Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 16

< 15 July	17 July >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerd metal[edit]

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

An article was deleted in 2007, and this new article is unreferenced and doesn't resolve the problems which led to the original deletion. It doesn't seem to be a widely recognised or defined music genre. Peter E. James (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Lugnuts (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a commonly used term with varying interpretations around the web. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 14:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While things like Nerdcore do exist (and it is awesome, tell your friends), this particular article does not have sources that show that this genre even exists. Most of the examples given in the article seem to be not of nerd themes, but of high-fantasy themes, which are a common theme in many genres of metal. - SudoGhost ™ 22:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note A similar (but not identical) article already exists for "Nerdy rock/metal" at Nintendocore. - SudoGhost 14:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a recognized sub-genre, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 20 July 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) 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCHunt[edit]

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

This is not a notable piece of software (see WP:NOTE). It is a trivial program (file search + chi squared test library) put up on the author's website and referred to by a couple of non-notable blogs, and by a couple of indiscriminate software catalogues. Quietbritishjim (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence it passes WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --DeVerm (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems clearly a vanity page; not notable. W Nowicki (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe that it is a vanity page, and I think it's certainly notable. -Kai445 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What evidence do you have that it is WP:NOTABLE? -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 23 July 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) 23:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross McCord[edit]

Player has not played higher than Scottish Second Division, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Adam4267 (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 23:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject fails notability guidelines and specifically makes not assertion of notability. Article could as easily qualified under CSD A7. My76Strat ^talk 01:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 17 July 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 delete. SudoGhost ™ 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare, Children, and Families: A Three-City Study[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable for an article. The article is about itself! The main reference is itself! It does not state notability. It would probably be used as a reference someplace, but there is nothing here that suggests it should be a stand-alone article. Might be summarized and merged someplace else. Student7 (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per G12, being a copyright infringement of this, with no content on the article that was not copied from that source. - SudoGhost ™ 23:05, 17 July 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) 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Moore (animal welfare activist)[edit]

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

Very limited mention in reliable sources, and then only as an expert for quote. Appears to fail WP:BIO; article itself can thus never be more than boosterism. Danger (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is just a one-sided puff piece. No evidence that he is "world renowned", or any other notability.--Dmol (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The bulk of the references are about issues with urban foxes that quote William Moore. There is no substantial coverage that is about him as opposed to quoting him. Note that the citation used to support him being "world-renowned" makes no such statement; although it is in Vietnamese and I am relying on machine translation, it does not appear to make any claims about him other than identifying him with the organisation Foxulution. The second source that is an interview with Moore does not appear to be a reliable source, and in fact may be a self-published source; Major Events International helps companies secure contracts for major events such as the Olympics and is not a publisher. The other articles are about foxes, aside from the last reference which is a movie review written by Moore. Taken together, none of this establishes notability. --- Whpq (talk) 13:34, 19 July 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) 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K. ross[edit]

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

A rapper with a myspace page and according to that myspace page [1] he is unsigned. PTJoshua (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and has no claim to notability. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO no claim to any music charting. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced autobio that fails to demonstrate any criterion of WP:MUSICBIO. Hekerui (talk) 08:54, 23 July 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. Sandstein 07:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional sports teams[edit]

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

Indiscriminate trivia/recreation of deleted material —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indiscriminate and trivial listing. Edison (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as The Top 20 Fictional Teams in Sports History, Encyclopedia of film themes, settings and series, Children's films: history, ideology, pedagogy, theory and The Ultimate Book of Sports Movies. Warden (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Warden. Edward321 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently its just a trivia list and the scope of the list is too broad for any concise, encyclopedic article to develop. The previous AfD was correct in its conclusion. Them From Space 22:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous AFD appears to have up as a delete due to the poor quality and lack of references, rather than the policy question of whether the article should exist. As noted above, this has been discussed in reliable sources, so this is a valid article (as well as consistent with many other lists of fictional things which have survived AFD) and any concerns about the article should be addressed by improving, rather than deleting, it. Ma^t_chups
Keep Nominator doesn't articulate how or why this is indiscriminate... which is probably because it's not: fictional sports teams is a specific topic. I would have no objection to categorizing it as well as listing it, but as long as each team is sourced to the primary source in which it originates (to meet V), then Colonel Warden has demonstrated the topic has received enough coverage to meet N. And, of course, once the topic meets N and the contents meet V, there's no need for each element of the contents to meet N, per WP:NNC, so we're left without any good argument to delete this. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and drastic clean-up I think there's still the potential for a discriminate topic here, no matter how poor this list is in execution. There may be hope with this list if you remove the unverifiable and trivial entries. The best case for the long-term viability of this list may be to focus on a shorter list of more significant entries. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sources found by Col. Warden make a reasonable case that a fictional sports teams article could be written but this poorly sourced and indiscriminate list is not that article. If it were moved and rewritten it could be salvageable but that's true of any inappropriate article. So, I would probably go with delete without prejudice against a new article not in list form on the topic. On the other hand, a, selective, list will be part of any article so this might be a useable first draft. <shrugs> Eluchil404 (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Col. The issue of which teams to include is an editing question, not warrant for deletion of the entire list. If it is limited to teams playing a significant role in notable fiction its the opposite of indiscriminate, because that excludes about 90% of the possibilities--since most fiction is non-notable, (My definition of a significant role is if the team has some role in the plot.) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 22 July 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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lankaweekly.com[edit]

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

promote some entity, person or product Sehmeet singh (talk) 21:00, 16 July 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. I'm sorry Sassy54 but someone has to take note of your game and cover it in reliable secondary sources before we can have an article on it. I myself have invented a few games but I wouldn't put them on Wikipedia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal ball[edit]

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

Some kids made up a game in their backyard pool. It is probably fun but I don't think it belongs here PTJoshua (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable game; falls more withing WP:MADEUP. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipidea is not for things you just made up. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unsourced WP:HOWTO. - SudoGhost ™ 22:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. This is how any game/sport/idea comes about in the world today... someone has to start it, also known as being created /made-up. May I point out that hide-and-seek is on Wikipedia and it was started by children who decided it would be fun to hide behind trees or other objects while another child counted and then tried to find the other children. This is absolutely no different than that. Sassy54 (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)— Sassy54 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Hide-and-seek has been played for centuries, and I have a feeling it was probably "invented" by a large number of different children all over the world. If your game is still played in a decade, let alone in centuries, then it might be notable. Katharineamy (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM. Haruth (talk) 01:53, 20 July 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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatum Reed[edit]

This article was previously deleted at this AfD. A DRV consensus overturned a later CSD G4 deletion in light of new information, and the recreation's expansion. Please see the DRV before commenting here. This matter is submitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— These porn star AfD discussions go on continuously on Wikipedia; somebody goes to quite a bit of trouble producing some rather well written articles; somebody values this material (I enjoy pornography as much as the next guy- actually I'm not sure that's true since I've not done a careful study on enjoyment of pornography - but there clearly is a constituency for this material). Is it time for a sister wiki, perhaps titled Wikiporn? We could get great sponsorships and might subsidize the main sites. Williamborg (Bill) 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) And, although humorous, this is a semi-serious question.[reply]
- There's a whole sub-industry of the Internet pornography industry that is devoted to Googlebombing porn actresses. Moreover, that someone has "gone to a lot of trouble" is not really relevant. Editors have written lengthy, well-wikified, articles about completely new made-up languages, before now. The appropriate things to discuss here are whether this person satisfies WP:BIO, and the appropriate things to be looking at are whether the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle constitutes a non-trivial published work, and suchlike. The place to propose new Wikimedia Foundation projects is Meta. Uncle G 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The person is not a porn star - she's a $4,000 prostitute, as her site clearly indicates, and the movies are incidental to the sex-for-pay business. She fails PORNBIO, her business fails CORP, and she fails BIO absolutely. This person also contacted me after I closed the first deletion, admitting that the article was part of an orchestrated campaign of self-promotion, and asking me to reverse m decision. There was concsensus to delete in the first AfD, and nothing new have come up. We shouldn't even be here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The first AFD discussion didn't make any mention of sources at all. The article on her in the San Francisco Chronicle was not discussed, for example. The existence of multiple non-trivial published works from sources independent of the subject indicates notability, and two such works are cited by this article. Uncle G 02:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh... the SFChronicle is trivial - it's her restaurant picks for crying out loud, the other two are from PORNBIO land, and in the spirit of PORNBIO I would require 100, not "multiple". The Bio is OR, anyway - there just aren't reputable independent published sources detailing her biography that we could cite here. - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Chronicle article has a paragraph of good, solid, biographical information at the start. The AdultFYI article has similar content, from which we can know that the subject studied ballet, is married, teaches Pilates, and so forth. Are you saying that the second isn't a reliable source? On what grounds? This person has a lot more information published about her, by a reliable source, than most porn actresses. Most porn actresses are wholly unverifiable, because the only biographical information for them is the potted blurb that comes along with the pictures — which is almost always a complete fiction created by some editor somewhere. Even the names aren't reliable. Whereas this person has interviews in newspapers. Uncle G 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, ballet. Not reliable b/c likely promotional, as is everything in the porn world, down to the googlebombing. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Most porn actresses are wholly unverifiable" - hehe!! mass AfD, anyone? :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on previous AfD and Crzrussian. Yank sox 23:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Here's the thing. I don't often visit wikipedia, unless Stephen Colbert has a new grudge against the bear population or I'm in need of some really trivia information. But I thought that pretty much anything that is relevant in pop culture could have a place here? No? I mean, CrazyRussian seems to think not, but so what? One guy gets to make the rules?! And on what grounds? That Tatum Reed isn't really a porn star but a prostitute who in some way is using wikipedia to score dates?! Well, that makes total sense, because when I'm really lonely, the first place I turn to is an online encyclopedia! Listen, if you want to argue that porn stars shouldn't be on here, that's one thing. But I don't even think Tatum is simply a porn star. She's currently having a documentary shot about her life and her business and completely blurs the line between pornography and art. And as a last grasp of an arguement, I thought I look up another porn star and see if she's on here...so I typed in "Bella Donna." And you know what came up? THIS: Bella Donna No, that's not Bella Donna, the porn star...that's Bella Donna, the COMIC BOOK CHARACTER! If we're going to allow fictious, z-rated comic book characters on wikipedia, can't we leave Tatum alone?!Thefoxymoron 06:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion, and consensus, based upon our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, guides the decision. Crzrussian is now addressing the sources available, and you should be, too. None of your rationale has any bearing, because none of it actually addresses the article and our policies and guidelines. Your personal opinion of the subject, what the Bella Donna article is about, and what you think of comic book characters, all have no weight as arguments. To make an argument, please cite sources to show that an article that satisfies our WP:BIO criteria can be made. Cite a biography (not an autobiography) of this person from which we can know that she is an Episcopalian, for example. Uncle G 09:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising. Tatum Reed sites [sic] Thorstein Veblen (...) as her primary artistic influences is a classic though. ~ trialsanderrors 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that line is choice. Almost worth BJAODNing the article for. Wait, no, not even close. Mystache 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. I'm not convinced that anything has changed since the first AFD. She's still not notable and the article is still an ad. Mystache 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being the owner of a film production company, a porn star, and a pop culture critic is plenty notable. Sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle more than meet our standards for reliablility. Granted, this article does need a lot of work, but that is cause for improvement by way of editing, not deletion. RFerreira 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the Crazed Russian. Eusebeus 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not per WP:PORN BIO, which CrazyRussian correctly notes she doesn't meet, not really being primarily a porn star, but through the more accepted WP:BIO, which she does. "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)". The San Francisco Chronicle, AdultFYI, and Luke Ford are not the New York Times, but they do meet those requirements. Good team work by several people here. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I agree with Crazed Russian-she is a high-priced prostitute. I am aware of this person through other people and she is the queen of self-promotion. Should not be on Wiki.

--Nlsephiroth 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC) "[reply]

Keep " freedom of choice, sex has always been an issue and always will be. Yes Tatum Reed does promote herself, but so does anyone who owns a business. Unsigned comment by User:Starbuck78 bbx 06:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Reluctantly. Tatum Reed is indeed a minor celebrity in the San Francisco Bay area. There are a number of independant articles about her written and easily accessed. Her being a prostitute (as well as a porn actress) is immaterial. I think she is just well-known enough of prostitute to make the cut. --Trick 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AnonEMouse. ALKIVAR™ 18:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sorry Juno1827736 but the consensus here is that the subject isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Fine Art[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. I have searched for independent reliable sources to support this gallery's notablilty, but cannot find any. PROD was removed by author with edit summary that the notability can be verified, but did not provide reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment. Reliable sources: QFA represents notable artist Christian Furr, who was the youngest artist to ever paint HM Queen Elizabeth II: at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Furr. My apologies, I am new to Wikipedia and am not altogether sure where and what to post. Thank you for your advice. Hope the above resolves the issue. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juno1827736 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juno, welcome to Wikipedia! Here's the issue in a nutshell. For Wikipedia to have an article about a subject, it must be meet the guideline at WP:Notable. Generally speaking there needs to be multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial way. A Wikipedia article about an artist who has had works at the gallery does not meet the criteria because that is not an about the gallery. Singularity42 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also failing to find independent sources through Google Search. But that's not to say that the gallery hasn't been discussed in sources outside Google's reach. So if there are such (articles in art journals, newspapers etc), please reference them into the article. (This article was created less than 40 mins before appearing at AfD; I hope the creator can be given a bit of time to demonstrate notability.) AllyD (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would usually agree that there may be sources outside of Google's reach. But the claim is that this is a gallery with highly notable artists, and has an international base. One might expect just a couple relevant Ghits. Singularity42 (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nothing's been added despite the above, and nothing evident in other available resources to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reliable sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG - I, too, have carried out searches and returned empty handed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:51, 23 July 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. Personal observation, this diesn't look like a baboon to me. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baboon Operating System[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. An online search of this operating system reveals no third-party, reliable sources. It is simply not notable yet. Singularity42 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree, article has no notability. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 20:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any independent coverage, or any sources at all for that matter. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --DeVerm (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence of notability. The article is unreferenced. Searching for "Baboon OS" OR "Baboon Operating System" on Google returns 48 "unique" web results. With the exception of what appear to be two self-published ODT documents, all results are irrelevant coincidental instances of "baboon" being next to "os", sometimes across sentences, and not the subject. The same query returns no News results, 13 Books results, and 9 Scholar results. The Books and Scholar results are once again irrelevant for the same reasons as most of the Web results. Rilak (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Rilak. Searching for baboon + mcdermott and for baboon + dessek (two main contributors named in article) also turns up nothing. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 03:01, 18 July 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) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mental (film)[edit]

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

Article is still in pre-production, WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 19:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NFF. Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:13, 19 July 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. Nominator redirected the article him/herself; the useful information in the article has apparently already been merged. If not, the history is still available to merge from. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puckeshinwa[edit]

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

Relation does not confer notability. Puckeshinwa's main claim to fame is that he is Tecumseh's father. Uyvsdi (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Merge to Tecumseh. Not enough notability for an independent article.
Merge, also to his other notable sons, Tenskwatawa and Cheeseekau. There's not enough documented information about Tecumseh's parents to create full articles on them. —Kevin Myers 06:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is no content there to merge. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tecumseh#Early life. The content is already at the target and there is no reason not to have a useful redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:56, 23 July 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 to Tecumseh. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methoataske[edit]

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

Relationships do not confer notability. She is only listed here as being the mother of Tecumseh, so what little information about her should be added to his article Uyvsdi (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Merge to Tecumseh. Not enough notability for an independent article.
Merge, also to her other notable sons, Tenskwatawa and Cheeseekau. There's not enough documented information about Tecumseh's parents to create full articles on them. —Kevin Myers 06:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tecumseh so that the work is not lost. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tecumseh. The content is already at the target, so nothing to merge, and there is no reason not to have a useful redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:12, 23 July 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haslingden Primary School[edit]

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

Primary Schools are very uncommon on wikipedia, and there is no real content on the page anyway. Quiggers1P (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Truthsort (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable school. Keb25 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haslingden#Schools where it is mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard procedure for nn schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haslingden#Schools Stuartyeates (talk) 00:00, 23 July 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) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Bhalobasha[edit]

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

Another user tagged with a PROD questioning the notability of this film. PROD was disputed with no reason given. Eeekster (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 July 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) 00:39, 9 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, very little evidence of coverage by independent sources. Nsk92 (talk) 20:20, 16 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights[edit]

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

a sporting event that gets no coverage outside kickboxing sources. 1 gnews hits and all google reveals is sources connected to kickboxing and listings. being on youtube or televised or having notable fighters does not grant automatic notability. fails WP:GNG also nominating:

United Glory 12 [2]
United Glory 13 [3] LibStar (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – United Glory are one of the strongest promotions in Europe – top 3 in the continent and top 5 worldwide. They have just had a very successful dual kickboxing and MMA tournaments the kickboxing tourney was won by Gokhan Saki – a top 10 heavyweight kickboxer and involved participants of the calibre of Errol Zimmerman, Hesdy Gerges (It’s Showtime Heavyweight champion), Nieky Holzken, Ruslan Karaev, Alexey Ignashov, Semmy Schilt (kickboxing) and Strikeforce world champion and top 3 ranked heavyweight Alistair Overeem. It was a notable event that was well reported by kickboxing websites. I would have suggested to the page editor that he should find some better sources and then maybe the deletion tag could be applied. jsmith006 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2011

I tried to find third party sources but could not. " It was a notable event that was well reported by kickboxing websites. " No, third party coverage is required to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you actually tell me what you consider to be a good source and could you actually give any examples please - as Jehrobot was courteous enough. I also thought GNews was the most important way of guaging notability for you - so 1 hit must be somewhat impressive and an indicator or notability. Do you also think that perhaps a tag giving the author the chance to improve the article would be fairer so they have the chance to improve it? jsmith006 (talk) 7:37, 2 July 2011

see WP:RS for what constitutes reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than simply refer me to one of the many WP's - can you please give me an example of what you think would be a good source for kickboxing? jsmith006 (talk) 8:52, 2 July 2011

major newspaper, or major sports news site (that is not connected to kickboxing). anything indepth and independent of kickboxing. LibStar (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While those would be very good, kickboxing or MMA magazines (or even websites) qualify as reliable sources as long as they have independent editorial control and/or acknowledged independent experts as authors. I think the bigger problem with many of these WP articles is that many of them fail to show they're more than the routine reporting of sports results. Papaursa (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half the sports related pages in wikipedia could be under deletion like that. Just for an example, like i mentioned earlier pradal serey did not give me any decent gnews hits either, and i wonder how many hits you gonna get from major sports news site (not connected to kickboxing) for it. Its only been practiced in southeast asia for 1000 years or so. What you doing is nothing to do with wikipedia anymore, you're on some kinda personal power trip here and just don't care.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not add to notability of this article. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was not trying to add notability by that example, just pointed out a flaw in your thought process the way you try to delete things.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 04:01, 4 July 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) 00:43, 9 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Almost every fighter on this card is highly notable. This was one of the biggest card of the year. -- WölffReik (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2011
Keep all While more information about the events other than results would be nice in the articles, I'm finding coverage in a variety of areas including affiliates of USA Today. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be a better searcher than I. Could you provide a link to any of them so the article references could be improved? I'd have added some references if I'd found them, but struck out. Cloveapple (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sources could be added surely almost 20 days would have been enough time to add them in? Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights has only 1 independent reference (I'm not counting the one that appears to be the event site!) The Sherdog site is an independent reference and is probably an ok reference since it has editors and therefore has fact checking. #12 has a blog (bshowassault.blogspot.com) as one of the two references. WP:SPS applies here. Though there might be a case to make for this blog - I don't know. The other one is sherdog again so that's probably ok. So again one reliable source. #13 has adcombat.com which I can't judge as a reference and mmamadman.com which I also couldn't judge. Both seem independent. I'd have been happier if either listed editors but they might be just fine. Cloveapple (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - quite simply they lack the sources to meet WP:GNG - if after all this time no sources have been found then we can assume there are none out there. Even the single Sherdog reference simply reports the results without editorial comment. One of the keepers, above, says "I'm finding coverage in a variety of areas including affiliates of USA Today." but none have been produced. TerriersFan (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as WP:RECENTISM. Once again, a fighting event with no sources. Same page defenders, same poor arguments. The only independent source, Sherdog, merely reports routine results. No section of WP:EVENT has been met, all independent coverage is WP:ROUTINE. If page defenders spent as much time digging up sources as they did asserting notability in AfD and complaining about these processes, we could likely keep a few more. If King Kong were fighting Godzilla, we'd still need sources. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 24 July 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 to Holtek. seems the best solution, per EdoDodo DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HT48RXX I/O type series[edit]

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

The subject of the article (a series of microcontrollers) fails WP:N. The article does not have any references and the external link it has does not indicate notability since it is a primary source. Searching for Holtek AND HT48RXX on Google Web returns 10 pages of 100 results, but none appear to be sources that can evidence notability. The majority appear to be data sheets, mentions in parts catalogs, and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. Searching Google News, no results were returned; Books returned a book republishing Wikipedia content; and Scholar, one mention in a university's teaching materials. Rilak (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Holtek per WP:PRODUCT. There is definitely not enough coverage of this to warrant an article of its own. - EdoDodo ^talk 11:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:57, 2 July 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) 00:44, 9 July 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per EdoDodo. --DeVerm (talk) 05:06, 17 July 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) 23:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ritter von Krauss[edit]

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

There are no references for this and a google search turned up nothing on this person. On the talk page the author admits that this is a pen name for an unpublished author. PTJoshua (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per either WP:HOAX or WP:CRYSTAL as the movie mentioned is only in development at this time and no credits are publicly available. Google search doesn't turn up anything related on any variation of the name. Search for the book mentioned turns up nothing. Article is certainly well-written, but currently unverifiable. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax, certainly fails WP:V. The article claims that the novel "Tiger Battalion" "finally appeared in 2010" and that the film "Twilight Of The Gods" "also appeared in 2011 with the author properly credited." If true, there would be some record in places like Worldcat and IMDb, but I can find none. IMDb has an entry for "Twilight of the Gods (2011)" but the genre is shown as "Thriller" and it is only in the "in development" stage. A note on the talk page, placed when a PROD was removed, appears to backtrack on those claims, which does not give much confidence. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to say this is more a WP:HOAX than anything, given that Ritter isn't a first name in German, it's the title "Knight" and "the knight of Krauss" sounds, implausible as a pen name. In any event I would expect anyone of this nature to generate some form of attention/interest given he supposedly wrote highly extensively in one of the most studied historical eras of all time. Also, to JohnCD, "Twilight of the Gods" is one translation of "Gotterdaemerung" a common phrase in German mythology, it's not surprising that would generate a lot of hits (it was even the name of a level in Warcraft 3, for instance). HominidMachinae (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no position on the notability/verifiability yet, I need to do more searching. But Ritter von Krauss would normally be translated "Baron von Krauss" and we have an article on one: George Krauss. It isn't so implausible for a person to use a title of nobility as a pen-name. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the article has been amended, and there is a note on the talk page, to say that the book and film will appear later this year. However, it still fails WP:V and WP:NOR: the author says on his talk page that the information "has never been released before." JohnCD (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of the author's now having stated that neither the book nor the film has yet appeared. This is therefore premature, but I hope it gets recreated after the necessary sources exist to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER - and re-create when it's released and gets good media coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 19 July 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eatyourkimchi[edit]

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

Non-notable blog jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that this blog is notable enough. You only have to read the first newspaper reference (which is solely about eatyourkimchi and the couple who run it). I think that it meets WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 15:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was marked as a speedy and then an Afd very early in its history. Sources and content have been added. It's Korean pop culture but I was still able to find two reliable English language newspaper sources. One source describes how the video bloggers have been on television shows and are now recognized and photographed on the street.Cloveapple (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this Korean language news article which Google translation shows to be all about the blog & it's creators [4]Cloveapple (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From Wikipeadia's guideline on the notability of web content (nutshell): For material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it should be notable and of historical significance. This blog may have some limited sourcing, but no more than the new Italian beef joint the next town over (the owner was on a Chicago morning TV show talking about the restaurant, and has had 2 newspaper articles about his restaurant). I do not think I have seen anything that demonstrates "historic" concerning this blog, so I have to think that it shouldn't stay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - new sourcing looks convincing. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you looked at the article the sourcing has grown beyond "some limited sourcing" since more sources are being added each day. The coverage is definitely past the level of your restaurant example. Also I have 2 more Korean sources that can't be used at all until somebody helps with translation. (I have asked several editors for help with this.) [5] [6] ~~I think~~ there are enough reliable sources out there to show notability. (I'll address the historic aspect seperately)Cloveapple (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now to respond to the other part of the WP:WEB nutshell you quote. In that quote the phrase "historical significance" is a link to WP:RECENTISM (recentism being the opposite of having historical significance). So here's why it's not an example of recentism: It's not a transient article topic that will be of no use in the future per WP:10YT. Instead the subject is similiar to any ongoing print travel guide series, magazine, or tv shows which has been reviewed and commented on. Also the article places the video blog in the larger historical context of the development of the Korean internet.Cloveapple (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be the subject of several independent reliable secondary sources (unless someone can show that these sources are somehow not reliable or not independent). The article needs a lot of work though, it certainly doesn't read like a worthwhile article. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of independent, reliable sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:34, 23 July 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. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Tiemann[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP of a baseball historian. He seems to pop up periodically in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch as the local baseball expert, but I don't think that he passes the notability bar set by WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gbooks and GScholar seem to indicate he is a prolific author on baseball history, whose works are frequently cited by others. Edward321 (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:UGLY, the fact that the article is currently unreferenced is not in itself a reason to delete if references exist somewhere. ~~However, per WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG, more independent sources are needed than the St. Louis Post-Dispatch if this is to be kept.~~ —Bagumba (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:AUTHOR by the subject being cited by multiple independent reliable sources (which have been added to the article since original AfD nomination). —Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Not even close. Prolific author. Noted as an expert in his field. Major award. WP:Before should have obviated any inclination by nom to bring this to AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article has improved significantly since I nominated it. Note that the award he received is for "exceptional SABR volunteers". I'm not sure that's evidence of notability; lots of organizations recognize volunteers in some way. I'm still bothered by the fact that there are few references other than the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Is he known outside of St. Louis? However I do acknowledge that there are a number of books which cite him as an expert, which I think is evidence of notability. Pburka (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, this was one of the first articles I ever started on Wikipedia. Alex (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... or if not a snow keep, alternatively a withdrawal by nom would work. I might note that per wp:before, nom (who seems even-handed and well-intentioned) should look for such sources himself before making the nomination -- it is not requisite that the refs be in the article, but only that they exist, and a search for them should be undertaken prior to nomination. As to the SABR award, a minor point given the above comments, it appears that it is actually for exceptional SABR "members" -- not volunteers -- and given the nature of the organization and the fact that it is their highest award, arguable is notable. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider nomination withdrawn. Apparently someone has now corrected the description of the Bob Davids Award. I did search for references and found the newspaper references from a single paper. My search of book references was less thorough, but even then I note that the book references appear to be passing references, even if they do describe the subject as an expert. Pburka (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks. And yes -- I corrected the Wikipedia description, based on the ref (just goes to show that we can't always rely on wikipedia!). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:42, 17 July 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denice D. Lewis[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable living model/actress with no "sourcing" but IMDb. Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant roles in multiple productions, therefore she does not meet WP:ENT. Note the article was also created by a sock of a banned user.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a reliable source can be found per WP:BLPPROD. Possibly redundantly, but for the sake of completeness, I've added a "prod blp" template. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 16 July 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ssejsantokotha[edit]

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

Feel free to peruse for sources in Google Books and Google News, or even the regular Google. I found nothing, nothing at all, for either term, Ssejsantokotha or Smritokotha (besides wikimirrors and some odd website also in the EL section). Drmies (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have also failed to source, having started to look when I raised this article on the nom's talk page. It appears to be a "divine revelation" and, judging from descriptions past and present in an article that links to it, is quite probably a fringe theory. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find discussion in any reliable sources, and most material that comes up through a variety of Google searches appears to be mirroring of the Wikipedia article. The article is impenetrably dense, poorly written, and does not reflect the neutral point of view. If someone can demonstrate notability, the article should be trimmed to a neutral stub and entirely rewritten. Cullen328 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Lady of Shalott and Drmies have pruned the article significantly since I first looked at it yesterday. I admit I didn't read every word, but at least I skimmed it. Well done. Cullen328 (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable independent sources needed to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, much less reliable sources to establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text is better, but there's still no reliable independent sources needed to show notability Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 23 July 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) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin esufally[edit]

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

I don't think this businessman meets the notability guidelines. I can find very little on him in a google search, and no significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps others know more. Beloved Freak 13:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I read over the linked sources and I'm just not feeling this one. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; no significant coverage in reliable sources. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 11:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 23 July 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. Courcelles 09:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stayonyourfeet[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reason for PROD was "This is a neologism with no encyclopaedic value." PROD was removed with the reasoning "Though it may seem as neologism, it's a campaign, and quite notable." In response, I would ask, who has defined the notability of this term? What is it a campaign towards? Where are the references to show that this has any enduring value beyond the last 6 months or so? – Pee Jay 12:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, as either a neologism or a campaign. Giant Snowman 14:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose this could be described as an internet campaign if you're feeling generous, but if it's also a very recent creation without extensive use by those not affiliated with the source it still sounds like a neologism. Several Times (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - stayonyourfeet is a neologism, but its also a campaign - to sell tee-shirts. This article is de facto promotional. Mark^Dask 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as Snowman from few above. HonorTheKing (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. A neologism and WP:ARTSPAM. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a non-notable advert campaign, that's all. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete highly promotional, completely unencyclopedic. LiteralKa (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ARTSPAM Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 23 July 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) 23:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rashtra Sant Shyam ji Parashar[edit]

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

Couldn't find any source - so per WP:RS. Articles claim one of the greatest saint of India should be sourceable. Maybe a user with more knowledge about Hinduism could proof the article. A speedy has been declined. Ben Ben (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ben Ben (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source available on internet. Could be a good saint but not a greatest indian saint ever. There is no such great saint that lived in india as mentioned in page. deletion should be made under WP:SOURCES.Sehmeet singh (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article claims he was fluent in English, so the creator can't even use foreign language as an excuse for a lack of google hits.Stuartyeates (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability whatsoever, I didn't see any sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 21:05, 23 July 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. Courcelles 09:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Bashir Ahmed[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography, full of peacock puffery (my favorite: "he always stood like an unshakeable mountain, what come may, till the matter settled as just and justified."). Notability per WP:ANYBIO dubious. bender235 (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Smile about the English used in the article, but some have more trouble with the language than others (editing/correcting is always possible). The style might not be what we want in an English encyclopedia but I'm convinced it's driven by cultural differences, so can be adjusted too. The sources seem okay, what is wrong with them? I see reasons for editing but not for deleting the article as it's a notable person from what I find; receiver of the 3rd highest civilian award in India and thousands of followers around the world. --DeVerm (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article in The Hindu is a good reference and he meets WP:POLITICIAN as an Indian state legislator elected four times. We should improve rather than deleting articles about notable topics. Cullen328 (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Terribly written but still notable. Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN and references check out. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've stripped out a lot of the puffery. When that's removed, we're left with a notable regional politician. Valenciano (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Need some wikification (so tagged for "wikify"), but a Padma Bhushan recipient is definitely a notable personality. — Bill william compton^Talk 04:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cabinet member and Padma Bhushan strongly suggests a keep to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:01, 23 July 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. Courcelles 09:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkland House Grand Colonial Queenslander, Brisbane[edit]

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

Blatant self promotion for a guest house, written by user with same name as the subject. The house itself is not notable, and is typical of thousand of others in Queensland. (That's why they're called Queenslanders). No references, the few that are listed do not even mention the place. Tone of the article is largely promotional. PROD was removed by creator without the issues being addressed. Dmol (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally per above, no apparent heritage listing &c, but the creator of the article may well be encouraged to add content to existing articles on the subject. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Beloved Freak 13:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search of the Queensland Heritage Register fails to find mention of it, so presumably it is not considered to be of any special historical significance. That makes it just a guesthouse. There are vast numbers of houses in the world dating from the 1880s and before. There are some streets that consist entirely of 19th century houses. We cannot possibly have articles on every one of them without good reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant dwelling, article being used to promote commercial interest. WWGB (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established and seems difficult to do with an unknown history. Promotional tone reveals article is more of an advert for accommodation services. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 23 July 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. Sandstein 07:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Boccabella[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A Italian-Australian writer. Has written one novel, Mezza Italiana. There are references to the book, but none to the author. Was deleted in April 2011. Re-created article has one new reference. Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A genuine published author but does not yet meet WP:AUTHOR criteria for notability. asnac (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts I wonder whether the criteria are quite fair however. It's a big deal to get a work of fiction published by a house like HarperCollins. One could argue that this of itself confers notability. asnac (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did some Googling but didn't find much. I found that one of her recipes had been in Delicious magazine. I found that she had had one article in the Italian Historical Society Journal. Also it looked like her university thesis [7] (Inheriting Italy: Homecoming and Conciliation Within Diasporic Travel Memoir) was on the same topic as her book. So in case she qualified under WP:ACADEMIC I checked two academic databases: "Academic Search Premier" and "JSTOR" but found nothing. Cloveapple (talk) 00:24, 24 July 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 Moved to user space. nancy 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resources for WEP Region 9 faculty & students[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The page is just a how to guide on editing Wikipedia articles. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess they decided Wikipedia policy / help pages weren't good enough. Some of the things on here are not even true about WP in the first place. For instance,

1. Remember - this is a wiki. That means that it's really hard to break things. Here, we can virtually always go back to an earlier version of things, before your personally engineered disaster! You get unlimited do-overs! - I disagree with your premises, WEP Region 9. Breaking stuff on WP is laughably easy if is not encyclopaedic, like how WP is not a how-to guide, even for itself. Also, you don't get unlimited do-overs if, for instance, you vandalize or create sock puppets to get your way. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 08:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to userspace. Might have a legitimate function there, but is patently not an article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my mistake. I wrote this, and I thought I WAS just creating a subpage of my user page. I only just saw that this is appearing as a page in Wikipedia proper. Major oops. Totally my mistake. Am not immediately sure how to fix this, but will jump on it - will move to my TALK page until I figure it out better. Hmmm. I can move the content, I have no idea how to delete the page propoer. Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:19, 16 July 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. There is clearly a consensus that this subject now meets WP:AIRCRASH. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missinippi Airways Cessna 208 Crash[edit]

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

This article concerns a non-notable crash, failing to meet criteria set out in WP:AIRCRASH. It also fails WP:GNG and falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS - even the news reports were scanty, tending to be repeats of a news service, and there has been no follow-up coverage. Other mentions found tend to be in databases documenting all air crashes. YSSYguy (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. just because one person is killed on an aircraft doesn't mean it's guaranteed an article. There are bus crashes that had killed more people, yet there are nothing written about them.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 07:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Missinippi Airways article. Per WP:AIRCRASH, the aircraft is under 5,700 kg and the accident does not meet the third bullet point. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the suspension of Missinippi Airways operator's licence by Transport Canada means that the accident now meets WP:AIRCRASH, as there were fatalities, a hull loss and changes to procedures. Mjroots (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no Missinippi Airways article. If you want to merge it where do you merge it? This article must stand alone, or it will be deleted which it doesn't need to happen to it.Springyboy (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that someone within the company did the deletion for public relations? Suggest recreating that article, then incorporating this into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.200.26.138 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No - there's no indication that a previously-named article existed, at least not when I tried it. PK T(alk) 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 16:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in question is very poorly written, the grammar is bad, the article is not really that informative. It does not seem to me that (as said above) that it is not entirely in compliance with WP:GNG or WP:NOTNEWS. Sure it goes along with WP:AIRCRASH but that is not substantial enough for me as reliable encyclopedic content.Dusty777 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That an article needs to be improved is not a reason to delete it. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a relatively minor page but part of a much larger and more important series. It's well referenced by multiple independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the news sources do seem to be mainly repeating the same limited info. The Air Safety Network entry cites a local radio station for its info. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:48, 23 July 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. Courcelles 09:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Sung[edit]

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

Declined prod, references are passing mention or blurbs attached to articles/posts by her. No significant coverage as far as I can see. --Nuujinn (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Creative. asnac (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:Creative Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 23 July 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 with leave to speedy renominate. After 21 days we have 2 comments. One says there is "significant coverage" the other say there isn't. If this is renominated I would urge anybody !voting "keep" to present the "significant" coverage in the discussion so it can be evaluated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Store Wars (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends)[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable. Sources are directory listings from Film.com and Zap2it, a dead link and a website (DVD Verdict) that I'm not convinced is reliable. There is insufficient out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 July 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 05:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has sufficiently notable coverage. The episode meets WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes. Sources here are not significant coverage, so this fails WP:GNG. The only thing one has to say about this topic is "In one episode ("Store Wars"), they go to the mall and get lost". Another just says "When Frankie tries to shop for Madame Foster's birthday, the gang tags along." That's not enough to write a separate encyclopedia article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:01, 15 July 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, Sandstein 06:21, 16 July 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) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Mastiff Hound[edit]

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

I have found no reliable sources covering this cross, and as a result it is not sufficiently notable. Anna^talk 17:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Anna^talk 18:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability given or found. Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 4 July 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:05, 8 July 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, Sandstein 06:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage. I found a few blogs and this forum that mentions the dog. There are also a few pictures that appear to be the hound-in-question, but they do not come from reputable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is mentioned as a breed at the Dog Breed Info Center - is this a reliable source for breeds? Not listed in List_of_dog_breeds. Not listed on this website listing hybrids either. asnac (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Dog Breed Info fails the criteria for reliable sources, particularly self-published sources. There is no indication of who is providing the information and it is frequently incorrect. Plus, that's their boilerplate mixed breed page with no real information. Anna ^talk 21:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable sources. Miyagawa (talk) 21:43, 19 July 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. Withdrawn by nominator. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 19:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows Alive[edit]

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

Book does not exist, most recent source no longer mentions it, and Shadows in Flight is now announced as a novel, contradicting the assumption that it was going to be a short story Maratanos (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Turns out my criterion was wrong. Will work to make things clearer. Sorry about the confusion.

Maratanos (talk) 05:46, 16 July 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 based upon the arguments regarding original research ans synthesis. Several contributors noted that this was not covered in the sources provided as a unified concept. While additional sources were provided during this discussion, the existing material was not covered by those sources. Delete as it exists now, with no prejudice against a new article written from these sources. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article restored. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: Should be deleted as relevant, SOURCED information is now at main page (Cthulhu). The remainder here is trivia and therefore WP:NOT#IINFO, and fails WP:V.

The previous attempt took place in 2007, and Wikipedia is a great deal more informed now as to what is and is not suitable. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*I created this page as a result of a malformed AfD. Them From Space 05:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per nom. This is an unneeded dumping ground for trivia lists and original research. A cited, prose summary of this is acceptable on the main Cthulhu page, but we don't need a list of everytime every work of fiction has ever mentioned Cthulhu. Them From Space 05:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Normally I am against pages like this and other "in popular culture" things. But in this case the Cthulu mythos has become almost MORE popular recently than it was originally. There are ample sources discussing its significance in popular culture, and more than one on the "fuzzification" of the mythos and how it has become something of a pop culture phenomenon. I would argue given the tepid reaction to H.P. Lovecraft's original work, combined with the sheer number of people who are familiar with the entire mythos but have never read an original Lovecraft work, the works of follow-up writers like Derleth and the ample modern re-interpretation, that the popular culture reaction to the mythos is more notable than The Call of Cthulhu ever was. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see H.P. Lovecraft in popular culture, for example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huge thanks for that book ref. That looks like a perfect source for framing material discussing Cthulhu and the Mythos's pop culture influence as such, instead of asking the reader to infer it through a list of examples, that I've been wanting for Cthulhu#Legacy for ages. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That book doesn't excuse (or source) any of the content of the article, which goes against our trivia guidelines as well as our summary style of writing. This is why a prose section in the Cthulu article is relevant but the list of every single appearance of Cthulu in any source of media (which is the contents of this article) is inappropriate. Notability of the topic isn't the issue, its the broad open scope and triviality of the contents that is problematic. (WP:TRIVIA, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc). Editing this material in accordance with those guidelines would leave a small, cited, prose section that would function better in the main article than as a spinout. Them From Space 23:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. I'm glad to have it established that you don't consider notability at issue, but hopefully we can be forgiven for defending the article in those terms, since several delete opinions have made negative assertions about notability (based on argumentation from factually incorrect statements as they may be). The thing is, deleting this particular article on the basis of IINFO is basically saying, "yeah, I know the topic is notable, and I know that there are sourcably significant entries in the article, but the article is a big mess so just delete it all". This is, at best, using deletion as cleanup, which I hope we can agree is not okay. Why wouldn't the correct procedure be to cut the article to sourcably significant entries, as has recently been done at Cthulhu#Legacy, possibly then proposing a merge with Cthulhu Mythos that would be properly noted at that article and draw the attention of editors interested in it? —chaos5023 (talk) 03:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a lot of work went into the page and it is interesting and maybe even useful it really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Items are put on the list according to the opinion of editors. In many cases another story (video game, etc.) with a god and/or alien that looks like an octopus is cited as an example of the Cthulhu Mythos. If the list was trimmed down to only the items where some secondary source made the connection it would be short enough to merge to the main article on the topic. However in that case the inclusion of items would be somewhat random, as it would depend on a reviewer mentioning the Lovecraft connection in his review -- not on the importance of the item. I think the best thing is to take the whole list and move it to a Lovecraft fan wiki. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I grew up reading stories from the Golden Age of science fiction, and in most cases when an alien didn't look like a mammal it most often looked like either a giant insect or else an octopus. So everything is not necessarily Cthulhu. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there actually are inclusion criteria for the article that those of us who try to keep an eye on it use to keep it from ballooning with every cartoon character who ever looked like a squid. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable topic, article content issues are article content issues and not relevant here. "SOURCED information is now at main page (Cthulhu)" is a specifically dysfunctional part of the nomination because Cthulhu and this article have different scopes; Cthulhu is about the specific character Cthulhu, with general Cthulhu Mythos material (for example, concerning Yog-Sothoth or the Deep Ones) excluded, which the nominator does not seem to have understood. Again, Cthulhu is not the "main page" for this topic; Cthulhu Mythos, the place that this list is a WP:SPINOUT from in the first place, is. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, the reason this damages the nomination is that that part of the nominator's argument can be stated as "we can safely blow away this article because everything that should be covered about its topic already is covered at Cthulhu", but the difference in scopes between the articles means that that cannot ever be the case. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research by synthesis. Sources are individual TV episodes and text. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the only place where original research is published. It's supposed to be a tertiary source, covering accepted knowledge in other areas. Also fails the general notability guideline because there are no sources to WP:verify notability of this list. There might be sources for a smaller overview in the main article but not as a pretext for a list of every possible appearance. Wikipedia is not a directory. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sources for notability of the list? Colonel Warden noted one above that seems to do very well for the purpose. Please take a look. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cthulhu Mythos since that is what this is about. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created as a WP:SPINOUT from Cthulhu Mythos, I believe because of size and due weight concerns. If they were merged as-is, the resulting article would be 77209 bytes long, which is above the 50K-ish region where we usually start looking at splitting articles. It's entirely possible that the right thing to do is a massive cull of the article to items demonstrated significant by sourcing, followed by a merge back to Cthulhu Mythos, but if so I strongly think the culling should happen first. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate spinout demonstrating the breadth of impact, would overwhelm the primary article if merged back. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge back per guidelines at WP:TRIVIA. This article is essentially a raw list of mentions of concepts from the Cthulhu mythos (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Most mentions are are also trivial and unsourced. We should only be mentioning references that are notable. Remaining mentions could be easily merged back into the parent article. See also the essay WP:POPCULTURE. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable secondary sources cover this topic to presume that it meets the general notability guideline and the content of the article relies on original research by synthesis, taking information from different media and creating information that does not exist outside of the article. In my opinion this topic falls into what Wikipedia is not because it is an indiscriminate collection of information and a directory. Tertiary sources are not objective evidence of notability, particularly when they are not independent of the subject. Jfgslo (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Colonel Warden's source for notability of the list above. It may affect your evaluation of the notability of the topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the otherwise fabulous source listed by Warden is that it focuses on Lovecraft. I am all for a Wikipedia article on this subject, but the issue here is Cthulhu. The character appears in the flesh all of once, and is only mentioned in passing on a few other occasions. Over 95% of what is listed at the article in dispute is unfortunately inference and irrelevant trivia. That's the sticking point. The Cthulhu Mythos can be canvassed - properly - at the aforementioned page discussing Lovecraft. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be still operating on the belief that you wrote an AfD for an article "Cthulhu in popular culture". This is not the case. The article is Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture, the Cthulhu Mythos being an extremely broad term that encompasses large chunks of Lovecraft's writing (you'll find that that book is, in fact, largely about the overall Cthulhu Mythos as it appears in popular culture) and significant bits of other people's, and is surprisingly little to do with Cthulhu as such. The Cthulhu Mythos is not "the mythos which is about Cthulhu", it is "the extremely broad and far-ranging mythos for which Cthulhu is used as a sort of figurehead or mascot". The whole nomination is based on lines of thinking that are completely mistaken. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator claim that sourced information is now at Cthulhu article. However, this article is about Cthulhu Mythos, not just Cthulhu. L-Zwei (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comments above. We just need the correct article created, and this deleted. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I say keep this and remove In popular culture section from other article is better idea. Look at the mess I removed from Great Old One article, where many examples just take something with similar concept to GOO (like those from World of Warcraft) and claim it's GOO referrence. But in this article, it's clear that it's about Cthulhu Mythos not "something similar". L-Zwei (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comments above are based on stark incomprehension of the subject matter. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey! Let's not make this personal. Yes, I do understand the difference between Cthulhu and the Cthulhu mythos. The fact remains, however, that much of the content in the disputed article contains inferences and assumptions about Cthulhu, and yes, that should not be the focus. It would easier and help avoid continued confusion, if this page was deleted and a new and improved version was created called Lovecraft in popular culture. That article then leads with a sourced paragraph or two about the Cthulhu mythos: origins, development, relevance etc. Two articles with Cthulhu in the header, however, is going to continue to be problematic. So, what I am proposed is a simple cosmetic change, as opposed to just wiping what relevant information currently exists. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And further to this, it would help in streamling all the Lovecraftian content. One quick look at this template ([8]) shows duplication of the same themes many times over. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 04:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're kinda just going farther and farther afield here. I think you do understand the difference between Cthulhu and the Cthulhu Mythos now, but it's clear you didn't when you opened the nomination, or there's no way you could've argued that the article was redundant with Cthulhu (I can WP:AGF all day long, and in case it matters I totally believe you were trying to fix something you thought was a problem, but I can't assume that you grasp facts after you demonstrate otherwise). I totally get being embarrassed by that, but it's not possible to hide it at this point so you may as well own it. You go on to raise an array of concerns that are unrelated to anything you started out the nom with, and reach a point where what you seem to be actually proposing isn't a deletion of this article, it's a move of it to the title "Lovecraft in popular culture", along with cleanup. If that's really what you think should happen here, now, you should withdraw the nomination (though it would still have to run its course as there have been other opinions to delete) and open a WP:MOVE proposal (preferably after this AfD closes; running the proposals in parallel just introduces confusion). I think that would be a terrible rename for several reasons, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, I honestly have no idea what you're talking about in regard to duplicate "themes" in the Lovecraft nav template. That's one of the many ways that this discussion is becoming increasingly irrelevant to Articles for Deletion, though, so if you'd be so kind as to clarify at my talk page that'd be lovely. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Claims made in the Colonel's source convince that this is a notable topic. The problem is the article: everything that doesn't have a reliable secondary source needs to go. A quick look at the References suggests a blanking, really. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several of the delete !voters appear to have a dearth of background on the topic. "Cthulhu Mythos" is the amalgamation of Lovecraft's own work of science fiction/horror--not just limited to Cthulhu himself--and those additional stories written by others like August Derleth and Alan Dean Foster, set in essentially the same universe. To that end, this is an inclusively broad topic, which the above WP:NIME anti-IPC !voters do not seem to grasp. I'll be commenting on additional sources after a do a quick search myself. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, here's four sources that I don't believe I've seen above, all from academic press in the last 10 years, all of which I've accessed the full text and at least skimmed it to verify that they apply to the topic:
- Janicker, R 2006, 'Myth Maker', Science Fiction Studies, 33, 3, pp. 553-554, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 July 2011.
- Hoppenstand, G 2010, 'Editorial: The Lost Books of Kane', Journal of Popular Culture, June, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 July 2011.
- Adam Michel, P 2002, 'Cultural Consumption of History and Popular Culture in Alternative Spiritualities', Journal of Consumer Culture, 2, 2, pp. 197-218, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 July 2011.
- Alves, A 2008, 'Humanity's Place in Nature, 1863 - 1928: Horror, Curiosity and the Expeditions of Huxley, Wallace, Blavatsky and Lovecraft', Theology & Science, 6, 1, pp. 73-88, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 18 July 2011.
Mind you, this took all of 5 minutes. I'm certain more sources are out there, but these conclusively demonstrate the notability of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I have no argument with the sources per se, but at present the entire body of Lovecraft is a mess. There are something like four different articles that are essentially versions of the same thing. The one in question is by far the weakest. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean by "essentially versions of the same thing"? Cthulhu is article about character Cthulhu, Cthulhu Mythos is article about the setting and works, I'm not sure what is the third article you refer to, but this is article about how modern works made reference to Cthulhu mythos. The scope of each article are differrent and if you found it overlapse, I say remove them and add it here is better idea. That's how it have been done with The Lesser Key of Solomon and Goetic demons in popular culture, remove "popular culture" section from each demon articles and combine them to single list. L-Zwei (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Colonel likes to say "The rest is a matter of ordinary editing", and in this case they are certainly right. The article is a mess, the other articles aren't much better, but we're discussing the subject here rather than the article. Good work, Jclemens--my students should take a page out of your book. (Is your book available as a PDF download?) Drmies (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very major influence on popular culture, very appropriate for an article, with enough sourced examples. I agree with the other observations that our overall coverage of Lovecraft and related topics is quite a mess, but we won't solve it by removing what are clearly supportable articles. What we rather need is work from a few editors who care about the genre, & I suppose I should make it clear that I am not one. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but (a) insert a warning at the top of the page that more references are needed and (b) remove entries which aren't about a notable work / collection / creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:14, 23 July 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Severe Thundersnow Warning[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Term appears to have originated with a local high school meteorology club, no reliable sources, no indication of use outside the Dublin, Ohio organization. Acroterion (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any usage outside of a few bulletin boards. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom & Malik. But they sure put some effort into it :-) --DeVerm (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This article pertains to a Severe Weather Alert type which is essential in protecting life/property during extreme blizzard events. --Bowser423 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)— Bowser423 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. Malik: What do you mean? --Bowser423 (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think what Malik is saying is that he was unable to find any discussion of this three word topic in reliable, independent sources. I agree. This seems to be a content fork from Thundersnow, which is clearly a notable topic. I don't see any need for a separate article on specific warning terminology unless the warning itself has significant discussion in reliable sources independent of the group that coined the term. Malik can elaborate if he sees fit. Cullen328 (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is of local application at best, and is possibly a hoax. Gsearch indicates, as per Malik, nothing to justify a WP article. Worth noting that the bulletin board that mentions the expression does so in a humorous way (see here). Note further that the web page of the weather group itself doesn't promote the expression. asnac (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe this term will get some use, but it's WP:TOOSOON for it to have an article right now because of the lack of coverage. (I realize this is for films and actors, but I think it applies well to this case here too). A search on weather.gov shows several mentions of Thundersnow and "Possible Thundersnow," but not "TSN-W", "Severe Thundersnow Warning", or even "Thundersnow Warning." But who knows, maybe it'll catch on... I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism. No results in .gov domain, so no official usage.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Even if it was commonly used it wouldn't really be a good WP topic. The meaning is obvious. What would be notable is the system for giving warnings, not each warning by itself. However since the other warnings do have articles this one should too, unless someone feels like nominating them all. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usage is not related to weather.gov or the national weather service, but rather an independent, professional, non-profit weather service known as the Dublin Coffman Weather Service. "official" is relative. It is an official term in DCWS terminology. Furthermore, Asnac has cited an incorrect webpage. The correct listing of weather alerting terminology is in the DCWS Severe Weather Glossary. The DCWS is no hoax. Citing no results on weather.gov/the .gov domain is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that weather warnings do generally get articles. I guess that could be useful. I will change my vote to keep. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologism developed by a localized weather club. Not documented or used by any source that meets criteria defined at WP:RS. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, seems like a textbook case of WP:ONEDAY.--Fbifriday (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have put up the new recommendation that this article be merged with the pre-existing t'snow article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thundersnow. If (and only if) the NWS picks this up as a service-wide warning would I say it should have its own article. It's not even an experimental product yet, so I think having its own article is premature. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Delete - it's just a warning issued by a private company, who doesn't appear to be notable either. It appears to fail WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a company. It's just a weather service. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 02:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Isn't the text of the warning copyright? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a government-issued warning expected to be retransmitted (that's the purpose of it), so I don't see why it would be copyrighted. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not government-issued, but DCWS gives permissions for redistribution of all of its stuff as long as the header, DCIAC line, and forecaster sig are unmodified. --Bowser the Storm Tracker ^{Chat Me Up} 13:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh - I thought this was a warning issued by a local office of the National Weather service. Changing my vote in that case. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:45, 23 July 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. Courcelles 09:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text (Mann song)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NSONG as it has not charted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:NSONG with no claim of notability eg charted or awards. A search turned up lyrics and videos sites.--Michaela den (talk) 09:18, 21 July 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 to Constructicons. Sandstein 07:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hook (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have significant third-party sources to assert notability. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Shadow (Transformers). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Constructicons. JIP | Talk 11:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Constructicons per WP:BEFORE #5. Hook is a member of a team that has it's own page, and we should probably merge his material back to that team page before just deleting the character. Mathewignash (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Constructicons not enough to be a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:28, 23 July 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. Courcelles 08:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hardtop (Transformers)[edit]

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

Minor fictional character that does not appear to have significant third-party sources to assert notability. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Shadow (Transformers). Black Kite (t) (c) 01:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:27, 23 July 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. No evidence provided that he meets the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BIO, despite the large number of protesting comments by various WP:SPA accounts and IP editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Richie Branson[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. 1) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. 2) Whether or not this person's company meets WP:COMPANY (I do not think it does), this person would still fail WP:BIO. 3) PROD was disputed on basis that he composed a song that charted nationally, but a) outside of a local newspaper's interview with this person, I can only find one hit that supports he composed this song and I'm not sure how reliable it is, and b) I can find no support outside of the local paper's interview that reliably indicates the song charted (specifically, Billboard, the chart in question, says it never charted). Singularity42 (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you are referring to the BMI page in the reference list that shows Richie as a writer on Homegurl, that's about as reliable as it gets. BMI is a major performing rights organization that has a reliable catalog of songs. Both Bone and Richie are BMI affiliated songwriters. There are also plenty of bona fide youtube videos showing Richie and Bone on set discussing thier collaborative efforts. As for the link you provided from Billboard, that is not "Homegurl" by Bone. That is a song called "Homegurl" by an artist named Slim Thug. There are many different songs that are called Homegurl and unfortunately the song you referenced is inaccurate and not the one that we are discussing in reference to Bone or Richie Branson. This is the correct link FROM BILLBOARD clearly showing Bone's Homegurl as a billboard charting song (at position 30 on the chart): http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart-search-results/singles/3117453 . Billboard.com doesn't adequately archive past charts and any music industry insider knows you must go to their billboard.biz service to reliably search through older records. By providing a reliable reference showing the song did succesfully chart on billboard, the article satisfies WP:MUSICBIO AnnRicks (talk) — AnnRicks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep Good banter! It should be noted that the newspaper article is from the San Antonio Express-News, a well recognized news source established in 1865 and the 3rd largest newspaper by circulation in Texas. They have offices in various Texas cities and Mexico City as well. That being said, it can be assumed that it is a credible source of information and taken a little more seriously than a just "local newspaper". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.0.106 (talk • contribs) — 137.200.0.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Fair enough. I stand corrected. This does count as coverage by one reliable source. Singularity42 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I agree with the notion that BMI is a reliable and notable source of gathering information on whether or not someone has interest as a writer in a particular piece of musical work. BMI contains a consistently mantained catalog of registered musical works. Music publishing companies rely on the information contained in the BMI registration catalog in determining whether a writer is eligible to receive a publishing deal based on his or ownership in a particular song or collection of songs. The way I see it, you have a reliable source showing the article subject is a songwriter for a particular song, another reliable source showing that particular song made it on a national music chart, and another independent source confirming both of those facts. Notable. Balla33225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC). [reply]

Comment Balla33225 and AnnRicks have a sockpuppetry advisory on their talk pages. asnac (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator If it can be verified that he is the composer of the Homegurl song in question (which right now is not clear, as every source provided has a somewhat different list of composers), and if there is a consensus that the song is notable in the context of the criteria at WP:COMPOSER (which I don't agree with at the moment, as WP:NSONGS says charting only makes the song "probably notable"), then the article should be kept. For now, I am not withdrawing my nomination. Singularity42 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by article author I think it is pretty clear Richie was involved in this work, simply because the sources that do show Richie listed as a writer/composer are the most legitimate out of all of them: The official database of a nationally recognized performer's rights society and a newspaper article from one of the largest newspapers in its respective region. It can be assumed that the information available in both of those sources is thoroughly vetted by its editors. Since Richie and Fleetwood operate as partners in their composition work, different sources (that aren't as reliable as the above mentioned ones) offer slight variations in the list of composers. It should be noted that none of those sources are as reliable as the two confirming Richie as a composer and therefore should not be given as much weight as the sources used in this article. Here are my thoughts on notability of the song: Besides the fact that the song charted on billboard, the song garnered enough attention from the music industry to receive remixed version featuring three notable hip-hop artists: Grammy nominated recording artist Bun B and grammy winners The-Dream and Rick Ross. One of many sources confirming this: http://down-south.com/audio/8373-bone-homegurl-remix-ft-rick-ross-a-bun-b.html In the hip-hop genre, only a song with notability would be able to atract the attention of such A-list recording artists. While charting makes the song "probably notable", the fact that grammy winners felt the need to become a part of the song's legacy makes it more than just "probably notable". AnnRicks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 12 July 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) 00:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has wikipedia ever heard the term what goes around comes around? WP:BAND is WP:BAND I see it's real easy for someone who has no life to try to take down some one who has one and has worked hard for a career. He can argue this on so many levels, everyone who you have nominated or deleted in the past unjustly....will be on wikipedia anyway...so eventually you loose...go pick on the small fish because the sharks are going to start re-claiming the ocean. — 74.108.90.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - According to this link, Branson is not the composer of one of the songs in question, so that shoots down the main claim to notability. As for the rest, I'm not seeing any significant coverage - this link is nothing more than a press release from the artist. I don't see this passing WP:MUSIC. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually that link you listed shows Marcus Brown II, Demarcus Hamilton, and Renetta Lowe listed as songwiters/composers of the song in question. To be clear, Richie Branson is Marcus Brown II. Your link actually proves that he is a composer on the song AnnRicks (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I didn't find significant coverage of this person, and co-writing one song from an act that ALSO doesn't merit an article isn't much of a claim to notability. I stand by my "delete" comment. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment meets Criteria for composers and lyricists WP:BAND - For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.90.79 (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — 74.108.90.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Unfortunately, that argument fails, as there's no indication that the song in question (much less the artist it was for) was actually notable compositions either. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, WP:MUSIC states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable". Homegurl was ranked on significant music charts, which, according to WP:MUSIC, is indicative of notability. Also, the fact that two grammy-winning recording artists performed on a re-release of the song further indicates notability. If the song wasn't notable, why would grammy winning artists even bother with it? 137.200.0.106 (talk) 14:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.173.98 (talk) 19:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)— 74.108.173.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Unable to locate a reliable, verifiable source that credits him with composing any notable music. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found a credit this link, does not fail WP:BAND - For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing a notable composition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.78.183 (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC) — 71.255.78.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That link has already been mentioned - but as neither the song nor the artist are notable enough for articles, I fail to see how the song is a "notable composition". MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment composition charted on a major music chart and featured two grammy award winning recording artists on the re-release. I cannot see how that doesn't indicate some sort of notability according to WP:MUSIC. Granted, this composition isn't as notable as the Star Spangled Banner, for example, the song still has some notability. This article barely passes WP:MUSIC. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)— 137.200.0.106 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I was pretty torn on this one...this article seems to follow a fairly basic logical formula. After finding numerous independent write-ups about the song from regional and national editorials, adding the fact that the song charted on billboard, and considering the fact that notable artists took time to collaborate on a remix, I can see a valid claim of song notability per WP:MUSIC. The BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a noticeable composition. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - per recommendations made at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnRicks, confirmed sockpuppet votes have been struck through. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incorrect sockpuppets have to be sent no one influenced my vote I voted for what I think is right, after I verified research within the article. That is a (personal attack). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC) — 74.108.80.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A personal attack against who? You're posting from an anonymous IP, so we have no idea who you are. However, the admins that ran CheckUser in the investigation have confirmed the use of sockpuppets and the identities of the users involved. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets assume that is true, that does not change the facts, it's an attack on a legitimate article, the composition charted on a major music chart and featured two grammy award winning recording artists. Charted is Charted and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's where your logic fails. Were the article "legitimate", as you phrase it, it would not currently be at AfD. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation that the composition is notable has two problems - 1) this discussion isn't about the composition, and 2) your claim that the song has charted is false, as this page at Billboard.com specifically states "This Song has never charted." Your main claim of notability doesn't exist. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the song has charted: http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/chart-search-results/singles/3117453 (It is well documented that billboard.com's chart archives are inaccurate. Billboard.biz a better resource for accurate chart details. It should also be noted that the link you displayed is specifically referring to the Explicit Version single...not the radio (edited) version. Given FCC guidelines anr regulations, I would find it hard to believe any explicit unedited single would chart on billboard's airplay charts. Provide something that shows the edited version never charted. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How very.... "convenient" for you that the only proof you can offer is hidden behind a paywall. "It is well documented"? Please show me some of this documentation. Here's the edited version - Never charted. Not only that, This link from Billboard.com states "This artist hasn't charted yet" with anything. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, it is FREE to search the chart archives on BILLBOARD.BIZ, which is the OFFICIAL site of billboard's print publication i might add. my previous link was inaccuate. Like I mentioned, search the singles chart archive and tell us what you find. Have you even bothered to do this? http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/charts/singles-chart-search 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked - and since the actual charts are still hidden behind the paywall, the search results are worthless. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if that was true no one would survive AFD and as you can see many do, because nothing is perfect not even AFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, AfD is a tool used to debate the legitimacy of a new article. Legitimate articles end up on AfD all the time and are kept after a consensus is reached. Therefore, there is no logical failure in suggesting an AfD'ed article is legitimate. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur. Consensus is what drives AFD. The fact that this article is being considered for deletion through the AfD process indicates a need for consensus, either to keep or delete, and an uninvolved admin has yet to determine whether consensus exists. And as stated at the top of this discussion, AFD, like the rest of Wikipedia, is not a ballot. If you're puzzled by the difference between voting and gaining consensus, perhaps you're in the wrong venue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm doing my part to help a legitimate article. There for the logical rough consensus is "Charted is Charted" and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that your claim that the song charted appears to be false. "This Song has never charted" is pretty clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The logical rough consensus is "Charted is Charted" and the BMI link referenced above confirms the subject's involvement in what is a notable composition. How many times is the re-release stated above, not only that there are other works listed as well. Major Labels are not going to be interested in someone with no credible background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Considering Billboard.com's (NOT billboard.biz, that site reads like a music-industry tabloid on par with Weekly World News!) charts are the de facto standard for rating popular music, there's no valid argument against them being a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. How do you propose Wikipedia deal with two different reliable sources which contradict one another? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted above, since the results from the .biz site are hidden behind a paywall, it's useless as a reference. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False, any one can freely go to their chart search page and pull up results. I found four results indicating the song charted. Did you not? Either way, you have two reliable sources indicating the song charted, and one that doesn't. Special:Contributions/137.200.0.106|137.200.0.106]] (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you coming up with a second source that the song charted? As for the .biz site, when you try to actually look at any of the results the search returns, those results are hidden behind the paywall - thus verification is impossible. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about the San Antonio Express-News Article that states the song charted? (http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Hip-hop-producer-beating-a-path-to-success-789593.php ). I think we all can agree that the commercial press editors have much better resources at their disposal to get accurate information about whether a song charted or not, unless you're alleging that one of the largest newspapers in the United States failed to properly vet the fact that the song charted. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment personally I think if either one can be used as a reference than it should be, because if there was nothing there both references would state that. He has credits with a Major, its pretty clear Labels like Def Jam use producers an writers like him all of the time, that's why all you have to do is look and you can find credits for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.197 (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Billboard.com doesn't show the song charted, however there are numerous instances where charted songs/artists show up in the same manner on their website. Billboard.biz is the official page of their print publication and chart archive. When you search for the song, it brings up four results that indicate what charts the song appeared on. However, you cannot personally view the charts without subscribing. A third, independent and reliable major newspaper reports that the song charted and provides a position. The burden of proof seems to indicate the song charted more so than the fact that it didnt, as it can be safely assumed that the newspaper was able to get past the paywall and gather exact data about the song's chart performance and report it to the general public (people like you and I who lack such tools at our disposal). Personally, i don't feel my wikipedia editor sleuth-skills match up with those of a major news publication, so I'm inclined to agree with the facts of that news article coupled with the fact that billboard.biz at least shows a list of charts the song appeared on. With that said, the consensus should be that the song did indeed chart.137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But that's exactly what the consensus is NOT...not yet, anyway...which is why this article is under discussion in the first place. Billboard.com (as mentioned before, the de facto standard and a reliable souce) says no. BMI (a music licensing agency, also normally considered a reliable source) says yes. The San Antonio Express-News (a primary source at this point, since there's no attribution provided) got its information from somewhere...where? It certainly didn't make the determination independently. What is their source? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not also forget that we're discussing this with someone already shown to be a sockpuppeteer. Now then, let's break this down - as a musician, Branson fails every single criteria of both WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSICBIO. As a songwriter, the sockpuppeteer would have us believe he contributed to a notable composition - which is the only way he could meet WP:COMPOSER - however, neither the composition or the artist are notable enough for articles of their own, and coupled with the sourcing problems for that claim (of which a major national organization categorically states that neither the song or the artist ever charted), lead me to stay with my original view - the artist has no demonstrated notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me show you both how reliable billboard.com is as a source. this link from billboard.com clearly shows a song by Anthony David called "4Evermore" charting at number 29 on billboard's top 100 Hip-Hop / R&B chart. However, when you search for the same song on billboard.com, this link from the very same website shows that the song "has never charted". When you search for the song using billboard.biz's chart search tool, results show up indicating the song did indeed chart, although the actual chart is hidden behind a paywall. Sound familiar? It should. Now you see why no industry insider or real member of the press would trust billboard.com to verify whether a song charted or not. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you haven't answered the question of where the San Antonio Express-News obtained their information. Yours is the WP:BURDEN at this point. And you should likely log in to respond so as to avoid the ongoing concern that you may be a user who !voted previously, as noted in the SPI.

I do not know what sources a major newspaper uses to confirm their information. However, i'd imagine it's probably a little more solid than the free version of billboard.com (Which, Mike, also has a paywall as you can only view songs above number 50 on any chart as a free member of billboard.com. You have to pay to view the full chart). I might also add that I just proved that billboard.com isn't very accurate in their song "has never charted" statements...even with songs currently on the charts. At the moment there are 3 sources of information regarding the composition's charting performance: Billboard.com, Billboard.biz, and a well-known news publication. The one source that said Homegurl "never charted" has been proven to provide false information stating a song didn't chart when indeed it did. Another shows the charts the song listed on, but won't let you view the chart. The third source is a trusted source of news information. I have no reason to doubt the validity of the statements made in a widely circulated newspaper and I'm not sure why their sources should have to be revealed given their reputation. This doesn't appear to be some random tabloid article that people would generally look at with skepticism. 137.200.0.106 (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That gives us two conflicting reliable sources and a primary source with unknown attribution. That adds up to what is known as a "deadlock". Still no consensus. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. Here is a link at the billboard.com proving the song charted as well. We now have proof of charting from the de facto source itself.137.200.0.106 (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right title, wrong artist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sources seem to indicate Homegurl (He Gotta) as Bone's song. I've noticed other artists have songs named "Homegurl" so I'm sure the reason the (He Gotta) is coupled with the song's original name is for further clarification. The billboard.com chart linked by the IP user shows a song called "Homegurl (He Gotta)" by an artist named Bone at #24 on the chart. The song appears in an international performing rights organization's catalogue as "Homegurl (He Gotta)" and lists Branson as a composer. Also, I cannot find a single shred of evidence anywhere suggesting that another artist (besides the one connected with Branson ) charted with a song titled and registered as "Homegurl (He Gotta)". Upon seeing this, I'm not sure how there can be any argument that the song never charted. I'm calling WP:COMMONSENSE on this one. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'll concede the point on charting. However, I'm still unconvinced of WP:GNG compliance. My !vote stands. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote still stands ~~Keep~~ because enough evidence has been presented and everyone who voted keep did so with logic in mind, it did chart. And it is in-proper for some who voted delete to continue an argument that has clearly been proven. We can all just move on and focus on the AFDs that are really in need of deletion...Great job everyone the Deletes and the Keeps..topic meets Criteria for composers and lyricists WP:BAND 74.108.175.229 (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)— 74.108.175.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Now we have a consensus that Branson was a composer of a song that indeed appear on a national music chart. With that said, I see him meeting not just one, but two of the criteria of WP:COMPOSER: 1) Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition and 3) Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. It is feasible to argue that he fails #1 but impossible to argue that he fails #3 given the fact that his work was re-released in collaboration with lyricists who meet the criteria (Rick Ross , The-Dream and Bun B : All notable lyricists who meet the WP:COMPOSER criteria). While it may be a matter of opinion in regards to whether Richie passes criteria number 1 (I think he does), it is a matter of fact that his work was "used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer, or lyricist who meets the above criteria." Therefore, he passes WP:COMPOSER]. My !vote to keep remains, especially since the argument to do so continues to strengthen. UncommonlySmooth (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The amount of sockpuppet/meatpuppeting going on here is incredible. Believe what you want, but you do not have a consensus for your claims. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:04, 24 July 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. With n o consensus whether the company is notable or not, the article is kept by default. The concerns related to spammy tone seem to have been addressed. Sandstein 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Medical Group[edit]

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

Delete − As the article stands, it reads like an advert. It is just like a prospectus. It tells us what its mission statement it, who its financial partners are, how many doctors it has, how many patients, how much it earns, etc. The article was previously speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12. As the article stands, it relies upon self-published sourced. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author of the article. I tried to remove as much of the content about mission statements, etc. as seemed reasonable. I think the size, history, and revenue of Summit Medical Group are relevant facts, however. They seem to be included in other articles about companies. But I am new to writing Wikipedia content. I would be glad to make revisions as suggested/requested by the community. NJmeditor (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, history, size, and revenue are exactly the sorts of information that we expect to be in any article about any company, from Apple, Inc. on down to a little restaurant. A properly written article should also include information about ownership, products, facilities, and anything that is unusual about them, like their flu vaccine research and awards received. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Article seems well sourced, however it needs an overhaul. Grammar, formatting, categories, possibly expansion, maybe not, but it still needs some work. I am willing to help contribute. Tinton5 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changing to Weak delete, see below. Non-notable - to my surprise. It seems that a practice this huge ought to meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, but I did quite a thorough search at Google News and found nothing but passing mentions. The only independent sources cited at the article are all from NJBIZ, and the citations from that source don't add up to much, or don't support the claims in the article. For example the article says the company earned the NJBIZ 2010 Corporate Citizen of the Year Award, but the cited article only says they were a finalist for that award.
To NJmeditor, the nominator did not do a good job of explaining what the problem is with the article, but it's not really about the way the article is written; that can be fixed. The problem is that Wikipedia has criteria defining what kind of subjects can be covered here, and one of the criteria is that the subject has to be notable, which is defined as having received significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Specific criteria for companies are found at WP:COMPANY. That coverage is what I was searching for, and I couldn't find it. If the group has not received significant news coverage, then it does not qualify for an article here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MelanieN thanks for clarifying that. I agree that it should be notable (one of NJ's largest, and one of the first to go down the path of having multi-specialty services in one group). I will see if I can find more sources so that I can do a better job of demonstrating its notability. NJmeditor (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's an advertise article,... sorry,... --Cpant23 (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources added (New York Times, New Jersey Jewish News). NJmeditor (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! The New York Times article definitely helps. Let me see if I can find anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are frequent mentions in the New York Times; most are trivial but this one contains an extensive quote from the group's representative. IMO we are tantalizingly close to proving notability for this practice. Google News lists an article in the Wall Street Journal describing it as "New Jersey's largest independently operated multispecialty medical group", but the link is dead. That article, if readable, could provide the final push to determine notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find the Wall Street Journal reference duplicated in Healthcare Finance News, with a working link. NJmeditor (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer - turns out it's a press release. As such it is not considered to be an independent, reliable source. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now includes references to The New York Times, The Star-Ledger, The Independent Press (Union, Morris and Essex County NJ), New Jersey Jewish News, and a variety of medical trade publications. I hope that these references illustrate the notability of the article topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJmeditor (talk • contribs) 14:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your efforts but we still don't seem to be getting the coverage we need, at least in my opinion. (Others may disagree.) The Star-Ledger item gives the group a bare passing mention - and seems to say that the group was just formed within the past year in response to federal legislation, which I don't think is the case. The two Independent Press items read like press releases although they don't say they are. The New Jersey Jewish News is a dead link. We are left with the one NYT reference plus some trade journals. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN Thanks for all your input and attention. I fixed the NJ Jewish News link. I personally would disagree that the trade journals are not relevant for establishing notability. They are independent, verifiable, and have strong editorial policies. I've looked at the entries for several other medical institutions and it looks like they are not held to the same scrutiny or standard. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center--only three references; Mountainside Hospital--trivial or self-published references only; Bayonne Medical Center--just a stub, Clara Maass Medical Center--passing or self-published references only. Summit Medical Group, because of its verifiable size and the referenced areas where it has innovated in care management, does not seem to fall under "run of the mill" guidelines either Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. Additional notable aspects have been cited in books/print-only sources, and I'm working on getting those together to establish notability further. I'm still hopeful that the article will be retained! NJmeditor (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been directly searching local news sources? Google News doesn't index everything, and it's pretty typical for a large employer to have feature-length news articles in their hometown article. Sources do not have to be available free or online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see enough sources to make me believe that it meets the (IMO rather low) notability standard set by WP:COMPANY. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 20 July 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. Courcelles 08:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Killeen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prod removed. Non-notable individual; fails WP:POLITICIAN William S. Saturn (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has never won an election, and hasn't even come close, either. Angryapathy (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, as well as WP:GNG. Most of the citations linked in the article are either non-working or make little or no mention of her. No significant coverage whatsoever.--JayJasper (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to coverage of her perennial campaigning, she has received coverage for her career as an environmental and drug legalization activist: [9][10][11][12]. In any case, I think a selective Merge to Perennial candidate#United States would be a better idea than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles with a focus on activism and not necessarily the individual, do not establish notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator vote). What I wrote 4 years ago still applies, even if some of the then-live references are dead. "Killeen is a perrenial presidential candidate, and has had multiple articles published about her. If anyone has Lexis-Nexus, do a 1996 search for her name. These articles are not easily linkable. I disagree that all the references are trivial, while some are, they are included for what they reference. Other sources have her as the feature of the article." I no longer am active on Wikipedia but I think this individual is notable, and I hope that someone is willing to prove it. --CastAStone /^/(talk) 02:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor citations and limited notability as a result of her limited votes. SOXROX (talk) 15:17, 14 July 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) 00:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. First AFD closed with a "clean keep" so a little more input would be helpful to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--passes WP:GNG with multiple articles about her as the main subject in places like the LA Times, Boston Globe, and Austin American-Statesman. Contrary to User: William S. Saturn, these are articles primarily concerned with Killeen. They write about her activism, because that's what she's known for, but the main topic of the articles is her efforts (as opposed to an article about crank candidates that mentions her briefly). Meelar (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reversal of my earlier position. Per sources added by Qrsdogg and comments of Meelar, WP:GNG is met.--JayJasper (talk) 17:44, 19 July 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. Courcelles 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topline[edit]

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

Dance-related article by an SPA that seems to be original research. I would normally suggest merging it to Ballroom dance, but nowhere is the term mentioned in that article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added Topline Dance Frame to the nomination (an article created by the same editor), which seems to be nothing more than advertising and of which I could not find significant coverage. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:48, 9 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both articles as per nom... these are advertisements. --DeVerm (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for both articles as per nom. Pure SPAM. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:33, 23 July 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. As in "not delete"; subsequent editorial consensus may still find a merger preferable. Sandstein 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex mods[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a stand-alone topic (no multiple reliable secondary sources with broad topic coverage). The existing sources all relate to the release of SDK, and do not cover the topic itself. The amount of information does not warrant a WP:SPLIT from Deus Ex. The article does not introduce any new verifiable information not covered by Deus_Ex#Modding. Therefore, it also fails WP:CFORK. There is a large modding community for Deus Ex, as seen on ModDB, for example. This could in theory be used to make a "List of Deus Ex mods" article. However, WP is not an indiscriminate list of links and there is only one notable Deus Ex mod -- The Nameless Mod. Therefore, I propose the article for deletion, and salvaging/merging any reliably verifiable content to the Deus Ex article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I was so close to !voting delete, but then I found a Gamespy article jam-packed with information. Why "weak"? I'm not happy unless I find two good sources. It depends on what kind of coverage the SDK receives, too. Marasmusine (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find, I didn't notice this one hiding on page 4. But yeah, it still is just one. I'm wondering if this bundled with SDK sources would pass GNG... — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's plenty of modding projects for Deus Ex, each less notable than TNM true, but combine them together and you have a very substantial article to make. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be List of Deus Ex mods with inclusion criteria below the notability of stand-alone articles. We don't make indiscriminate lists and such an article would essentially be a copy of ModDB listing. From what I've googled, I don't see much RS discussing individual mods besides very brief mentions like this. The few potential RS for individual mods can be summarised in a paragraph in the main article. I am yet to see enough sourced to make a substantial article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:11, 14 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Maramusine. --DeVerm (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I removed OR from the article and added proper info with cited references. It's SDK release (one primary, one secondary) and GameSpy's mods overview. There is also a podcast on the subject. This will probably satisfy WP:GNG. But I am still concerned about WP:CFORK; I am trying to gather up non-trivial mentions of other mods to expand beyond what is already covered in Deus_Ex#Modding. I don't have access to any print magazines though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge back to Deus Ex (series). This is an unnecessary WP:CFORK, especially when the series article lacks content. I don't see any reason why the content can't stay, but it doesn't need to be split from the main topic. --Teancum (talk) 12:42, 20 July 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. Courcelles 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 Lord of the Rings[edit]

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

another kickboxing event that receives no reliable coverage in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:41, 9 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article gives no reason why the event is notable, nor does it have sources or notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Papaursa and nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 23 July 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. Courcelles 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity also hurts[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (events). A sculpture whose only significance is that the mayor broke it by accident. Only news for a slow news days, and completely forgotten one day later. No lasting effects, mere sensationalism, and perhaps even BLP concerns (it suggests that Macri may be a corrupt politician, and the source is a biased newspaper). By the way, the third reference is Caiga Quien Caiga, a humoristic talk show. Cambalachero (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:43, 9 July 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) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've reviewed the references in the article using Google Translate. One is a Youtube video, some discuss the upcoming art exhibition (with no substantial coverage of the artwork in question), and some are interviews with the artist. In short there are no reliable and independent secondary sources to assert notability of either the artwork or the event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgan almighty (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Washington Carver Peanut Discoveries[edit]

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

Per request made on talk page by IP here:

"With all due respect to the declining admin above, I cannot see any content in this article not already covered in superior detail in the main article. (It is possible that the salient details have been copied into the main article since the original CSD). Anyway, this looks like a high school essay and it is neither necessary nor salvagable. If the CSD is again rejected, can the declining admin list it at AFD. (A redirect would be a good alternative also). 123.208.148.72".

I make no comment on my opinion of whether this article should be kept or deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:52, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The topic is notable, and expands on the parent article George Washington Carver (which concentrates on biography). A great deal of material exists with which to write a better article, and the parent article is already fairly lengthy, so that merging is not appropriate. This page should never have been nominated. -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the IP above - I just read the article and I'm sorry, I cannot see what this "expansion' is. The biography of Carver covers his peanut related discoveries in great depth, and there does not seem to be anything expansive added here. This article seems to be padding itself by also trying to cover the history of the peanut, and a mini-biography of Carver, etc. Plus the standard of writing is so awful (not criteria for deletion of course). Manning (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the parent article has 214 words on peanut discoveries; this article has 903 by my count. It's badly written, but that's no grounds for deletion. The masses of material means the topic is notable, surely. -- 202.124.74.50 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment response - Your 903 comes from a count of everything under the heading "Peanut discoveries" and not by looking at the actual content. When you strip out the discussion of the agricultural conditions (covered in the main article), the complete text of Carver's promotional pamphlet, and the discussion about tariffs (also covered in the main article), you are left with 239 words regarding his actual inventions. If you analyse the content of that, you'll find that the main article has more information, it is simply more concise. Manning (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - adds nothing not already covered in the primary article. Manning (talk) 05:56, 11 July 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) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George Washington Carver article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a school essay. Already covered in George Washington Carver. Some material is also inaccurate. People ate peanuts long before Carver, as important as he certainly was in many ways. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest a merge, but looking at the two articles I don't see content worth keeping that isn't already in George Washington Carver. If anyone feels otherwise, I would recommend merging it in before this debate concludes. Peacock (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does not expand the detail in the main article, and so there is no reason for it to exist. When I did the procedural nomination a week ago (IPs can't do it themselves), I was not going to comment, but as it's been relisted, I feel that I should make my thoughts known! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicative of the main article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 19 July 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) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grasdorf plates[edit]

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

The article fails to address WP:GNG with reliable sources. Checking GBooks, the Grasdorf Plates are mentioned in a couple of sensationalist books such as "Almanac of the Infamous, the Incredible, and the Ignored"[13] which are in the business of puffing up poorly sourced UFO encounters into something that the incredulous might want to buy and tales of these events in dubious sources are not a rationale for encyclopaedic notability unless with verifiable wider impact. I find no impact on GNews and no evidence in the sources available that the plates were authenticated as being of historic interest or more than modern fakes. Fæ (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a legitimate mystery. Article needs to be improved, not deleted. The plates may be, indeed, almost certainly are, modern fakes, however the effort and expense gone into the hoaxmakes them noteworthy in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EnemyPartyII (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as one might treat gossip stories about celebrities, encyclopaedic value is demonstrated by multiple reliable sources, not self promotional, speculative and hyper incredulous publications. If this story and the basic facts of it were to have some evidence of national press interest around the time, then I would have no problem with the article. Fæ (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any sources that could be considered reliable. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:00, 12 July 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) 00:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone comes up with some suitable sources in the meanwhile, but without multiple reliable sources this doesn't seem to belong here. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 16 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2003 in Melbourne[edit]

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

another non notable kickboxing event. nothing in gnews, nothing in major Australian search engine trove [14], and nothing in major Australian news website [15]. fails WP:GNG. it seems the Australian media forgot to cover this event. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 9 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of many regional GPs was held at this event, which featured a number of notable fighters. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2011

having notable fighters is not a reason for keeping. Not one reliable Australian media source even covered this event. LibStar (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a surprisingly large number of non-notable fighters for a K-1 regional GP. More importantly, there's a lack of notability claims and independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing at all. Since this happened almost 8 years ago, I'm not seeing the resonance in media necessary to cite this page with multiple independent sources which aren't routine sports news. BusterD (talk) 20:41, 23 July 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. Courcelles 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emnico Technologies[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. a mere 3 gnews hits [16], one of these articles could be considered in depth. but there is really no other third party coverage besides local newspapers on this. it's a small company of 22 people and revenue of a mere 1,5 million GBP a year, and has existed for 4 years. nothing particularly notable about this company. LibStar (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a very interesting company, but the coverage is enough to establish notability. The coverage in The Times is behind a paywall, but Google News provides this snippet: "Emnico Technologies is also a model company for these creditstrapped times. It has no borrowings. Established by 13 IT specialists whose department had been ... " If The Times talks about you, you're probably notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

articles need coverage in multiple sources to demonstrate notability. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 10 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Eastmain. This company is just bit more than those that get deleted as per WP:N. I found enough sources too --DeVerm (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. References are slim but I think they are sufficient for notability. Several Times (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Beagel (talk) 19:57, 22 July 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) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muddleftpd[edit]

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

Not updated since 2003, download links not on the site anymore. Smile4ever (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 9 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and no references --DeVerm (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article of dubious notability. Hasteur (talk) 17:10, 18 July 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. Courcelles 08:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rude Boy: The Jamaican Don[edit]

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

fails WP:N Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:48, 23 July 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. Courcelles 08:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime 2008 Alkmaar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Showtime 2008 Alkmaar

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

another non notable kickboxing event that gets no indepth reliable third party coverage. all google shows is WP mirror or fighting sources. nothing indepth third party. fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:37, 9 July 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) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The event featured a world title fight and many other notable fighters in other bouts. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2011
Delete Event was full of non-notable fighters and there are no significant independent sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no reliable sources. There was a title bout, but it was for a newly created division and featured the winner of It's Showtime reality show competition--not quite in the same class as a K-1 or WAKO title. Papaursa (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS is not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 23 July 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. Courcelles 08:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frank K. Norton, Jr.[edit]

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

Regional real estate/insurance salesman, appears to fail WP:BIO. Also nominating his brother, who also has an article:

—Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 10 July 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) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per nom --DeVerm (talk) 05:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both - There are some sources but none that suggest the slightest hint of notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both fail WP:BIO. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 23 July 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. Courcelles 08:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Valles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a local reporter who fails WP:CREATIVE. Includes no proper sources: they're all primary (e.g. YouTube videos of him reporting) or unreliable (e.g. his bio on http://jamesvalles.com/). I can still find no independent coverage of this person. Probably self promotion. First discussion closed without consensus. Pburka (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entry seems to include some proper sources, not all primary, including links to direct station sites and stories, including an article published on the Columbus Blog, which has a Traffic Rank in the US: 208,504. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.170.185.1 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep If you look at all of his work, including all of the local station websites, Youtube air checks of stories, articles, it is clear that this not self promotion. Pburka cites his official web site as an unreliable source, but there is no bio there. It would not be fair to remove this journalist as there are others who have Wiki profiles. I looked up the market for which this reporter worked and it covers more than 200,000 households, which is pretty significant. This profile has existed since 2008, almost four years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.145.92 (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I mentioned the wrong website. His bio is on his company's website: http://primomultimedia.com/main/index.php/site/directors which is clearly not a reliable source since it is controlled by the subject. Note that this anonymous editor has edited articles related to James Valles extensively and nearly exclusively. Pburka (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are various other sources presented. I am not quite sure why all of your edits focus on removing this entry so badly and why your necessarily picking on my contribution to Wikipedia. Maybe you should focus on the dozen of other entries with similar references that have not been questioned. This entry has existed for nearly four years and there are various sites local stations, and videos that support this entertainer is legit. Not sure what other proof you are looking for. (talk) 05:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The evidence of notability we require is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. For example, articles about the subject in magazines or newspapers would support inclusion. None of the sources included in the article pass this test. They demonstrate that the subject exists, but not that he is considered notable. If you can identify some other journalists which also fail the Wikipedia standards for notability I'd be happy to nominate them, too. I mentioned your edit history because it suggests that you may be connected to the subject. Pburka (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, are you encouraging Wiki users not edit or use the site. I am not clear on what you are trying to say. I am merely contributing to the site and adding my opinion. I am not directly connected to the subject and its kind of rude of you to try to use me to sway the vote in your favor. As a matter of fact, I've noticed this is the second time, you've put this entry up for deletion after the previous attempt. If you look at the entries history, it has existed for nearly four years -- was verified before -- so why are you trying to delete it now. There are a number of internet personalities and journalists who have not garnered "significant" coverage, but yet have entries. And, most of the statements in those entries are referenced by videos and official sites. (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoes not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Needs more reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 9 July 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) 00:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is basically spam, and the only item to be found online about him is from the Columbus Blog; even if we were to take that as a reliable source, it isn't significant coverage as to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG - frankie (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 23 July 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) 16:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colombian emeralds[edit]

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

Apparent attempt to create a "Colombian" brand of emerald, as evidenced by the contributor's username "Nation branding." While there may be a place for an article focusing on Colombian emeralds, this appears to verge on advertising. No sources (user is having trouble with wikimarkup, so apparent sources are meant to be wikilinks). Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 9 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --DeVerm (talk) 05:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per above. Several Times (talk) 16:23, 16 July 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of international rankings[edit]

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

This one isn't just your run of the mill arbitrary list of topics, rather it is an arbitrary list of lists. The inclusion of what goes into this article appears to be completely haphazard (I've removed some of the most unrelated links from the Economics section, several of which appeared to be spam inserted with the purpose of SEO) and likewise, if one did think of topics (GDP?) that would possible belong here many of them are not included. This kind of total arbitrariness isn't surprising since this kind of WP:COATRACK does not and basically cannot have reliable sources which would back it up. Additionally, there's nothing this list does that cannot be done with a category (and sub categories) which would be much more appropriate. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incompleat and lack of focus. List of Lists covers it better. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep International rankings are not restricted to those appearing on wikipedia, unlike the lists portal linked above. This list might therefore be useful for some readers. Mathsci (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is certainly useful though it does need editing for completeness, relevance and focus. For someone looking to quickly rank countries on various parameters, this is the place; List of Lists etc, are too vast and general for the purpose. VivekM (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:45, 23 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CLS tells us not to delete lists to favour categories. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that this "lists of lists" could be based on? If so, maybe I'll change my mind, but until then it's simply a coatrack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or delete. Considering the multitude of different things that could be ranked internationally, this is just hopelessly vague. If someone can provide a clear description of what this page is actually for, then we can give it a more descriptive name and keep it. Otherwise it's hard to understand how it's useful to anyone. A quick scan of what links there suggests that the only links to that page are from infoboxes and "see also" sections (although, to be fair, I haven't checked every single link). Jowa fan (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appropriate list of encyclopedic subjects. The naming can be discussed on the talk p. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Keep if rewritten - This article is quite unnecessary, and quite haphazard. WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to cover this list as it is - however, I might lean towards Keep if a major rewrite can be done. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful navigational tool, has regular traffic, gaps in coverage can be filled. I don't see the coatrack here; the list is not arguing for or against anything. Sandstein 07:19, 24 July 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. Nominator withdraws. (non-admin closure) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Daniel[edit]

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

Subject was an editor with UPI. I can find articles written by him or mentioning that he was somewhere, but no significant third party coverage of him as a person. The most extensive coverage was his 4 paragraph obituary. Overall, it appears that he fails WP:CREATIVE. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 10 July 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, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --DeVerm (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep The obit info is not just covered by the Washington Post and in this obit in the NYTimes mentioned above by Niteshift36. There is another independent source of coverage here in The Namibian, which provides additional details about his work. He is also talked about in this book about the sociology of newsmaking, in this book on reporting in Vietnam, and one of his stories about Jerusalem is covered in this book. I think his work as a reporter is sufficiently documented and discussed in independent, third party sources to fulfill WP:BIO. Some of these details may come from the obit notices, but there is enough coverage in these above books that supports keeping the article I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 05:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage from "The Namibian" is simply a collection of quotes from obituaries. Obituaries, regardless of how many of them you dig out, don't add up to notability. The book mentions you list are just mentions. They aren't coverage of him. As I stated in the nom, there is a lack of significant coverage by reliable, third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it would be ideal to have an entire biography on him, but I think when several independent sources confirm and provide some details about his work, I feel this is sufficient notability. There are additional book references as well--

here with some of his early reporting history and civil rights work
Similar civil rights work talked about in this book.
Some of Daniel's reporting here in a book by Chomsky, albeit in a footnote
this description of Daniel as "tough combat reporter"
more on his work in Saigon as a reporter
this quote from Daniel in this book on journalism circa the 1970s.

So, I completely agree that any one of these sources does not provide what I would call "ideal" coverage. But taken together, Daniel appears to have a significant role as a reporter in Asia during wartime, as well as civil rights movements in the US. His position and work at UPI is consistently mentioned in every source, and his reports are quoted in multiple sources. I continue to think this is sure keep. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 17:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've gone ahead and added additional sources to the article, which I believe bring this well past the coverage requirements for WP:GNG. He appears to be well known for his body of work during the Vietnam war, as well as later coverage in other regions of Asia as well including coverage of the Thai military. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't pass GNG. Simply cobbling together minor mentions to come up with some information is not passing GNG. GNG says significant coverage in reliable sources. None of these are significant, lets alone there being multiple ones. This is a collection of mentions and obituaries. I'm sure he was a fine reporter, but that doesn't make him notable. Look at these things: footnotes, a desciption of him, saying he reported from a place. Aside from the obituaries, you can't show anything that actually devotes 2 paragraphs to him. Wouldn't an actually notable person usually get a couple of paragraphs sometime before he died? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This book appears to devote more than a few sentences regarding his work compared to previous ones mentioned above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? You consider using his name twice in 4 pages to be "significant"? The fact that something that thin is being offered as coverage tends to prove the lack of significant coverage.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious, and I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree because it doesn't appear to matter how many sources I find for you. I think the fact that he and his work is discussed briefly in multiple, independent sources is substantially better than significant coverage in a single source. That's all I have to say. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about number of sources, it never was. It has always been about the significant coverage. 2 sources that cover him in depth are better than 20 sources that merely mention him. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this repeated asserton that obituaries can't be used as sources? What policy or guideline says that? If an obituary is independently written and appears in a reliable publication then it is one of the best types of source for us to use, as it gives an overview of the subject's life rather than just news-style information about particular incidents, and also confirms that the outside world considers the subject to be notable, which is what counts for Wikipedia rather than whether we consider him so. You (Niteshift36) seem to be confusing editorial obituaries with paid-for death notices. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, where did I say they can't be used as sources? I never did, so I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth again. What I said was that they shouldn't be viewed as significant coverage. When people die, other people feel the need to write about the good parts of their life. Fine. That isn't coverage, it is a rememberence. The man had a long career and did some cool things, but that doesn't grant notability. I think GNG is too lenient and I don't even think he makes GNG because a glowing obituary is hardly going to be neutral or actually that significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your demand for sources "aside from the obituaries" certainly looked to me as a dismissal of obituaries as reliable sources, but I apologise if I misinterpreted that. Newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times only feel the need to write about notable people's lives when they die. Such obituaries do not in general only write about the good parts of their subjects' lives, and there is no reason to doubt their neutrality any more than there is for any other articles in those publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I didn't say that obituaries can't be sources. If you can find where I said that, provide the diff. Nor should it have looked like I said that if you read what I actually wrote. I said that obituaries do not constitute significant coverage if that is all there is. Noting someone's passing doesn't make them notable. There is the occasional person who becomes notable after their death, but generally, if they weren't notable before their death, just observing their passing shouldn't make them notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using multiple sources to demonstrate notability bu cumulative impact is legitimate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18 sources that all say pretty much the same thing; that when all put together still only amounts to a paragraph worth of info. Look at what they say: that he was a reporter, he was in X places doing his job and then he died. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they can't all be Kardashians. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And not every guy who has a job is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While, in my opinion, the numerous high quality sources that produced independent obits for him are more than enough for GNG, there is also plenty of other significant coverage. For instance, there were several full articles written about his expulsion from Thailand which are referenced in the article including: [17] and [18] and [19] and [20]. Additionally he was clearly viewed as an expert on happening during the Vietnam war as evidenced by reporting on him such as [21] and the article in the LA Times entitled, "Viet Cong Take Over Presidential Palace as Troops, Tanks Pour In", Los Angeles Times, April 30, 1975 (sorry it is offline only). These are just a few examples, which on top of the already significant obits clearly demonstrate notability at the GNG level. I note that the nom opposes GNG criteria, but that is not an issue to be discussed/decided in an AfD. That is a policy discussion which would require a change of the GNG criteria, and is outside the scope of an AfD discussion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt to locate better sources. The Thai incident is close to me, but not that convincing. The Dispatch article you cite is another mention. And no, I don't necessarily "oppose GNG criteria". I think it is too lax. But I still don't think this man actually meets the lax standard that we currently have and THAT is what I am discssing here. So don't try to cloud the issue. Clearly, some of you think that "significant" means any mention at all. I, and at least one other editor, don't agree that every mention is significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not see anybody suggesting that every mention is significant. I do see several arguments that there is significant coverage of this person though, and I see that you disagree with those assessments. If you do not view the obits in the NY Times and Washington Post as significant, and do not view the full articles about his expulsion from Thailand as significant coverage, could you give an example of any article on any person that you view as significant coverage so we can understand the criteria you are hoping to apply? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't dignify your sarcastic request to show you what significant coverage is. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, let's assume that the current articles following Daniel's death are not substantial enough (I don't really agree with this because the books and articles do more than just mention his name). This article surely provides substantial biographical information about Daniel. It goes above and beyond any of the other articles created about him after his death (i.e. Washington Post, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and in the LA Times). The article is an obituary written by a partner of Daniel that was in UPI (Lewis Lord), but it is published in a source that is independent of the subject.

Also, I'm going to clean up the article so that a single sentence doesn't have, like, 50 refs after it, and the sources actually provide unique content about Daniel. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 01:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Since it is clear that the inclusionist tendencies have led to the word significant being diluted, I'm withdrawing the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 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.