporter which is similar to this list and then all of these "in fiction": Aircraft, Assassinations, Asteroids, Betelgeuse, Boston, Brighton, Ceres, CIA, Comets, Cricket, Cyborgs, Deneb, Elements, Galaxies, Genetic chimerism, Illegitimacy, Immortality, Invisibility, Jupiter's moons, Jupiter, Khazars, London, Mars, Mental illness, Mercury, Nanotechnology, Nebulae, Neptune, New Orleans, Newfoundland, Pheromones, Phobos and Deimos, PIs, Pluto, Politics, Prosthetics, Saturn's moons, Saturn, Sirius, Space elevators, Spiritualism, Succubi, Supernovae, Survivalism, Svalbard, Tachyons, Titan, Transhumanism, UFOs, Uranus, Venus, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Wolves, and Wormholes. The categories are 1810s, 1820s, 1860s, Adultery, Africa, Arctic, Atlantis, Belgium, Berlin, California, Canada, China, Cloning, Cryonics, Dinosaurs, Dyslexia, Earth, England, Eugenics, Florida, France, Holography, Incest, Italy, Japan, Jupiter, Law, Locations, London, Madrid, Magic, Mars, Mesoamerica, Monarchy, Moon, Motorcycling, Oceania, Paris, Physics, Piracy, Planets, Religion, Science, Scotland, Shapeshifting, Solar System, Spain, Sports, Terrorism, Titan, Transylvania, Venus, Wormholes. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wot? No Fiction in fiction or Kitchen sinks in fiction? We seem only to be semi-indiscriminate in our lack of discrimination. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing notable series that have teleportation, shows how common it is used. I added in a link to a news article about a survey in Britain where they found that many people believed what they saw in science fiction was real, one in four of them surveyed believing it was possible for humans to teleport. All entries had verifiable evidence, found by searching Google news archive for their names and the word "teleport" or the primary sources are fine for this sort of thing as well. Verifiability has thus been met. I added in some news coverage of various teleportation found in fiction as well. Dream Focus 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is "significant coverage in reliable and independent sources". Since your source doesn't have anything to do with the subject, and since one source is not "significant coverage", the topic is not notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is precisely the specific, descriminate, list we need here, per Jclemens and Dream Focus . 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
- Surely you kid, right? Their arguments are less than convincing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously most people find your argument less than convincing, since most are in favor of keeping the article. Dream Focus 15:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - AfDs are not votes. That there is a certain number of people "not convinced" by the rules of WP won't change anything.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or re-merge to Teleportation. Notable subject; no reason to delete. Clean-up to remove anything that's not referenced and copy-edit to condense. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the subject is notable, where is the coverage from independant and reliable sources ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a specific and useful list of the appearances of teleportation in fiction. I added a reliable third party source citation for Skywarp in the Transformers TV section. Mathewignash (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Useful" is not a valid argument to keep an article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This is one of those cases where a prediction of science fiction was later born out in reality, so the list provides something of an incremental history of the concept.[9] The topic is a notable combination. I added a couple of citations. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is treated in Teleportation, there is no reason to write a derivative article. I can't see why the topic would be notable since it is not sourced with reliable and independent sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep Major plot elements in notable fiction are appropriate for a list. This is the purpose of wikipedia--to provide information about things people are interested in. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you to say these plot elements are "major" ? Where are the sources for this assertion ? And no, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "provide information about things people are interested in", but to provide information about things that have been deemed notable by reliable and independant sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salvageable as a sortable list. Like all lists of this type which haven't been knocked into shape there are a lot of irrelevant entries which need pruning, but there are works of fiction which have teleportation as a major theme (The Fly and Portal for instance) which would fit in just fine. Someone another 23:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: There have been strong questions of sourcing raised. This is not something that gets voted away, and the comments past 13:55, 18 August 2011 all fail to effectively rebut. Please get some sources.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources already. Did you read what I wrote? Teleportation in fiction is influential enough to have convinced a significant number of people that its real. Do you simply not like the "in fiction" articles? Extraterrestrials in fiction, Magic in fiction, Stars and planetary systems in fiction, Assassinations in fiction, Earth in science fiction, Mars in fiction, etc. Its very encyclopedic to show how something notable is found in various notable media. Dream Focus 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, we're here to discuss the subject of the article. You don't need a reference for every single entry on a list. Dream Focus 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 16 references and 50-100 entries. To be clear, do you propose to remove the unreferenced material, leave the material unreferenced, immediately find references, or something else? Skippydo (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this relevant to closing the AfD? Why exactly are more sources required? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for "Teleportation" AND "science fiction" you'll find About 3,520 results in Google books [10] and About 643 results in Google news [11]. If anyone thought it needed more reference to prove the notability of the subject, they can start their search there. Dream Focus 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Booty[edit]

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

Unremarkable pornographic video. No awards, spurious claim of notability because of the title (filmed in the US with mostly non-Bangladeshi performers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the 2nd AFD three years ago, I opined a keep with the expectation that the article could/would be improved. There is one short genre source reviewing the film,[12] and aparently it was covered in something called Maximum X posure [13] I do not expect that it will ever be covered by The New York Times, and the only reasonable argument toward notability is in the film being "the first internationally-released formal/official porn movie to bear the name of Bangladesh and to feature a Bangladeshi in the female lead." Is that enough? Schmeidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only basis to notability that I see is that a newspaper described the lead actress as the "The first Bangladeshi pornstar." This is at most a claim to notability for Jazmin, the actress, and not the movie she appeared in. It is all just nonsense anyway. This same actress pulled the same scam in 2002 with Pakistani Poon, where she is billed as the first Pakistani whatever. Oh, and she is also Indian in Kick Ass Chicks #43: Indian Girls (2007). Kauffner (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing remarkable about this film. Many firsts are made in porn, but they do not get articles. The only claim to notability is the ethnicity of the lead role, which is not notable.Curb Chain (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin[edit]

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

Porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Although the claim is made that Jazmin is "the first porn star of Bangladeshi descent" she does not appear to be a star (as evidenced by lack of awards) and it would be difficult to confirm that she is the first (American) porn performer of Bangladeshi descent. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To only partially disagree with DC, winning awards does not make one a "star", as we have articles on many film "stars" who have not won awards. And that a source refers to her as "the first porn star of Bangladeshi descent" is on them, not us. We simply report what is found elsewhere without imposing our own POV. That said, I do not feel the assertion of being "first" in that particuar field imparts any particular notability, and as she has not had starring roles in mainstream productions, nor won genre awards or had nominations in multiple years, nor been the subject of significant coverage in inpendent sources, she does not have Wikipedia notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject does not meet PORNBIO to the letter, though "the first", to me, is a pretty good claim to fame. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we want articles on people whose sole claim to notability is to be first porn actress from Bolivia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, or whatever country? "First Ugandan porn midget in a supporting role!" PR people can probably churn out this kind of nonsense in their sleep. Kauffner (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While there ARE notable "firsts", I agree that hers is not one of them. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:44, 19 August 2011 (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. Due to the language barrier, there's still some doubt as to how significant the coverage is. There's also a concern about the scarcity of background biographical information which is needed to write a balanced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeong Mi Sook[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage found. A PROD was contested in 2008 so bringing it here. Michig (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-major voice actor. When I typed "Jeong Mi Sook" into both Yahoo! and Google, all I found was Wikipedia, fan sites, anime voice actors listings, and Facebook. She doesn't even have an IMDb page. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many films and series and actors found notable in and to Korea are not listed on IMDB, and as she IS Korean, we do not need to expect that someone working in the Korea film industry will neccessarily have English-language coverage in the West. I will hope that Korean-reading Wikipedians can slog through these results: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) While many do not appear promising, I do not read Korean. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did search on both the English and Korean names here and looked at the Chrome-translated Korean results, but found nothing that convinced me of significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The name is quite common in Korean, and Google Translate output for Korean is often so completely incorrect or incomprehensible that it's impossible to tell whether a given news article (let alone 287 articles) is talking about the person of interest. Regardless, when you add disambiguating terms like "voice actor" (성우) to the search, there's only 17 GNews hits, which do not represent non-trivial coverage but are just mentions of her name in lists of other voice actors. cab (call) 03:53, 3 August 2011 (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) 00:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non enough coverage to prove the subject's notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it's difficult for me to work through the language barrier, I've added three news articles mentioning this voice actor, two in reference to her voicing of Hermione in the Harry Potter series, one in addition to another work. That I was able to do this through translation and Gnews suggests to me that the roles were significant, and suggests notability under WP:ENT. I couldn't quite sniff the translated Google Books exerpts enough to be sure, but I suspect that there's a mention here, too, it looks like it says that she dubbed the Sandra Bollock role in Speed. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 19:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment Consensus still seems unclear; I'm relisting so editors can discuss the sources User:Joe Decker has recently applied. BusterD (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per work by User:Joe Decker. A concern will be the sparcity of background biographical information on this person, but that has more to do with this being a Korean working in the Korea film industry, many of whom do not have English-language coverage in the West. That said, and as we might hope that information comes forward in the future, her work appears to be verifiable to meet the instructions at WP:ENT. the philosophy of WP:CSB suggests that we encourage assistance from those few editors IN Korea who would have access to hardcopy sources unavailable in the West. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:23, 20 August 2011 (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. My own opinion is that it's probably too soon to have an article on this subject and my personal recommendation is to redirect this to Nicola_Roberts#Discography. However, there is no consensus to delete this article and the nominator is waffling a little. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Day (Nicola Roberts song)[edit]

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

Definitely not notable enough yet, and it isn't released for another month FeuDeJoie (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is quite a lot of information about it though. I remember the Gaga's Born This Way album was live for like 5 months before it was even released. It's pointless to delete an article of this size only to then have to re-create and re-write it. Calvin • ^NaNaNaC'mon! 19:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are strong arguments. Thanks for demonstrating WP:PLENTY, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and WP:EFFORT. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A lot of good information about the track, and the video. Just because it isn't released for another month doesn't mean it should be deleted - it has a lot of information, and reviews, therefore it should be kept! It seems the only reason "Spiceitup08" wants it to be deleted is because he wants to re-write himself. Selfish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooooh91 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to see here. A variation of WP:PLENTY and topping it off with WP:ADHOM. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why would I delete something if I wanted to re-write it on my own, when it comes to the time I will re-write it and I absolutely dont need to remove it to re-write it, I re-wrote, "Beat of My Drum", your "selfish" comment, is kind of rude and definitely uncalled for, I just thought that the article lacks quality information as well as it isn't notable enough yet! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I would add some points, seeing as you think i'm being "selfish", a lot of the information is incorrect, written in 2009, where does it say that in any reference? A lot of the information is unsourced, it has two reviews, both from Popjustice, good reviews albeit, but that isnt a "lot of information". But remember, this is a discussion, if the overall opinion is Keep, it should definitely be kept --FeuDeJoie (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought i'd bring up another problem, if this article is to remain, the artwork needs formatting majorly, whoever uploaded that left no details, i'm amazed its been up for this long. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to be commenting too much, but generally two comments for, against none opposed, probably means by the end of this discussion it should be kept, but the article, Lucky Day (Nicola Roberts song) needs to be changed to Lucky Day (song), there is no other song!! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surely there's enough information to warrant the article being sustained? The release date is confirmed, there's a video, promotion has been planned, the single campaign has begun... There's no need to remove it simply because you can. And perhaps rather than ranting and raving on this page, where it's unlikely to be seen, you could take your comments to the actual discussion page for the article so someone can do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Az Butterfield (talk • contribs) 02:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for variants of WP:PLENTY and WP:CRYSTAL, then adding another helping of WP:ADHOM. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite not having charted yet, the article have enough info to stand for its own. Plus, a music video for the song was already released, making it more notable. - Sauloviegas (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An introduction of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and actually the second point is legitimate. No offense. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shall we end this discussion, I think generally people think it should remain and I have no problem with that, I just thought that maybe since it hadnt charted and it wasnt really that documented that maybe it isn't notable enough. But im pretty sure we should keep it then --FeuDeJoie (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. I'm seeing lots of WP:ROUTINE entertainment buzz (these guys are paid to buzz and so not completely independent), but I'm not seeing significant coverage and with the release date a month away, I see no reason to assume this will be notable even then. No objection to userfying this page until WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologize if my critique of arguments above looks pointy. My intention is to demonstrate the actual weakness of the arguments made to keep. It may be that this song is notable enough for a page. I've expressed my assessment. But I'm not seeing strong arguments above, none which pass WP:CRYSTAL. Fine with userfying. One day this may in fact be notable. But not today. BusterD (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2011 (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. Neutrality^talk 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Stead (Photographer)[edit]

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

Notability not established. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Creative. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At a glance, doesn't appear to be notable, but on the off-chance that it's kept, the article should be moved to Jonathan Stead (photographer). Jenks24 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears from this that just two months ago he was disgruntledly finishing up an MA in photography. Now, there are people who do an MA in something like this when they have already attained some notability. The article does (vaguely) claim notability; I fear that this is just hot air but I hope to be proved wrong by some editor's provision of details and evidence. (Irrelevant, I know, but I'd say that his work is more interesting than that of at least one member of the staff of the MA program.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gosh, using a pinhole camera and messy chemicals to make photographs! That's not just 20th century it is 19th century. Good luck to him. When he becomes notable, someone will write about him here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (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. — Joseph Fox 00:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single European Sky ATM Research[edit]

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

Non-notable project. Only in-passing mention in one independent source. Does not meet WP:GNG. Source added by IP who de-PRODded the article is not independent and does not show notability. Crusio (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ok, I can accept that the website from the European Commission, who funds a third of the overall SESAR budget of 2.1 Billion Euros with public money, and the corresponding legislative documents, are not technically independent sources. Still, in my opinion, this information and some common sense should keep anybody from hastily deleting the article, however imperfect it may currently be. Below you can find a quick attempt to list some other sources, hopefully at least some of which you can consider to be sufficiently independent:
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4448408.stm
- http://www.atcglobalhub.com/ReadATMInsightNews.aspx?editid=newsid760&titleid=editid86
- https://www.ncoic.org/apps/group_public/download.php/12026/SESAR_NextGen_Comparison%2020090317FINAL.pdf
- Andrew Cook (editor): European Air Traffic Management: Principles, Practice and Research, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2007

Regards, the IP who de-PRODded the article / 79.253.22.82 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteBased on the article, this project is still in the planning stages. Too soon for an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (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) 00:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CRYSTAL? If the article has a expectation tone, then it must not be kept (which is the case), when the project sees the day of light, then it must be recreated with in-depth details, but so far I don't see a reason why it should be kept. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The project started around 2005. Currently, its main phase (development) is in full force. 79.253.43.246 (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To claim a project can't be notable until it's finished is absurd. If the project were suggested but not begun, WP:CRYSTAL might apply, but this ongoing. The nominator's contention that there is "only in-passing mention in one independent source" is difficult to comprehend. I added several in-depth sources, there are plenty more out there. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (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. — Joseph Fox 17:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Miskiw[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of a trawl to see if there's enough media coverage of Miskiw outside of the phone hacking scandal. This is what I've come up with.

1982 - Passing mention from The Age. Single sentence only.

2003 Peter Rose employment tribunal. Specific named criticism of Miskiw.

Chicago reader. Story arises in the context of phone hacking but is actually about Miskiw's role in an earlier court trial.

Beyond that everything else is phone hacking related. It may also be worth bearing in mind that I don't believe that the police have formally identified the man arrested as Miskiw (although Sky made a definite identification some of the others were still hedging their bets a little). There may also be others on the list of those arrested and questioned by Operation Weeting that have a similar level of coverage, Ian Edmondson, for example. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His press coverage extends backward from the current controversy. See for example the earlier years from a search on the Guardian news archive. These may be borderline notability without the current situation, but in combination, it seems reasonable to retain the article. AllyD (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD. His job title and position make him notable I would think, even if there's not much information about him. I created this as a redirect feeling it would be useful with the ongoing events in which he is involved, but hesitated in creating an actual article because I wanted to see what other information became available. If others disagree about his notability, however, then redirecting the page back to News International phone hacking scandal seems like a reasonable compromise to me. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:Creative, which would seem to be the closest guideline out there, doesn't seem to fit too well here. Still, I've had a bit more of a look at some of the articles in the Guardian's database that AllyD linked to. There are some more there eg. [14], [15] (mostly news about re-organisations at NoW which make for interesting reading given everything that's happened). Maybe there's enough for a full article rather than a redirect. I think I might have a go at expanding the current stub and see how it turns out with a few more sources in it. We can, as you say, always turn it back into a redirect. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable for more than merely his involvment in the current News Corp scandal, and his involvement in that pushes him over the notability threshold. The article in its current form is clearly of an unacceptable quality though. If I have time I will try to do some work on it.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2011 (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. — Joseph Fox 17:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Professional Credential Program[edit]

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

Delete. Not notable industry certification programme. A mention at Professional certification (computer technology) is sufficient. It is also creating systemic bias towards computer technology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. appears to be part of a campaign to use wikipedia as a promotional vehicle. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N: lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage. Edison (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. Not notable in itself but worth a redirect. Neutrality^talk 05:34, 18 August 2011 (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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 06:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Macula (archaeology)[edit]

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

No !vote as nominator. Article as it stands is a dictionary definition. Is it an encyclopedic topic that can be expanded? Maybe; it's too far out of my area of competence for me to be sure. But it can't stay like this. Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, expanded it into a few lines with three references. AshLin (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think a reasonable article could be written about it that would expand it to more than a dicdef (actually, I think it's already more than that, although I appreciate it wasn't when nominated). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2011 (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, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cerejota (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a number of sources comprehensively analyzing this feature, so it has potential as an encyclopedic subject. The article is is not the same one that was sent to AfD. There is an additional source in the article's talk page which adds to analysis of this feature. I've added {{WikiProject Photography}} to the talk page because it also appears to be in their scope, which may help get some more eyes on it for future expansion. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expansion has created a decent basic article. AllyD (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only a dicdef now, too much sourced info to transwiki. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:17, 15 August 2011 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Dinosaurs[edit]

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

unremarkable indie band. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to covergae (I've added some more) and national rotation. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm having some difficulty verifying the references you added. Could you update them with URLs if possible? For instance the band has been mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald but I'm finding only passing mentions in articles focusing on larger music festivals . --RadioFan (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment National rotation would meet WP:MUSIC can you provide a reference to validate this claim?--RadioFan (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mostly I can't add urls. there is one here. they can all be verified with Factiva. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a reference provided that supports this. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While an indie band, they have decent coverage on a state/national level. Trying to add links to add to verifiability of the cites. Dengero (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Music, song and band guideline is very specific on the maintainability of articles which fall under that scope, for music groups, they need at least some charted songs and some charted albums, which in this case they do not have, if they have uncharted song, then if they have awards from notable awards academy or any other artist or group has covered their song they are also notable, which they fail. Providing sources for their background are not enough to suffice notability.--Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- that is so wrong it's almost funny. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per dengero.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. no attempt is made to explain notability. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not seeing a strong claim of notability in the article, just that they exist, have recorded an EP and have been praised by some sources of unclear reliability. Still not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND No charted albums or singles, no gold albums, no independently notable members, not awards, no major music competitions. The only refs provided are to a single article in a 120k circ semi daily newspaper (The Newcastle Herald) and 50k circ semi daily newspaper, blogs of undertemined reliablitiy (Who the Hell?, Big Sound) , and primary sources (the label and a blog by the band itself). The only claim of notability brought up in this AFD is national rotation which has not been verified. This band might meet notability guidelines one day but that day doesn't appear to be today. Wikipedia is not here to promote indy bands. RadioFan (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They meet wp:music#1, the one about coverage. Why are you pretending that there is not six other references? The rotation claim is verified in the article. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please see comments above for specific concerns about the references. Also, which article supports the claim of rotation nationally?--RadioFan (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only issue you raise with the six references that you ignored above is that there is no links. That is not a concern. All are verifiable and I have seen no question to their reliability. For rotation nationally, look at the Last Dinosaurs article, read down to the statement that says that one of their tracks had national rotation. Go to the end of that sentance. There is a small number there. Scroll down near the end of the artiocle and you will see a references section. Find the matching number and you will see the reference that verifies the claim. (the relevant quote, "and was unearthed by Triple J a year later, with its first single Honolulu shooting to high rotation on the national station." "Habit for success", Canberra Times, 31 March 2011) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please refer to the point by point concerns listed just above from 14 August.--RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The concerns ignore 6 references from the article? Again why? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In direct reply to issues rased on the 14th. Starting from "Still not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND". I have claimed the satisfy #1. The 6 reference you still fail to recognise show that. "No charted albums or singles, no gold albums, no independently notable members, not awards, no major music competitions." True but noone has claimed that, why bring it up, see from WP:MUSIC, at least one of the following criteria. "The only refs provided are to a single article in a 120k circ semi daily newspaper (The Newcastle Herald) and 50k circ semi daily newspaper, blogs of --undertemined reliablitiy (Who the Hell?, Big Sound) , and primary sources (the label and a blog by the band itself)." Not true, there is six other references. "The only claim of notability brought up in this AFD is national rotation which has not been verified." It has been verified, see (at time of writing) ref 6. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty verifying ref #6 in the article, it mentions a newspaper and an article title but no URL, is one available? --RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No URL that I know of. I saw it thru Factiva, another option is libraries. From WP:V, The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if "rotation" on a nationally televised free-to-air show is enough, but this search shows that they have been on Rage lots of times. The-Pope (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is "free to air". Sounds a bit like a step up from a podcast. Not the independent 3rd party reliable source WP:GNG and WP:BAND are looking for. We've got radio program like that in the states, sometimes produced by a small local radio station that makes the program available to other stations to play (generally in the wee hours Sunday into Monday mornings) at not cost. Does that describe this show playing this bands music or is it something else?--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's true that the ease of verifiability doesn't preclude it from being used as a reference but that is intended more for older references that might not be available electronically. When recently published, newspaper references are included in an article and no URL can be produced, it naturally raises some questions about the validity of the source. Even very very small newspapers have websites where they make a good portion of their printed content available. Some dont, but many (most?) do, thus the question.--RadioFan (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Free-to-air and Free-to-air#Australia. It is definitely not "a step up from a podcast" – it simply means that it isn't pay TV. There are only five major free-to-air television networks in Australia and they are far more popular than pay TV. Also, did you click on the links The-Pope gave? Rage is not a radio program, it is a television program on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's, Australia's national public broadcaster, flagship television station, ABC1. This is the equivalent of BBC One in the UK. To claim that the ABC is not independent or reliable is ludicrous. As to "it's true that the ease of verifiability doesn't preclude it from being used as a reference but that is intended more for older references that might not be available electronically", do you have any evidence for that? Because my reading of WP:V is completely different. That said, I have Factiva access and I'm willing to have a look at any references that concern you. Can you please point out which ones currently in the article are of concern to you? Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. You might want to settle down a bit. I made no such claim that ABC is not reliable. I asked for more information on the source and outlined what the concenrns would be if the reference was coming from a primary source with little or no oversight. Thats not the case here so it's fine. Please be careful not to put words in others mouths.--RadioFan (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn I'm withdrawing this AFD. Verifiable evidence that this band is in regular radio rotation on a national basis is sufficient to meet WP:BAND.--RadioFan (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Dufresne[edit]

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

Does not meet the GNG. Also has a promotional history, with Fleshworks26 (talk · contribs) — same name as his tattoo studio — creating the article. Not much has changed from the original, either. Raymie (t • c) 06:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a tattoo artist doesn't make you notable unless you've tattooed someone important and such. I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for exactly the reasons SwisterTwister mentioned. Non-notable tattoo artist who (if he's even tattooed the skin of someone relatively famous), hasn't had enough mention to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuǐ diào gē tóu[edit]

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

I don't know if this article is good enough to be "kept", even if its Chinese Wiki-counterpart still exists. This poem is very old enough to be in the public domain, but I'm not so certain if this article will last forever. Even with "Modern Settings" and Chinese heritage, personally, no further citations has been established for years. But I strongly wanted this article to improve; otherwise, it will sadly be "deleted". Gh87 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —_dk (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think posting the article for deletion should be the first avenue to take if you strongly want the article to improve. _dk (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't over-cite that article with bunch of .edu webpages, blogs, and/or Chinese press articles. I have to choose just ONE! No blogs!! No press articles either! And no fansites! But I may have trouble picking one right now. Would my wanting for this article invalidate this debate? --Gh87 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of most popular and important Chinese poems.--Meow ✉ 07:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is covered in multiple academic sources. One possible target for redirect is "Song of the Water", which appears to be used in a selection of sources. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just like we have articles about other important poems or songs, such as "The Song of the Stormy Petrel", "The Song of the Volga Boatmen", or Martín Fierro. The Google Books search, as per User:Arsonal above, shows plenty of references indeed. Maybe the article should be renamed, as per the suggestion above, but I would leave the decision to someone more informed. -- Vmenkov (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Instead of romanization, how about using "水調歌頭" for searching sources? It makes more sense... I hope. --Gh87 (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly makes sense and should not be ignored, but non-language speakers can more easily assess the level and significance of coverage if English sources are first surveyed. If no English sources can be found, we resort to foreign language sources. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. Arsonal's Google Books search shows that notability can be established. One problem is that the article as it reads now claims to be about a tune, but ends up being a presentation of Su Dongpo's poem, which is known after the tune's name. (Incidentally, someone needs to find the source of this translation. For all we know, it might be under copyright.) I propose we rename this wiki either "Shui diao ge tou" (without the pinyin marks, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Characters ~~which should only appear in glossaries or language textbooks~~) or "Song of the Water," which seems to be a common translation in reliable sources. Madalibi (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... can't we have the rename and the deletion issue separate? If this article is "kept" according to the final consensus of this discussion, then, as I will have promised, I will have the renaming article discussed in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Pinky swear? --Gh87 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is pretty notable to many Chinese people. Calvin Marquess (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2011 (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 content into Sahir Lodhi Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sahir show radio[edit]

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

Non-notable radio show. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sahir Lodhi, host of said radio talk show and with a much better article. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sahir Lodhi to prevent data loss. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 15:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as it, because it is a show broadcast from Pakistan's radio station Mast FM 103, I am now improving it, keep it please, don't merge or delete.--—Assassin'S Creed^(talk) 15:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You need to provide reliable sources to prove what you are writing or else it is WP:OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 16:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - Ok, give me 24 hours for it and then check this article again, thanks.--—Assassin'S Creed^(talk) 17:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Improved - I improved the article, now I think we should end the discussion by keeping article as it. I have made some changes and improved its references by citations, and deleted the bad and advertising like content from the article. What are you thinking now? Thanks.--—Assassin'S Creed^(talk) 19:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Assassin, don't you think merging Sahir Show's content the best idea? and redirecting this article into the subsection? Because it is going to make the article more robust and concise. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think it is a separate radio station show, and a show's article can be separate or not? It should be a separate article, don't merge it, thanks.--—Assassin'S Creed^(talk) 03:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The case is not if the article can be separated or not, this is a policy, if a thing is not notable or is inherently notable (which does not apply to Wikipedian articles), why shouldn't it be merged with its inheritance, which is the case here, the show itself is not notable (because of inheritance), but the figure of Sahir Lodhi is somewhat notable, so the show content should be merged into the person's article to make it readable, you gotta see from the reader perspective, someone who doesn't know it, "what is The Sahir Show Radio?" - Wikipedia article shows it is a show hosted by Sahir Lodhi, "Who is Sahir Lodhi?", in this case the notability is not inherited, the same applies to The Sahir Show. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closure comment - I don't see improvement on the article that provides reliable sources which suffice WP:GNG, I searched throughout the internet, but there is no relevant ammount of coverage about this show, the host is somewhat notable, so I'll merge its content into Sahir Lodhi. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 00:28, 16 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thigh driving[edit]

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

At best, a dictionary definition. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is simply a dictionary definition Rabbitfang 02:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree. There is no mention of this in the dictionary. This is something that people do on a daily basis yet there is nothing available on the Internet about it. I believe this topic has a place on Wikipedia. Mjurmann (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC) mjurmann (Article Creator)[reply]
  - It's one of about 1,000,000 ways of driving without due care and attention. It is not the job of an encyclopedia to describe each of the ways in which fools drive. See also WP:N which set out criteria for wikipedia articles. You need to convince us that the article satisfies any of our notability criteria. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please, delete. The article itself states that the term does not appear in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 16:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ephemeral Non Notable Neologism. And a dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary... Carrite (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2011 (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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ex-gay people[edit]

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

The list overlaps with the People section in Ex-gay movement and is therefore unnecessary. To the extent there are names here that aren't there, they can be merged. To the extent they don't belong in the other article, the list is barely notable anyway, so it can be deleted anyway. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 16 names on that list, and nearly half of that are redirects to varius organisations. Sources are questionable too.--В и к и в и н д T a L k 01:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lists are completely different. This list is ex-gay people, and Ex-gay_movement#People_associated_with_the_ex-gay_movement is not restricted by orientation. There are numerous LGBT lists and articles that have overlap.
This would set a precedent for the merging and eventual disappearance of List of LGBT people and similar lists into dozens of articles all over wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ex-gay movement. Any text that could be brought into the list article would be a repeat of that which is already present at Ex-gay movement. Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing one list into two pieces so it can appear as two lists in two places does nothing to add information, but it does double the exposure. The only goal furthered by double exposure is advocacy, which should not occur in Wikipedia. Ornithikos (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment means you and I are in agreement. There should not be two similar articles. There is no chance that this list article can be saved because if prose is added in an attempt to save it, it will create a duplicate of Ex-gay movement. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N and WP:RS. Moreover, such a list is useful for readers. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 03:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ex-gay movement, since the set "Wiki-notable people who claim they've become straight" is contained pretty much in its entirety within the set "Wiki-notable people telling other gays to try to become straight." In the course of the merge, the large number of non-notable people in this list, as well as those not actually "associated with the ex-gay movement" (Camille Paglia, for example) should be removed. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments below prompted me to take a closer look at the sourcing of this list, and it's extremely poor. I reaffirm that this should not be a separate article, and will take a little time to think it over and consider if deletion might be better. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a potential BLP minefield. The whole notion of "ex-gay" is a POV religious concept, in my view. Sexuality isn't a dichotomy, it's a range of shades. "Bi-sexual advocates of heterosexuality" is probably the scientifically-correct phrasing, whether one thinks homosexuality is "inborn" or a "choice" or some combination of these things. So "Ex-gay people" is POV and it's a mess for BLP — which is ample reason to can this without merger. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a BLP disaster waiting to happen. I don't see that this list adds much encyclopedic value - notable individuals can just as easily be mentioned at Ex-gay movement, which is sort of a niche topic to begin with. It's impossible to monitor it constantly; it's a subject that draws partisan editing; and it has the potential to cause serious real-life harm. Creating walled gardens of redundant articles on low-profile but BLP-sensitive topics is a recipe for disaster. MastCell ^Talk 04:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP problems, unreliable sources. --~Knowzilla ^(Talk) 07:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N and WP:RS and lack of context. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreliable sources, total overlap with Ex-gay movement article, and potential WP:BLP issues. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite, Knowzilla, ArtifexMayhem, Dominus Vobuisdu, and nom. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list of names says nothing about the ex-gay movement itself. It is a collection of implicit testimonials, often with links to advocacy sites. It also risks objection from anyone whose name should not have appeared, or should not appear any longer. Ornithikos (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I struggle to AGF on the creation and maintenance of this list of names. It and its associated non-RS-at-best sources appear to be little more than an attempt to manufacture the appearance of legitimacy for scientifically dubious/discredited ideas like Conversion therapy. That is on top of issues with BLP and N. The "keep" arguments appear to boil down to a fatuous "I like it, so it should stay" and a ginned-up attempt at conjuring the spectre of some nebulous (but ooooh, so indubitably scary!) "precedent" under which vast swaths of lists would have to be purged from Wikipedia. Fortunately for the clarity of this present discussion, the notion of this kind of "precedent" is inapposite per WP:NOTLAW. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no valid reason given for deletion. List is a valid sub-article of Ex-gay movement. BLP concerns are addressed through routine maintenance. William Bradshaw (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC) This account was blocked as an abusive sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er…respectfully, I submit that given your newness (124 edits since registration last month) and apparent combative difficulty conforming to Wikipedia principles, it might be less a case of there being "no valid reason" and more a case of your not perceiving or not agreeing with the valid reasons that have been put forth. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for its own article. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a statement, not an argument. WP:ITSNOTABLE describes pretty well why you need to explain yourself more if you wish your comments to be taken into consideration. NW (Talk) 13:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lousy sources; BLP magnet. PhGustaf (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP problems, unreliable sources, WP:N and WP:RS, conservative fringe extremist anti-gay attack article. Herp Derp (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of these are non-notable with their blue links merely being redirects to various non-biographical articles. Also, listing people who only once did identify as "ex-gay" seems to be troublesome WP:NPOV-wise. List of people who were once drunk? FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2011 (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. Good, valid arguments on either side. If the changes implemented in the debate are implemented then deleting this article would not be the best course of action. — Joseph Fox 00:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Smith (prisoner)[edit]

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

A suicide in a prison is not particularly notable. WP:NOTNEWS etc. Tagishsimon (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7 days later - please see my comments from OP concedes onwards, below, and note AN/I request. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been a great deal of news coverage related to circumstances leading up to this death as well as of the inquest. See this Google News archive search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good article refaring to Candaian criminal history but there should be some clean up of the article--Mohamed Aden Ighe 04:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

1) This article does not refer to Canadian criminal history. It is the bio of a teenager who tragically killed herself while in custody for criminal-law related reasons. 2) What clean-up are you suggesting? Singularity42 (talk) 18:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, news coverage isn't that broad. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very tragic what happened to Ashley Smith, but ultimately WP:BIO1E applies here. The coroner's inquiry, and more importantely, the results and changes that flow from the inquiry, is notable, but Ashley is ultimately only notable for the inquiry that resulted from her death. Singularity42 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A POV-driven memorial: "After she died at her prison cell in Kitchener, Ontario, Ashley was buried at the Elmwood Cemetery in Moncton, New Brunswick after the harassing moment for her. On October 23, 2007 at 10:57 p.m. aboard WestJet Flight number 480, Ashley Smith buried body came home. Cargo handlers on the tarmac of the Moncton Airport carted her out from the plane’s belly inside a white, industrial cardboard box on a tray of pine wood." The incident involved may or may not be worthy of encyclopedic coverage, but this biography is of one who is famous for one event. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of good sourcing, seem more to be a question of some re-writing rather then deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. suicides unfortunately happen in prisons all the time. and they get local coverage, this is routine WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Such tragic tales are staples of the evening news, but they are too numerous to be individually encyclopedic. Each case is important to the individuals involved, but appearing in Wikipedia should not be seen as validating one's suffering. Ornithikos (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and Rename to Death of Ashley Smith or similar. The article is in serious need of copyedit, but received national news coverage in Canada, including a documentary report on The Fifth Estate. News coverage appears to be quite broad (230000 hits for ""Ashley Smith" prison -wikipedia"). Inquests into this death could potentially change Canadian law and policy with respect to prison operation and management. As per Singularity42, the ramifications of this suicide are notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from OP - I absolutely agree that there is an issue in connection to Ashley Smith's death which is noteworthy, and which is to do with apparent serious failings in the Canadian correctional system. But this article is not, except extremely remotely, about those failings. Right now we have a bathetic and maudlin article focused on the person, and a complete absence of any analysis of the critical issue of systematic institutional failure. Should anyone wish to address the core issue, I suggest a start might be made in a new section of Correctional Service of Canada. Only the most severe "copyedit" - meaning throw away pretty much all that is here and start again - would remedy the deficiencies of the current article. The fact that there is a kernel of notability associated with the context of Smith's death does not in any way justify retention of the current article. WP:BIO1E clearly applies here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news media provide an inexhaustible chronicle of tragedies. Repeating them in Wikipedia adds nothing. The news media rarely consider the past events and current conditions that underlie such tragedies, or the past movements and current struggles against their continued occurrence. These can be described in encyclopedic form without resorting to advocacy, and such accounts can provide much valuable information that cannot be found in stories that bleed and lead. Ornithikos (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a "serious copyedit" - removing the worst parts of it, including some serious copy violations direct from the Fifth Estate timeline page. I don't know if this makes it redeemable or not, and I don't have time at the moment to continue it. As noted in my original vote, I think the article should be renamed, but I don't know/can't remember how to do that at the memoment - and I'm not sure I can do that while an AFD is in play anyway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I (tentatively) agree that we could have an article about the inquest and inquiry (I might hold off just a bit to wait for the corner's inquiry to actually take place and see what coverage and what effect the resulting recommendations have). I just don't think a renaming of this article is the right step. This article is essentially a bio of the person whose death led to the inquest and inquiry. There is virutally nothing about the inquiry other than a single sentence. Therfore, it would need a virtual complete re-write (beyond just a re-naming) to become an article about the inquiry. I'm also not sure if we should even have an article about the inquiry before the results and recommendations are released. Singularity42 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the section on the inquest and substantially referenced it. The inquest itself was delayed for several months, and has already been quite controversial. The presiding coroner has been summarily replaced - with the attendant legal wrangling by interested parties as a result - and is currently delayed until September 2011. Given that this represents the usual pace for a Canadian judicial inquiry I expect it will be a long time before any results and recommendations are released. (I'm not trying to turn this into an edit or deletion war; I'm trying to rescue the article before it gets deleted because I believe that the overall subject is notable and ongoing.) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How wide-reaching was the The Fifth Estate coverage? In the US, I would imagine that someone who receives coverage on 60 Minutes would pass the threshold of notability. If the article is kept, I agree that it should be renamed as Death of Ashley Smith. Location (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Estate is a nationally televised program on CBC, so coverage would be fairly wide-ranging. Also, the program felt it was important enough that they did two separate episodes on the subject.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, there was news coverage--but no, not to the extent that this would have been a particularly notable death (or life). Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. It explains that a life of a teenager troubled her life than later, she died. The article has been upgraded now and more understandably.--Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second !vote has been struck. Singularity42 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Then move to Death of Ashley Smith. This isn't a biography, it's a current event. While the life story of this person is necessarily a part of this pagespace, the page should be more properly focused to events of the death and the apparent negligence for which both the warden and deputy warden were fired. User:Singularity42 makes a strong case above that while the deceased may not be notable, the story of the negligence and apparent coverup are notable. The story has been the feature of two full-length documentaries in a nationwide viewing platform. Meanwhile, the recently called inquest continues and there's controversy as to the presiding coroner's actions. All this stuff is documented on the page. This meets every section of the criteria for WP:EVENT and certainly meets WP:GNG as a notable death. If the article is kept, I'll volunteer to begin that page transition. Lots of sources, much room for expansion, no reason to think news will stop coming until the inquest is processed. BusterD (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OP concedes It is for me a foregone conclusion that the article will be kept, and I welcome the offer of input from Buster and others to turn it into an article we can be proud of. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's zero shame in accepting consensus when it seems to disagree with your initial intention. There's much wisdom to be gained from actually listening to each other. I'd suggest you withdraw the nomination, since there's no clear consensus to delete, then move the page as the discussion has suggested. Then I'll do the copyediting and some additional sourcing. I'll watch the documentaries to find additional sources. If you want to watch my back, that would be awesome. It's entirely possible the nice editors above who've done such a nice job so far will do this all by themselves. But take no regrets here. Consensus seems to indicate the information belongs in an encyclopedia, but I agree with your nominating assertion, in view of what was on pagespace before you so asserted. It turns out this is important subject matter, but not viewed through the prism of biography. BusterD (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notwithstanding Tagishsimon's concession above, I want to be clear that as one of the delete !votes, I am not changing my !vote at this time. I think we all agree that the fallout from Smith's death is (or will be) notable. I say will be, because we simply do not know the fallout yet. The criminal charges have been dropped. The inquest has only heard some of the evidence. A lawsuit is outstanding. I would support an article called Ashley Smith inquest (or something like that), but I do not support an article called Death of Ashley Smith, since it is the fallout from the death that is notable, not the death itself. There is no news deadline with Wikipedia. Let's wait for the inquest to happen, have the resulting secondary source commentary, and write an article based on that. I don't think a consensus has been determined yet. Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC) To be clear, as someone who works in the area of youth and Canadian criminal justice, I expect the inquest recommendations will be extremely important and notable. Singularity42 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

It's entriely possible this should be shuttled over to Requested Moves so we could develop some consensus for proper titling. I see no problems with Ashley Smith inquest. Anybody else got opinions about withdrawal of nomination and renaming to event pagespace? BusterD (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments, Buster. I add my agreement to Singularity's post, that the kernel of notability is the ramifications of the death, rather than her life or death; I would be happy for the time being with Ashley Smith inquest, noting that this satisfies Buster also. I have not read AfD rubric sufficiently to understand the effect of withdrawing my nomination (I'll do that in a second) but clearly I'm but a single voice here. I tend to think it would be better to find an admin or someone familiar with AfD to close this AfD - we're over the 7 day mark. I'll continue to take an interest in the article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To closing admin: Please note the discussion immediately preceding this comment. Nominator is willing to withdraw nomination in the face of a no consensus ruling. Page consensus seems to indicate a page move, but move target isn't clear as of this timestamp, and consensus isn't clear on either subject. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure if my position is being properly reflected by the above comments (although I can see why there might be a misunderstanding. Let me clarify why I am still !voting delete, and why I think further AfD discussion is required. (I would support a re-listing). My position is:

An article called Ashley Smith inquest should be created at some point, perferably when the inquest is completed and there has been sufficient secondary source commentary (which is not the current situation).
The current article being discussed is Ashley Smith's bio and details of her death, with a paragraph about the fallout from her death. Whether under the current name or Ashley Smith inquest it will still be a bio article. The current consensus seems to be that Ashely Smith is not notable, but the fallout and/or inquest is/will be.
A bio article is not what I mean by Ashley Smith inquest in my first point.
The inquest will be notable. Right now, though it is just news with nothing much happening with it (other than a controversial change of presiding coroners).
Therefore, the bio article should be deleted (or maybe userfied for a while), and then we create Ashley Smith inquest when we have more secondary source commentary about the inquest.

I would therefore support re-listing this AfD to determine if there is consensus between the following two options: 1) "Keep with a page move" or "Delete (with a new article created later about the what happened at the inquest)". Singularity42 (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not trying to guide the closer except to attention. I have no problems with a relisting to let more eyes and minds be brought to bear here. Normally if the nominator wants to withdraw, the procedure is over. But as I've stated and you concur, consensus is still not especially clear. So a relist might be very appropriate. BusterD (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OP Comment Again, for clarity, I concur there is not consensus, and for that reason anticipated we could close and keep. I'm persuaded that the two episodes of The Fifth Estate and other sources satisfy general notability guidelines. I tend to think the chain of events that are notable are the treatment of Smith and what I anticipate will be the outcomes - inquest, penal policy changes, &c. Per Singularity, I accept that we do not yet know what the outcome will be. I guess where I think I differ from Singularity is in believing that GNG is already met, and/or believing that the AfD outcome will in effect be keep, even if only by no consensus to delete. That being the case, my preference is to take up Buster's offer to put time into the article, and to minimise the effort of all expended in the AfD process. Beyond that, I have no strong views on relisting or userfying, one way or another. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2011 (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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Lucas[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Lacks any citations to significant coverage in non-primary reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy Back to author User:ArkadiuszEurope. Article is ony a few weeks old,[16] and the list of notable productions IS an acceptable assertion toward notability and seems to be verifiable so as to meet WP:ENT quite nicely.[17] The article needs expansion to be a decent BLP. Its lacking citations is a reason to give it back to the author and let him expand and cite per available sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:00, 14 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of films broadcast by Disney Channel in the UK & Ireland[edit]

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

Was PRODded with the rationale "trivial list, films in this list have a very minor correlation that is not notable" and contested by an IP via the edit summary field, so I deprodded procedurally.

I agree with the original prod rationale. The overly-broad criteria for inclusion creates an unwieldy and unencyclopedic list. Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:IINFO. Them From Space 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, this list is entirely unsourced. There's nothing in the article Disney Channel (UK & Ireland) that would explain why such films as In the Line of Fire, Super Troopers, and The Big Lebowski, which were rated 15, 15, and 18 in the UK respectively, would be considered appropriate programming for the Disney Channel in that country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 New Talents 2005 in Lübeck[edit]

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

also nominating:

another sprawling series of non notable results. fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Each article fails WP:EVENT in every respect. No WP:GNG. No significant sourcing outside of routine sports results. Not all sporting events are notable, even when notable people are involved. BusterD (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NEVENT and there is no encyclopedic value to any of them.--Cerejota (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Elementary School[edit]

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

disambig for inherently nonnotable subject (elementary schools), none of which have articles anyway, and most of which dont follow disambig guidelines for inclusion (1 does, so it doesnt need a disambig for that reason as well) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could be viable if it linked to the school districts instead of the schools. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Serves a valid navigational function, as casual users are not going to know or be looking for the name of a district and it is up to us to get them where they need to go. I managed to find WP district pages for 3 of the 5 schools listed here. I don't think there is anything up for the Chicago school while the Houston school's district I was unable to find. Still, there's now enough there to give the page utility. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these schools is ever likely to get an article, and only one is even called Boone Elementary School (see WP:PTM). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only serves search utility MadCow257 (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation pages for articles that will never exist are not useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MOS:DABMENTION; these schools are mentioned in the blue-linked articles, so that is sufficient to keep them on the disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation page that points only to redlinks, and has no incoming links from articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although less than optimal that there is no existing article with the title, the list entries all satisfy WP:DABRL and there is a blue link for each entry that provides a reader with information about the subject. older ≠ wiser 16:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary disambiguation page, since there are no notable elementary schools with the name. Anyone interested in finding the website of a school so named, or info about it, can simply Google "Boone Elementary School" and there are all the sites relevant to them. Edison (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dab pages are not search indices. 1 of the 5 entries has no valid bluelink at all and the other 4 have no significant information at the bluelinks. This page gets in the way of people using the search engine who might want the schools in Missouri or Kentucky or California. Station1 (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Warren[edit]

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

The article does not cite independent sources, and I cannot find significant independent coverage of the subject online. wctaiwan (talk) 09:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral- It may be possible for this person to squeak by WP:MUSIC based on the following criteria:

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

It seems that she has performed in several notable films (if only dubs). However, I do agree that more reliable sources will be necessary to corroborate this than what is currently given. Topher385 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An IP editor left a request to save / keep the article at the take page for this discussion. wctaiwan (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2011 (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) 00:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see notable sources for a biography on Google and Yahoo aside from IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 16 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Gamers[edit]

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

Subject does not appear notable, article is too short. Looks like there is not a lot to say about it. noteability needs establishing and article needs to be increased massively in size for it to be worth keeping. Also more sources from outside the subjects website should be found. At the minute I am saying this should be erased. Also it appears the person who started the page has admitted been associated with the website on the articles talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adventure_Gamers and look at the bottom of the talk page for a section with the heading december 2006 (Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep the last deletion nomination was only 3 months ago, it is abusive and inappropriate to re-nominate something so quickly, especially when the prior AfD had consensus. Yes I know it was closed no consensus but the preponderance of arguments were for keeping. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Considering I did not see the previous deletion discussion prior to setting up this nomination with twinkle your comments that state: it is abusive and inappropriate to re-nominate something so quickly are highly inappropriate and very offensive. And even though its been nominated twice before it don't get round the fact the article is not worth keeping per my comments on the discussion opener(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I understand that it wasn't your intention, I didn't mean my comment to sound hostile. However I feel that renomination at this time is premature. HominidMachinae (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While there is no set rule about when an article can be renominated, the general feeling is that it's about 3-6 months give or take for "keep" closes and about 1-3 months give or take for "no consensus" closes so I don't think there's anything wrong with the time frame. However, WP:BEFORE says Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. This is especially important for more recent nominations. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per the first AFD and second AFD "The site's reviews have been quoted on many adventure game box covers" as a quoted resource, which is cited within the article. Additionally, nominating because the article is "too short" is unreasonable and a non-reason to begin with. Why don't we just go ahead and delete all stubs? (aka Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions) Additionally, the fact that the article's creator has a conflict of interest is meaningless in the context of an AFD, and has never been considered a reason to delete, only to cleanup to remove any bias. This is standard operating procedure at Wikipedia. This strongly smacks of I don't like it. Dennis Brown (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep I'm not worried about who started the article, the last deletion highlighted a lot of potential sources and frankly I don't wish to spend what limited time I have trying to get at them just because it's up for deletion again after a few months have passed. No disrespect intended to the nominator but there seems little appetite to delete the article right now and I'm not seeing this particular discussion going anywhere. Someone another 15:30, 16 August 2011 (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. — Cirt (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Ippel[edit]

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

I am unable to find anything that shows that this musician is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She was principal founder of a festival that has continued for many years, has issued a CD, is on the Illinois Arts Council performer list, and has coverage other than self-promotion in newspapers. Those all should count in her favor for notability. BillHart93 (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a notable CD? Are the newspapers only local? Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yahoo and Google didn't show any notable third-party sources for a biography. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 19 August 2011 (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.