Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 25

< 24 July	26 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 speedy keep. Nomination has been withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Authenticom, Inc.[edit]

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

Non-notable company - which according to an article published in Electronic Business (magazine) on August 01, 2002, only exists in name to legally separate the company from Veridicom, Inc.. That was the only in-depth source I could find covering the topic. Looked on LexisNexis, JSTOR, Google News and ProQuest. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Tags added to the article and sources added to establish notability. Looks good to me now. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:28, 26 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. Since this AFD was filed while the ink on the previous close was still wet, I'll consider them both together. In both AFDs we have 4 keep !votes with the second one in the last AFD being an ITSNOTABLE vague wave. However, in neither one are there any arguments for deletion aside from the 2 nominators. Please wait a few months before renominating this. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Gordon[edit]

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

Webseries creator of questionable notability. First AfD was closed no consensus, and the 2nd AfD had very little participation, and those supporting that the article be kept argued the following:

Keep The Wired article and Ain't It Cool News article mention him sufficiently, he is notable.

This is problematic because these articles are more about his series, and not about the creator. Also, mentions do not fulfill WP:GNG.

Keep Travis is a notable webseries creator

See WP:ITSA.

The creator has been interviewed several times. However, the content of these interviews is clearly focused on the content of the show, and not on Gordon himself. Because Gordon has not received in-depth coverage in independent sources, I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The whole coverage in Wired is two paragraphs, but if you add the six or so interviews (longer, but in rather obscure sources), it's just over the WP:GNG threshold, I think. There's also a tint of WP:CREATIVE with the Bronze at WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I add that I've considered a merger & redirect to Spellfury, but there's enough coverage of his other creations that doesn't warrant that outcome. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addressing the nominator's concerns about the earlier AFD and Wired.com and Ain't It Cool News and his worry "This [coverage] is problematic because these articles are more about his series, and not about the creator", I remind him that per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Since those articles (and there are others) speak of Gordon directly and in detail, even if not in great detail and even with Gordon not being the main topic of the source material, we have a meeting of WP:SIGCOV. And toward his concern of the previous AFD's "Travis is a notable webseries creator" opinion, I remind that per WP:CREATIVE, if Gordon's works are the recipient of "multiple independent articles or reviews" (see the aforementioned Wired.com and Ain't It Cool News), then as the creator of the web series being so covered, he is notable per the applicable guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - although without a strong consensus. Two of the users who were for deletion appear to have changed their minds (e.g., "Note that I have changed my opinion above, based on the Pittsburgh City Paper and the Pittsburgh Magazine articles. I'm still unconvinced about the separation of Broadway World from ticket sales, especially since they have a big Get Tickets link at the top, but that's all irrelevant now." - User:Gorgan almighty). One purpose of AfD is evident in its original name, which is to discuss the potential deletion of articles. Some more sources were added that included reviews of sufficient reliability to indicate at least minimal notability, or at least to a standard that most editors would agree. When some topic has been found notable due to sources and other information, the burden of proof falls on those wishing to delete, by a preponderance of the evidence, which has not been met here. I think this has been discussed enough, and sometimes it's just time to end a debate. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Organic Theater Pittsburgh[edit]

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

Promotional article for a theater company of questionable notability. No significant coverage or claims of notability. Main references are primary sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The company hasn't had many productions yet, but has been reviewed in a major online resource for theatre, Broadway World.com. --Frankgorshin (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage, it may be notable in the future but it isn't now. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With new sources showing notability.Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also is notable for the unique niche it occupies in Pittsburgh's theatrical culture: It is the first theatre company in Pittsburgh to focus on ecological consciousness as part of its artistic mission.--Frankgorshin (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good for them, and for the city--but no significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm not going down without a fight! haha. If a theatre company is significant to a certain city, why is it not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? Pittsburgh is a well-known city, and its culture is considered notable. Organic Theater Pittsburgh is a unique element of this culture. If people want to know about this culture's relationship with ecological consciousness, this theatre company is one notable aspect of that relationship.--Frankgorshin (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good for you. But here's the thing: significance is one thing, but verifiability is another. You can only objectively (attempt to) measure significance by way of verified publications. Chances are, those publications (newspaper and magazine articles, and not just in the free weekly) will come, and by that time perhaps notability by Wikipedia's standards can be proven. BTW, I found it hard to find anything ecological there, but I spent most of a long weekend inside the Wyndham Grand Pittsburgh Downtown--I'm sure there is more to Pittsburgh than that. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, well see, that's just why we need an ecologically conscious theatre company! We have come a long way from being the "Smoky City", at least. I will definitely keep an eye out for more verified publications dealing with this theatre company (which I'm sure will appear over time), and incorporate these references into the article as long it continues to exist.--Frankgorshin (talk) 02:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And if it ceases to exist, I will be glad to userfy it for you, and you can bring it right back to life when the coverage is there. Now, if that isn't ecologically sound... Drmies (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you for that! In some ways, I'm still something of a novice in Wikipedia world, so that would be very helpful.--Frankgorshin (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added another publication to the article's references. I expect more will be coming in soon.--Frankgorshin (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references so far provided (and none of the references I could find on Google) were independent of the theatre company in question. broadwayworld.com seems to be an online ticket office publishing promotional articles only. All those references do is establish the existance of the theatre company. There seems to be no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. I recommend that the author(s) of the article read that notability guideline, so that they understand why this article is non-notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Changed my opinion due to the addition of the Pittsburgh City Paper and the Pittsburgh Magazine articles. I encourage the previous posters to relook at the references in the article, or for the closing admin to note that the above Delete opinions were posted before these articles were added (or even written). —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadway World, like most publications, publishes promotional articles as well as reviews. I have referenced both a promotional article and a review from Broadway World in the article. There is also a reference to a review from Out Online, a well-known LGBT publication in Pittsburgh.--Frankgorshin (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also just added a reference to a review from Pittsburgh City Paper.--Frankgorshin (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, upon closer inspection, I can find nothing on Broadway World that suggests that it's just an "online ticket office." The online ticket office that this theatre company uses is actually brownpapertickets, if you look closely at the both the Broadway World articles. There is a promotional aspect to the website, certainly, but no more than any newspaper which publishes promotional pieces about upcoming theatre productions.--Frankgorshin (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a reference to a review from Pittsburgh Magazine.--Frankgorshin (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I look over these reviews, they all seem to be pretty strongly positive. It's difficult for a theatre company to get reviewed, and it's even more of a challenge to garner positive comments once reviewed. Clearly, this company has had enough significance to Pittsburgh culture to receive this kind of coverage.--Frankgorshin (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have changed my opinion above, based on the Pittsburgh City Paper and the Pittsburgh Magazine articles. I'm still unconvinced about the separation of Broadway World from ticket sales, especially since they have a big Get Tickets link at the top, but that's all irrelevant now. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:00, 29 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 userfied to User:Frankgorshin/12 Peers Theater Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 Peers Theater[edit]

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

Promotional article for a theater company of questionable notability, not even open yet. No significant coverage or claims of notability. Main references are primary sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The company has not had many productions yet, but has participated in the Pittsburgh New Works Festival, an important contributor to the theatrical culture of the Pittsburgh region. --Frankgorshin (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent source (see WP:INDY) is an announcement of a planned future performance by this group. Since they apparently haven't performed yet at all, they fail notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To cite a prominent example, films such as The Dark Knight Rises have Wikipedia articles although they have not yet been released and are in the process of filming. Why is a theatre company in the process of rehearsals for three performances scheduled in prominent Pittsburgh venues such as the Pittsburgh New Works Festival and the Grey Box Theatre any different?--Frankgorshin (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will say here more-or-less the same as I said for your other (very similar) article, which I also just came across on AfD. None of the references so far provided (and none of the references I could find on Google) were independent of the theatre company in question. Most are direct primary sources, one other is just an event listing. All those references do is establish the existence of the theatre company. There seems to be no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. I recommend that the author(s) of the article read that notability guideline, so that they understand why this article is non-notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but I expect there will be more secondary references in the upcoming months, especially because the theatre company is participating in a well-regarded festival in the Pittsburgh theatrical community. Unlike other theatre companies, this one is not creating in a vacuum but is already scheduled to showcase their work in a prominent vehicle.--Frankgorshin (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" (see WP:CRYSTAL). Perhaps this troupe will be notable in several months' time, but they can't have an article in Wikipedia unless they are notable right now (or have been notable in the past). One possible solution here would be to userfy (see WP:USERFY) the contents of this page back into Frankgorshin's user space, where he can hang onto it, work on it as new information becomes available, and perhaps recreate an article once this theatre company has established current notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the "crystal ball" guideline is that articles can exist for events that are "notable and almost certain to take place." The Pittsburgh New Works Festival is considered notable (it has existed for 21 years and can be verified by numerous secondary articles), and as 12 Peers Theater's involvement in the festival is almost certain to take place (the performance is scheduled in less than a month, and according to the website, casting has already been completed) it can be considered to exist on the same plane of notability as Kuntu Repertory Theatre and other theatre companies that have participated in the same festival. While the existence of the article may be a little premature, significant developments have occurred within the theatre company such that it is "almost certain" that it will have contributed to Pittsburgh's theatrical culture with some degree of notability within the upcoming weeks.--Frankgorshin (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that the existence of the article is indeed premature. Wikipedia cannot accept articles about subjects that may become notable in the future. The Pittsburgh New Works Festival and the Kuntu Repertory Theatre are both notable due to the Post Gazette articles, and the notable awards mentioned there-in. The 12 Peers Theater company may achieve similar status, but it has not yet. My advice is the userfy the article before it gets deleted here, and then re-create it if / when the 12 Peers Theater company becomes notable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article's been userfied. I will continue to add to it and repost when there are more sources.--Frankgorshin (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could someone let me know if the article's been properly userfied? I think I followed all the steps, but I'm not entirely sure as I've never userfied anything before in my life. haha--Frankgorshin (talk) 22:51, 30 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 03:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eszter Tari[edit]

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

I see no independent sources confirming that this individual meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existing sources are of questionable reliability or independence. Per Biruitorul, no indication that the subject is notable. I tried a Google search on the subject's name but couldn't find any independent reliable sources. The article is the almost exclusive product of a single editor who appears to be a close associate of the subject. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:11, 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, Courcelles 22:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - concur with nominator and User:Richwales: lack of independent sources. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the exhibit locations seem impressive. But without verification it is hard to know if what is listed is factual.SunRiddled (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Young artist, no real notability yet. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 31 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 Landolt–Börnstein. Courcelles 03:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Springer Materials - Online Database[edit]

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

The subject matter lacks independent coverage, and is probably better suited as a section under Springer Science+Business Media. wctaiwan (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, I'm not finding much in the way of independent non-trivial coverage of this. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:50, 18 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 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator makes mention that this would fit as a section of another article, so we need to consider a merge solution here. Courcelles 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is an online product of a very large scientific publisher Springer-Verlag. The product exists, and I'm sure it is worthwhile to engineers and their ilk, but I don't see a significant amount of secondary commentary on the product. Best solution is probably to merge it into Springer Science+Business Media. --Noleander (talk) 00:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Landolt–Börnstein. If you read the actual article, you will see that this is the online continuation of the former print Landolt-Börnstein, one of the most famous print databases in the world, and the standard reference for physical data, in several hundred volumes, owned by all libraries that can afford it. and listed in every reference work--e.g. Sheehy, Guide to Reference Books, item E167, , Malinowsky, Science and Engineering Literature, item 7-22, and I could go down my shelf of guides to the literature and find all the other entries, all of which give a full description better than the one given here in either article. It is incomprehensible to me that Springer was foolish enough to give the database a non-descript name when it had a famous well-known trademark name It , but many publishers did the same, e.g. renaming Chemical Abstracts as SciFinder . the unfortunate result, of course, is non-recognition. The combined article will need substantial rewriting and I will do it. Whether it should be titled as the current name or the famous name is an interesting question. We normally use the current name when a periodical changes title, but personally I think this is an error, and we should either use the best known name or make separate articles. I'll therefore do the merge under Landolt Bornstein. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per DGG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bahai Internet Agency[edit]

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

No third party reliable sources from non-self-published sources indicating the notability of the organization. All the links on Google are either from the Baha'i internet agency itself, or from supporters/detractors of the agency on personal websites Jeff3000 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The following entry on Sourcewatch is notable and is a third party reliable source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Baha%E2%80%99i_Internet_Agency. --Fatimiya (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sourcewatch is a wiki with no editorial oversight and is considered a self-published source as per WP:V. Regards, -- 11:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sourcewatch has more editorial oversight than wikipedia here and is run by the Center for Media and Democracy. The administrators have more say so as well. Your comment as such is inaccurate and misrepresenting what Sourcewatch does --Fatimiya (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also, we have some unofficial agreement about subjects that heavily rely upon a single independent source. Articles on WP need to have multiple, independent sources. Furthermore, it's not a very good source because it is based on user-submitted content. It does not have editorial oversight per this statement on its general disclaimer page:

No formal peer review

Sorry, but it's not going to cut it as a source. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Universal House of Justice independent sources are not optional. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. No notability established. References are primary sources only. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Paracha[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. I couldn't find coverage that was clearly about this subject. If the claims in the article can be sourced then I would be happy to consider withdrawing, but I think we need some substantial coverage here if this is to stay. Michig (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On both a Google and Yahoo search, all I found was a small mention here. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The citation found by SwisterTwister is short of significant coverage. J04n(talk page) 23:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Given the nature of the field there is a small chance that there are foreign-language attack articles about him which could be used to source the article, but not speaking the language(s) involved, I'm not going to be able to find them. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Seiler[edit]

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

Iffy verifiability and notability-- when I attempt to find more sources on this figure, such as Google News archives for the 19th century, I get many Sebastian Seilers -- some German, some leftist leaders, but with ages and year of death different from the particular Sebastian Seiler the article speaks of. How do we know this guy isn't a hoax? elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 19:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We know that the guy isn't a hoax by reading the sources referenced in the article. If those aren't enough for you then check these out. I already pointed out when I contested WP:PROD deletion that the existence of namesakes is not a reason for deletion, but the nominator doesn't appear to have understood that simple fact. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. External links section now includes links to some of his work in German and Dutch, info from German National Library confirms he was active in 1840s, WP:NRVE. In addition to 1848 revolution, he also established a German-language newspaper in New Orleans WP:ANYBIO WP:NTEMP. Trilliumz (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to confirm notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. At the time of nomination there were only two sources to speak of, and their diversity was questionable. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 26 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. The unanimous consensus outside of the nominator is that this article is sufficiently sourced, notability is demonstrated for the subject, and any promotional or other POV issues can be dealt with through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF)[edit]

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

Fails the GNG and related SNGs; coverage is fundamentally trivial and subject has no independent notability apart from the performer involved. It's a Youtube-only video parody of Obama's announcement that Bin Laden had been killed, and there's very little substantial coverage of it, just a lot of bloggery. The article overstates the sourcing greatly; for example, the supposed CBS News coverage turns out to be superficial coverage by a blogger who posts links to funny videos (only on weekdays!) on a low-visibility page on the CBS News site. Giving this its own article is like giving every SNL sketch on every show its own article; every Tina Fey impersonation of Sarah Palin, all of the Kristen Wiig fake-commercials for Christine O'Donnell got coverage that was orders of magnitude higher. The Youtube play count may look impressive at first glance, but a barking cat got a million more hits in half the time[1], and neither the cat nor its video has its own article here. Finally, while not strictly grounds for deletion, the article is laced with promotional phrasing, and somehow it's creator can't manage to turn up a single negative comment about the video, which would put the performer's official approval rate up there with Kim Jong Il's. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This thing is sourced to the gills; I grabbed one footnote at random from the San Francisco Chronicle and it wasn't misrepresented or superficial. I suppose one could argue in favor of an WP:IAR-IDONTLIKEIT-NOTCOMEDYCOMPENDIUM delete, but that would be pushing a big bolder up a big hill. Best for the nominator to grit his teeth, avert his eyes, and move along, in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this one. The "San Francisco Chronicle" source is an almost perfect example of misrepresented sourcing. Although presented in the article as coming from the newspaper itself, it actually comes from a blog which the paper's website displays, but exercises no editorial control over. As the "Editor's Note" in the page's far-right column declares. "This is an SFGate.com City Brights Blog. These blogs are not written or edited by SFGate or the San Francisco Chronicle. The authors are solely responsible for the content." That's not the kind of sourcing that generally acceptable for Wikipedia use, especially in a BLP-related subject." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record. SFGate goes on to explain "About City Brights. City Brights are prominent local citizens and experts with a unique Bay Area perspective that is often enlightening, sometimes infuriating and always thought-provoking"--so contributors are pre-screened for their reliability. Further, WP:BLP protects the individual's privacy, and is not for preventing his videos from being critiqued. RCraig09 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of being completely wrong, this defense is simply contrary to RS and BLP, which don't have "prominent local citizens" exceptions, nor does it explain why RCraig09 misrepresented the source, in the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to vagueness, sarcasm and false accusation. SFChronicle's specifically authorized contributor, whether staff/employee or (as here) pre-authorized non-employee contributor, does not need an "exception." Any supposed "misrepresentation" was due to my not seeing the small "Editor's note" on the side of web page cited in one of 40+ footnotes, is countered by the "About City Brights" explanation that immediately followed the Editor's note and thus is not a "completely wrong" "defense," and in any event is a matter of (editable) wording and not substance related to deletion of the article. RCraig09 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Hubba wazzah?!?! -- "That's not the kind of sourcing that generally acceptable for Wikipedia use, especially in a BLP-related subject." Are you actually voicing BLP complaints about a parody of Barack Obama? Carrite (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Not with regard to Obama, but with regard to the performer, Iman Crosson. As I see the article, it's heavy-duty fancruft, intended to promote Crosson by inflating his reputation, created by a person who's apparently close to the performer. When the Foundation adopted its BLP resolution, it listed its concerns about promotional editing first: "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects." That's the BLP concern I'm raising. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to uncivil insult, presumption of my "intent," and uninformed conjecture. I (article creator) have an interest in many people who use the Internet as a medium, some of whom have Wikipedia articles. If I'm "close to the performer" or "paid to represent" him, it's news to me. The references I found were essentially unanimously positive (given the occasion of Obama's announcement and the message/humor of the video) and the direct quotes that pervade the article determine its "tone." It is not fancruft (read details). RCraig09 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close, trout nominator Obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Sources need a cleanup, but Carrite proves that decent ones exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the article might be one-sided, but we have tags for that (I've added one). I also agree that there are several posts that seem to only show the video, and provide no actual content. But this doesn't account for all the sources WP:NEWSBLOG informs us that blogs from professional news editors are still reputable sources. More importantly is WP:WEB, specifically criteria #1:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for the following:

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. Trivial coverage, such as

newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address,
newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available,
a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, and
content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.

I'm willing to contend that some of these provide content that is more than just a brief summary, such as this Huffington Post article, this Syracuse Online article, or this POPDUST article. The coverage is not ideal, and could be much better, such as in Charlie bit my finger, but it is sufficient. Also, deletion is never really about about the views this video got compared to some other video. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Nominator's reference to GNG and SNGs is vague. Coverage of video is not trivial, and has plenty of citations apart from Crosson himself. There are numerous non-blog citations, and in any event there is nothing inherently unreliable about blogs (blogging being a format and not a reliability indicator, especially when the sources are CBS News, The Huffington Post, Al Jazeera, MSNBC, Sean Hannity, New York magazine, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Atlantic, The Post-Standard, and Funny or Die). Focus on the specifically quoted passages from the well-known sources for substantive coverage/content; the various "short quotes" lower in the article were included to tell the story of how the video became viral, not as evidence that "that video was good." The video itself makes political commentary, and can't be compared to a 23-second long barking cat video, just because it's in comedic form. RCraig09 (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) (Disclosure: I am main writer of article)[reply]

Keep - May be offensive to some, but WP is not censored. Plenty of secondary sources discuss this spoof. --Noleander (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is spoof in all caps?--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation: The allcapped word is part of the literal title of the video. RCraig09 (talk) 05:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha whoops, got it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I support the President and this article. Lighten up, folks, it's not treasonous. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I don't understand the point of the spoof. Didn't Bush capture Osama bin Laden? I specifically remember seeing images of a bedraggled Osama dragged out of a spider-hole. Isn't that why we re-elected Bush? As such, isn't the spoof a Personal Attack against Obama? Since when does Wikipedia allow Personal Attacks in the mainspace? Dekkappai (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how your reasoning qualifies this as a personal attack. Also, it was Saddam Hussein who was captured under the Bush administration. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein?!?! SHIT!!!! Dekkappai (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worthy of note. Easily sourced topic showing the solid meeting of WP:GNG and the meeting of SNGs WP:WEB and WP:NF (and yes, NF can applied to video lampoons as well as to feature length films), despite the WP:WAX comparisons and the cherry picking of a few weaker sources as if they were representative of the overall available. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, We at Wikipedia can also respect the First Ammendment and accept that we US citizens are allowed to mock and spoof our leaders and sometimes such lampoons meet inclusion criteria, like it or not. As an aside, I think THIS one is funnier. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now that the usual suspects have dropped in, this is officially a debacle. I'll just note that this whole "First Amendment"/NOTCENSORED argument is a complete smokescreen, since the BLP issues mentioned -- in particular, overly promotional content -- relate to the performer involved, not to the politician. The fact remains that the coverage for this subject remains fundamentally insubstantial, and isn't particularly significant. Virtually every sketch that runs on SNL gets substantially greater coverage. For example, while this video turns up 25,000 GHits and only 1 GNews hit [2], while the Kristen Wiig spoof of the "I am not a witch" ad turns up nearly 400,000 GHits and 11 GNews hits [3]. Neither is sufficiently notable for an independent article, particularly one concocted by a publicist and laced with puffery. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ganaraskan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No reliable, secondary sources found, so it fails to meet the notability guideline. Checked GSearch, GNews, GBooks, and the books I have print copies of (which do include new breeds). I appreciate that someone saw the page and wanted to try to save it, but sites like Suite101 that anyone can write for aren't acceptable, and the only source listed now seems to be the founder's website. You can read more about what constitutes a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes here. Anna ^talk 18:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Once the 'breed' has some notable, reliable references, then it would be wikipedia worthy. Keetanii (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one reference which it cites explains that the breed originates from southern Ontario, but doesn't not provide references either: for all we know, it could be just made up.Curb Chain (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (procedural close). Peridon (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Willow[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT, and the GNG. No reliable sources. No independent coverage. Just blogging following a shock-jock radio show appearance where she claimed to be a deaf porn actress/stripper. Conspicuous BLP problems, text verges on being an attack page, and if it wasn't obviously a stage name/persona I'd speedy it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. BLPs aren't to be messed with. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vague, lacking info and non-encyclopaedic. Possible BLP problems. Why can't it be speedied? One presumes it's a real person no matter what they're called, and not a fictional one. Non-notable whichever way. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have deleted it under the G10 criteria for deletion. It may be sprinkled with a little IAR, but the only reference listed was to a q&a post and it was rife with BLP-violating material. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 20:12, 25 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 Closed in the absence of an article (article speedy deleted as hoax.) Peridon (talk) 09:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batting (hobby/activity)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. See WP:NOTHOW. It also seems like an advertisement. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 17:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not similiar to this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lying_down_game — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk • contribs)
Delete. Total absence of evidence - unlike planking (fad) which is if anything, over-referenced. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability, possible hoax, and if anything WP:MADEUP at its worst. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think MADEUP comes under speedy, unless it's demonstrably a vandalism to boot. It does come under PROD and AfD. I'm just wondering what the next idiotic fad is going to be. Mushrooming? (Don't ask...) Peridon (talk) 19:58, 25 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 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bells (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND lacks significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Provided sources are either primary ones (Facebook and Myspace) or of unknown reliability (Indie Music Vision and Kick Axe Music blogs). Only claim of notability is inherited notability via the vocalist from another band which does have a Wikipedia page. Contested prod. Appears to be a promotional article created and largely edited by those close to or members of the band. RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a textbook case of attempted promotion based on comments made on the article talk page, and the sources don't establish the notability of this band per RadioFan. ArcAngel (talk) ) 13:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 26 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 21:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Faveron[edit]

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

Not much media coverage (due to her being Peruvian?). She didn't win the competition presented in this article. Looks promotional and the source is pure spam. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per [[WP:RS] and WP:ENT. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:01, 28 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. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Blois Sharpe[edit]

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

This page was PRODed, but the deletion was challenged. Sharpe is the make-up artist of Jerseylicious. Sharpe doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO, the only third party source I could find is a Stylelist intervie. However, the page has a suprisingly high viewcount, averaging over a 1000 views a day. If the result is keep, I'll try my best to improve the page (it's pretty high profile to be in such poor shape), but at the moment, I'm not sure whether it's worth it. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources. I found small mentions on two New York Daily News here, not enough for an encyclopedia. That's all I could find in a Google and Yahoo search, SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability or reliable sources. ItsZippy (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hudson-Peralta[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a person of questionable notability. Yes, he's had a hard life, but notable? Considering that both the references are to primary sources, (and this appears to have been cut'n'pasted from them) I'd say this is just more unremarkable self-promotion. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article indicates that this person is notable as defined in WP:BIO. VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per lack of any coverage. All I found on my Google and Yahoo search was a Twitter link. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 27 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 21:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rithvick Dhanjani[edit]

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

Minor actor that fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG v/r - T P 15:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't find any good sources on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 28 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. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protium (computer language)[edit]

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

No indication of notability or activity - a web search didn't turn up anything obvious outside of mirrors of the Wiki article and some hits on the defunct Protium Blue website (the only reference). Two WP pages link to the article: Non-English-based programming languages and Protium (disambiguation). Destynova (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:INDY. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks not only independent secondary sources to establish notability, it lacks even primary sources to prove it exists. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, though WP:SD#A7 exempts software, the article otherwise fits the criteria for speedy delete by failing to indicate a reason for importance. Msnicki (talk) 21:07, 26 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. postdlf (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Spot Exchange Limited[edit]

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

Can't find any evidence of notability, search is showing up blogs, Facebook, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete. Article is about an online commodities exchange established in 2010. About all the article says is that it exists, is subject to Nepal's laws, and trades a number of commodities. While some of the commodities traded are interesting (not sure if you can gamble on mustard, cardamom, or Cicero pea futures in Chicago) the article doesn't really say anything that passes the minimal significance test, much less notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:39, 25 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 21:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Wilson[edit]

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

Host of a minor TV show and a few radio appearances. v/r - T P 14:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've searched Google for a while and she appears to fail WP:GNG. Rymatz (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 25 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. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hill (councillor)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the leader of a county council I think he definitely satisfies notability criteria. Also recipient of an OBE; although that is not in itself a high enough honour for inclusion without other good reason, it does add to his notability. Remember that online coverage is not a requisite; any coverage, including print, is acceptable. There are plenty of mentions online in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Leader of a county council" makes notability more likely, but it is not one of the criteria so the general guideline must be used. Peter E. James (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, nothing must be used. We are urged to use common sense and remember that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. There are no rules here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe, but this is a BLP, and you haven't provided a good reason to ignore the rules. I'll stay neutral unless more coverage is found, or guidelines are changed. Peter E. James (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Um, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"! I think leaders of county councils are every bit as important as mayors of mid-sized cities, as cited in WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Although WP:POLITICIAN doesn't make any particular allowances for the leaders of councils, Lincolnshire is quite a big county, and the OBE pushes things in his favour. The coverage is mostly stuff of the form "Martin Hill says ...", but I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is needed, and there isn't evidence of this in the article. Of the coverage I can find, most is only quoting something he has said, only two of the mentions [4][5] are about him. Peter E. James (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lite bio of a rural English politician. He's elected, fair enough. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please allow to me to expand a bit on the rationale for deletion. WP:POLITICIAN says "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". I'm not quoting rules, but rather trying to stick to what seems to me the spirit of the guidelines. County councillor articles are very thin on the ground on Wikipedia. That's certainly not proof of non-notability, but it's a clue. There isn't even an article on Lincolnshire County Council yet: it redirects to Lincolnshire#Politics, which is rather short. As elected leader of the county council he certainly merits a referenced mention in Lincolnshire, but notability sufficient for a separate article does not seem to me to have been established here merely by virtue of being elected. Press coverage, as mentioned above, is limited to fleeting mentions, rather than significant coverage. If there is offline coverage of him, then let's by all means userfy this article and take the time to add evidence of notability. But if we include every article on every elected English politician, then where is the boundary of notability? Should we include elected district councillors and elected parish councillors as well?
- No, we shouldn't even include most county councillors. But he is the elected leader of a county council. That's a bit different. It means he's effectively the head of local government of the county. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is leader of the county council. Many of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been drawn up with the US in mind and mayors and members of citywide governments in major metropolitan areas do qualify, for example. Recent deletion arguments have concentrated on the size of the community they represent rather than GNG. It is simply irrational to say that mayors who hold office for a year and with largely ceremonial duties should be in, the leader of the council who holds executive responsibility usually for some years should not. US politics are different and built around personalties, but the very poor coverage of UK public affairs and the public sector in Wikipedia is something that should be of much greater concern. Too often the attempts to create such articles are attacked with but nobody else is interested (which is actually what many of the notability arguments really are) and is not a sensible approach for an encyclopedia. --AJHingston (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is both inaccurate and unhelpful to characterise an AFD discussion as an "attack". I ran across this article while doing WP:New pages patrol, and it didn't seem to me to meet the guidelines as currently defined, so I took it to AFD. In reply, I've been treated to this foaming, swivel-eyed rant on my talk page, accused of engaging in pissing contests and singling out articles on Conservatives for deletion on a related AFD, and now accused, via a straw man argument, of "attacking" an article. Nobody here is arguing "but nobody else is interested".

If this discussion helps to clarify the (currently quite fuzzy) guidelines on notability of office in WP:POLITICIAN by defining county council leaders as generally notable, then that will be a fine thing and a useful outcome to this AFD. But how about a bit of WP:AGF while we debate the policy and arrive at a consensus? Cheers, Gurt Posh (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On this talk page User:Bridgeplayer notes that a leader of a unitary authority or county council meets the criteria required for inclusion. I wouldn't say that was always true, but that they are at least able to be included if required; not every county council or unitary authority leader by any stretch needs to be included. Martin Hill, with chubby-cheeked Carl Minns, is regularly featured on the local BBC news - at least once every two weeks, if not once a week sometimes. I don't even know the names of the leaders of North Lincolnshire or North East Lincolnshire, and I can't remember seeing them on the news. Nearby the leader of Leicestershire CC has a high profile, but is not often on the news, and the leader of Nottinghamshire CC is featured often on the local news, if merely because her name (Kay Cutts) is somewhat unfortunately topical.

It is worth also mentioning the fact that well-before the 2010 general election, I set out to radically update all the articles on current MPs, if only because there was a lot of information sitting quietly on the BBC's 2001 election site that needed full airing. It was not always a pretty picture. We now know that many MPs are not the most trustworthy individuals with regards to their relationship with HMRC, but I spotted a few peculiar inconsistencies well before then. Even to this day, quite a few Labour MPs keep their early backgrounds under wraps, as they have had a more privileged life than they would want us to think. I know a bit about notability of our glorious humble representatives, and how they keep it to themselves. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 07:13, 31 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. -- Lear's Fool 01:00, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Theaker[edit]

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

Despite having been around for five years this article remains an autobiography with no independent evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:COMPOSER, and is autobiographical. Creator also created many other articles that could be considered self-promotional and which have remained unreferenced to this day. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanity page for non-notable person. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:26, 25 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 21:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Barber (Conservative Politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I personally think we should give more weight to council leaders than regular councillors, but the coverage in third-party sources is very thin and seem to relate more to the Conservative led council as a whole. Maybe it would make sense to have an article about leaders of the council. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Another lite bio of an elected politician. You know what, I don't like the Conservatives, but that doesn't matter a whit. This is not a pissing contest and we shouldn't be wiping out political biographies just because. Carrite (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An elected politician, yes, but from a district council: should Wikipedia carry articles on parish council members too? I can't see how this meets the criteria for notability in WP:POLITICIAN: can you please expand? Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 08:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references to Conservatives and pissing contests mystified me, but the penny has just dropped: you think I'm cherrypicking articles on Tory councillors for deletion? I think I can see why: please allow me to clear up this misunderstanding.

I've been working on WP:New pages patrol a fair bit lately (see my contributions). When this AFD was created on 25 July 13:54 (same day of creation), I had merely tagged another new article, Martin Hill (councillor), for notability an hour earlier. No prod and no AFD anywhere in sight or mind: I assumed that more info on notability would be forthcoming.

When the tag was summarily removed with little further improvement, I prodded Martin Hill (councillor) at 15:01, then AFD'd it 15:33.

I have AFD'd many articles, but never a political biography. It seems that WP:AGF is harder to maintain on these, but please be assured that I am neither targeting articles on Conservatives in particular nor political biographies in general. These two articles simply happen to have been created on the same day, an hour apart, while I was doing NPP. You can see from my contributions that most of what I do is categorizing and improving new stuff. I have no political agenda whatsoever that I can detect. I hope this will be taken into account when evaluating this article for notability. Thanks, Gurt Posh (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, more often than not politician deletions are agenda-driven, I believe. Carrite (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources have incidental mentions of the subject and do not meet WP:GNG. The leader of a unitary authority or a County Council can be deemed to meet WP:POLITICIAN but not the leader of a district council which has very limited powers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - can only find run-of-the-mill third-party sources that one would expect for a local politician, so I think this fails WP:GNG. But I agree with a previous comment that more weight should be given to council leaders, and the services the council provides are not as low-level as one might assume, hence the "weak".--A bit iffy (talk) 17:37, 28 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. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Farhan[edit]

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

This article is a biography of a living person without any references. The assertion for notability is that of a movie and television producer. I can find no coverage in reliable sources about him. His movie production work does not seem notable as it consists of one English language movie listed for him at IMDB, and one more claimed Pakistani movie. Not exactly a large body of work. Also claimed are sundry television productions which I cannot confirm. Whpq (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on the username of the editor who created this page (and then disappeared), this is probably self promotion. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are assertions of notability made, but they are unverified and vague. It would be a stretch to attempt to make an argument that Farhan meets WP:ENT criteria, and an in-depth search of world news articles via LexisNexis came up empty. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject meets notability guidelines. AllyD (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any evidence of notability per WP:CREATIVE. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:44, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thai chi defense system[edit]

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

Unreferenced claims of new martial art invented by article's creator per WP:No original research; no assertion of notability; can't find anything about it online. Proposed deletion contested by anonymous editor without comment. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "The art of eight limbs" is synonymous to Muay Thai, so at best this article can be merged over there. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding reliable 3rd party coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found, per Qrsdogg. Might well be another candidate to add to the vast array of redirects to Tai chi chuan. Yunshui (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has nothing to do with muay thai except for borrowing the expression, so don't merge with it. Since there are no sources, it doesn't really make sense to combine this with anything. There are broad unsupported claims that doh't belong in any article. Astudent0 (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced claimsCurb Chain (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for any claims. I see no reason to merge this with anything. Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 30 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 to JetBrains. Can be editorially merged from the history as deemed necessary by editors. Sandstein 06:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kotlin (programming language)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this as yet unreleased language. Little mention in any independent reliable sources: apart from the company's own site there are essentially just announcements, which are effectively write-ups of press releases. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poor notability indeed. Could be merged into JetBrains, but that article doesn't look very solid either, and seems to be set up mainly with the purpose of introducing its products. Claims to have 200 employees. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to JetBrains. Doesn't seem notable (yet). Also cleanup several of their other (somewhat spammy) product pages. —Ruud 11:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's in development, maybe never released. No different then articles on future events. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lufthansa. Courcelles 21:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa Partner Airlines[edit]

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

This is just a list on Lufthansa's codeshare partners which are not in Star Alliance, which is already included in the main article. Source for this list seems to be this Lufthansa website. Note that the term Lufthansa Partner Airlines does not exist at all, it should rather be Partner Airlines of Lufthansa, which comes close to the name under which the article was originally created. But I do not think that this title is worthy to be kept even as a redirect. To my knowledge, no other airline has an XYZ Airlines Partners article or the respective redirect here on Wikipedia. If someone searches for partner airlines, they will obviously directly look it up at the airline article. AdAstra reloaded (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems to be a useless page indeed. Can be merged into Lufthansa. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lufthansa. The possibility of this subject having notability independent of Lufthansa seems ludicrous to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Lufthansa. A worthwhile addition to the suggested target but will never be expandable to be a fully-fledged article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:24, 26 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 per G7 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penrith National Park[edit]

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

No such National Park exists. Penrith Park is the closest match, and it's a footy stadium. The Three Sisters are located in the Blue Mountains National Park; Royal National Park, apparently the second after Yellowstone National Park to use the name "national park" was proclaimed in 1879, a long time after 1815. Shirt58 (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I get 9 hits on Google search for "Penrith National Park", so it seems to exist and actually attract tourists. Whether that warrants an article in WP is of course another question. Merge with Three Sisters ? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this term is at all widely used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As unverifiable, based on my searching. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it existed as an official national park we'd find it on the official site where I do find Penrith Lakes Regional Park. Tourist site mentions can't be used to show it exists as a national park. Dougweller (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't see this this as an existing designation. As Dougweller said, it could mean Penrith Lakes Regional Park.--Oakshade (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Bogus, Three Sisters are in Blue Mountains National Park.--Grahame (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that it is demonstrably not a real place. The Three Sisters are nowhere near Penrith, and the article to me looks like schoolchildren having a lark. Orderinchaos 13:34, 26 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 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World MAX 2009 Europe Tournament[edit]

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

also nominating:

K-1 Rules Tournament 2009 in Budapest
K-1 Rumble of the Kings Qualification 2009 Norrköping with an enormous crowd of 2,400
K-1 World MAX 2009 Japan Tournament

another sprawling series of non notable routine results. no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. No independent reliable sourcing whatsoever. Of the four events listed I find exactly one arguably independent source amongst them. Not all fighting cards are notable. Nothing here meets WP:EVENT or even approaches WP:GNG. BusterD (talk) 19:53, 29 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 Somewhere. Yeah, obviously a merge but probably best to let you guys work out where. Good luck and let me know if you need any admin tools to effect this Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of death stories[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted (by me) via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Buran_Origin_of_Death. When, following this deletion, it was requested to be userfied I (as is my wont) happily complied. The user made a single edit, then moved it back into mainspace. Which I promptly re-userfied instead of speedy deleting it. In the meantime, another editor has written an entirely new article on the matter, now at Origin of death myth. When made aware of this new article, the user chose to make a content fork rather than work together on a merge. We cannot give the editor "benefit of the doubt" as it recomends on the content fork page, per their comments on my talk. Delete, and merge any information into the existing article. (Please note that we don't have to maintain attribution for basic facts.) Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but to James George Frazer. Frazer's taxonomy (which is the main topic of this article) is 98 years old, and (as I can attest, having recently research the subject -- I'm the author of Origin of death myth -- see the citations and 'Further reading' list of that article for details) there has been an enormous amount written since then on the subject. Pretty much every culture has its 'origin of death myth', and each region has its own set of dominate narratives. Concentrating almost purely on only four of these, on the basis of an outdated source, is dreadfully WP:UNDUE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section about North America is independent of Frazer's work and so would not belong in Frazer's article. It is the first of more sections which would present the material geographically, which seems to be a common approach to the topic. Warden (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The section about North America" is tiny in comparison to the Frazer-based material -- hence my "almost purely" above. That section is also based on a heavily outdated source (Franz Boas is still cited in the literature, but as a WP:PRIMARY source for narratives). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, as we see from the numerous reliable sources. Deletion and merger, as the nominator proposes, would deny proper attribution of work done, contrary to our licensing - see WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger, either to my own article, or (as I suggested) to the one on James George Frazer, is perfectly feasible without losing "proper attribution of work done", and is in fact perfectly commonplace on Wikipedia (we wouldn't have WP:MERGE and Help:Merging if such things didn't routinely happen). Colonel Warden's 'Keep' !vote completely fails to account for the fact, raised in the nomination, that this article is an obvious WP:CFORK (and one that fails to give a global view of the topic, and is based on an outdated source for its structure). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit histories show that this article came first. Your communication with the nominator about my work shows that you were fully aware of it. Your creation of a rival article was therefore deliberately redundant contrary to WP:CFORK which states "...see if the fork was deliberate. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". It seems that you are obsessed with disruption of my editing contrary to WP:HARASS. Just this morning, you followed me straight to an unrelated AFD in order to post a contrary opinion. There are numerous recent examples of this unhealthy behaviour. Warden (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The edit histories show that you moved this userfied article into mainspace some 19 hours after I created mine (and only an hour before it was AfDed by the closing admin of the original AfD). I am not aware of any policy forbidding the creation of an article in mainspace where a (AfD-deleted) alternative exists in user space. Whilst recreation of essentially the same article as one AfDed is a reason for WP:SPEEDY (meaning increased scrutiny), creation of a new, well-sourced article on a wider topic would seem to be unproblematical. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The seed topic was created in mainspace back in 2007 and our edit history for the subsequent developments should correctly attribute the primacy of this early contribution. My development of the topic under the expanded title and scope of Origin of death took place on Saturday 24th July when it was placed into mainspace. Your rival fork was created on Sunday without consultation with myself or the closing admin. Your claim-jumping activity seems to be deliberate disruption contrary to WP:POINT. Warden (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO! Your arguments are getting quite ridiculous. (i) The existence of an article on an (as it turned out, a too) narrow topic does not preclude the creation of an article on a wider topic. (ii) The existence of a AfD-deleted-and-so-userfied article does not preclude the creation of anything whatsoever. As it happens, your article, which is almost exclusively on the topic of Frazer's taxonomy, still covers a much narrower topic than mine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the article returned to mainspace has almost nothing (or is it nothing at all?) in common with the article which was deleted, or the version you attempted to restore.
My motivation for the creation of Origin of death myth was not WP:POINT, but WP:SODOIT. As I stated in the original AfD, I thought that an article on a more general topic was merited, and that such an article was best written from scratch (an opinion that it would seem that you have since had forced upon you by circumstance), so I hunkered down and did it myself. As it was a new article, on a new topic, I saw nothing that needed permission from the closing admin for -- so I went ahead and wrote it, to a wide range of modern, often prominent, sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that your article is new seems absurd, as it was obviously inspired by this one and covers the same ground. The current focus in this one on Frazer's work is just because his analysis was quite influential and detailed and so was quite fruitful. I intended to go on to cover Pandora, the Garden of Eden &c. just as you have - I tucked away this source in the bibliography precisely because it had a good high-level summary of the matter which ranged across numerous cultures in its coverage. Warden (talk) 12:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"New" is a matter of substance, of stated topic and actual content, not 'inspiration'. In any case, it would be more accurate to state that my article was inspired by the original AfD (and thus more what wasn't in the original article than what was there). And as I have previously pointed out, the wholesale replacement of material means that to call the article AfDed "this article" is more than a little misleading. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think that the "Origin of Death" is an important subject for mythology, being one of the fundamental myths that help explain why the world is the way it is. However, a collection of stories isn't exactly an encyclopedia article, so I think this article should be merged to Origin of death myth, where hopefully a bit of analysis will be given to the stories rather than simply relating them. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Clearly a notable topic, but there's no reason to have this and Origin of death myth, they're basically redundant. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both have relevant information in them. This article is older and better named. The other article is just one day old, and the editor could've just added stuff here. These are not all myths, but some of them are parts of religious beliefs some native people may still believe in. Some might just be folktales, not something people actually believe in. So call it "stories" instead. You can also call them traditional stories. Origin of traditional stories of death Dream Focus 15:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Dream Focus needs to comprehend the formal meaning of the word "myth", which that of "a sacred narrative", and the fact that "myth" is the term that scholars themselves use for this subject matter. I would also point out that, at the time I created Origin of death myth, there was no article to add it to -- just a userfied copy of a deleted article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article on myth and it has different meanings. It can mean something that is not true. [[6]] "b : an unfounded or false notion 3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence." It is commonly used to refer to something that is not true. So its best to use a different term. I think traditional stories works better than sacred narrative since not all of the stories might be sacred, but instead considered to be simply folktales by the people telling them. Dream Focus 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps turn this into a list article. I found it interesting to read. And it is encyclopedic. List of traditional stories related to death. You could also have separate article for each culture's beliefs, showing what they believe in for life, death, and whatnot. I doubt there is one group anywhere that hasn't had people studying them and publishing information about them. Dream Focus 15:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Origin of death myth. Both are on the same general topic, but this one is just a synopsis of a few stories, something Wikipedia absolutely should not be. It's not only redundant, but ridiculous. We have, for example, an article on chain emails, but if that consisted of nothing but the "hilarious!!!" emails my grandmother forwards me all the time it'd be pretty stupid. The same applies here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote, I do find it somewhat troubling to see Colonel Warden again misusing the need for attribution as a purely bureaucratic excuse to keep sub-par articles. Yes, attribution is important, but to suggest that a redundant or uncencyclopedic article should be kept simply to preserve it is utterly ridiculous; there are other ways to do the same that don't hurt the quality of wikipedia.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've been mulling this for a couple of days, after I first edited the article. At this point, based on the sources, and the points made by Dream, as well as the creation of similar material by Hrafn--which impacts my views of his delete !vote, lead me to conclude that this is a keep, albeit for me a weak one.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why? I mean why leave this article, which just summarizes a few specific stories, instead of redirecting it to the one that actually covers the topic?--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both have valid encyclopedic information in them. The information doesn't need to be merged, since it wouldn't fit over there, or would have 90% of it trimmed. Dream Focus 18:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)No. We just had this discussion in the recently closed AfD (for this article's previous incarnation). A synopsis of stories is not an encyclopedia article. And by what possible logic could it make sense to have an article "Origin of death stories" about four specific stories when we have an actual article that covers the actual general topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some AFDs close one way, then the same ones close another. It comes down to whatever random people show up to participate and the personal opinions of the closing administrator. This is a different situation though. This article mentions the topic, has references for it, and then shows a valid examples of the different types of death stories. Dream Focus 21:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Dream said. The fact that a merge-!voter implicitly, as discussed above, finds notability in the topic to my mind supports the fact that this article should not be deleted -- which is, of course, the focus of inquiry at AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And we have that topic actually covered, unlike in this one, in the suggested merge target. This isn't a case where the merge is to a related subject or a more general topic; it's to a better article on the same thing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 21:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, why are you putting a rescue tag on this? There's another article on this topic, Origin of death myth, that actually covers the topic and shows its notability. This one is redundant; it doesn't need "rescuing".--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about the four classifications that things can be grouped in. Did others write about the guy's findings? Do they teach this in any colleges? Is it in any textbooks or encyclopedias? How many things did he group into each category total? Dream Focus 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, exactly. This is about four classifications that a person thinks they can be grouped in. That is not "Origin of death stories" in the same way that short story should not be all about Kurt Vonnegut. You're proving my point: this article is not about the stated topic, the better one is.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DF, are you really asking if people have written about Frazer's theories? Aren't you aware of their classic nature--obviously they've been modified, but its one of the foundations of the scientific study of folklore. Hrafn is absolutely right about that. His work is important enough that the work can be discussed separately from the biography, exactly as Noleander says just below. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James George Frazer "is often considered to be the father of modern anthropology." This article just needs a new name is all. Some of this guy's work are available at the Gutenberg Project, I linking to one of them. Dream Focus 01:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, keep, but not as the article this is saying it is, or the one it was originally before it was userfied, or the one you all argued it was after it was put back into the namespace. Got it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Rescue time! *ambulence sirens* —SW— ^confer 05:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Origin of death myth, which would be more encyclopedic than merging into James George Frazer. --Noleander (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge for the time being, with out deleting any detail. I think we can accept Hrafn's article (Origins of death myth) as a basic article, in which the more specific material can be at least temporarily fitted. But each individual myth, just as all of the classic myths, is ultimately worthy of a separate article. (Does this mean a separate article on every major myth of each culture to the extent there is documentation? Yes, certainly it does. Anything less is cultural bias.) I have my own opinion on the maneuvering, which shows Wikipedia gamesmanship at a very advanced level of skill on all sides. Attempting to play around with redirects and similar article titles instead of working on content is not really constructive and exploits the weaknesses of a system relying on the vagaries of individual AfD discussions. I think we need to see this as an attempt to avoid disruption and find a negotiated solution. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hrafn. Any reasonable individual (whose judgment is not clouded by an irrational urge to retain every byte of data ever submitted to a Wikipedia server) can see that this is clearly a content fork. —SW— ^confer 05:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is referenced to one of the greatest anthropologist in history. Origin of death myth on the other hand, seems to be original research of things cobbled together. It seems to be just lumping together everything in groups per continent, with a few examples selected to represent the beliefs of thousands of different groups, almost certainly inaccurately. Dream Focus 21:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one article attempts to give a worldwide view of the subject, while another explains the subject from the perspective of a single person whose relevant experience is apparently limited to the British empire (according to the article itself). Also, I'm still thoroughly confused as to why this article has been nominated for rescue. Could you please indulge us all and comment on why this article should be rescued and how that could happen? As far as I can tell, rescuing articles is about finding sources to establish the notability of the subject. However, the notability of this subject has never come into question; the main concern is that it duplicates an existing article. Please let us know exactly what type of rescue-work you hope other editors will come here and undertake in order to save this article from being merged with another article about the exact same topic. —SW— ^confer 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion. That is the focus of this discussion. It was tagged for rescue. It is not appropriate for another editor to delete such a tag, as Snotty did, and I concur that to do so was disruptive.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point me to the page which tells me that I'm not allowed to remove a rescue tag from an article if I believe it was added inappropriately? The rescue tag is simply a maintenance tag. Inappropriately applied maintenance tags are removed. —SW— ^verbalize 02:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had this discussion before, and no need to bring up here. Go to the ARS talk page for that. Dream Focus 16:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'd rather not start yet another drama-fest on the ARS talk page. I'm pretty sure that there is nothing which restricts me from removing a rescue tag which I believe in good faith to be applied inappropriately, or applied to an article for which rescue is not possible. If you believe that I am not allowed to do that, please show me where that rule is codified. Otherwise, please refrain from telling me what I can and can't do, or automatically labeling my actions as disruptive, regardless of their context. —SW— ^babble 17:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, I only see rescue tags removed when clearly placed on an article with no hope, usually by an inexperienced editor. SW removing the tag unless its clearly in that category is obviously going to be drama-bait.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you only normally see the tags removed under certain circumstances doesn't necessarily mean that removing them under other circumstances isn't acceptable. —SW— ^confer 20:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, it does. I'm omnipotent and infallible on these matters.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the point of removing a rescue tag during an Afd. Either the article will be rescued by, and the AfD will keep it, and then the tag ghas no purpose & can be removed, or it does not get rescued, and gets deleted, tag and all. As removal has no constructive purpose, it seems designed just to quarrel. I'd say the same about removing a notability tag during an AfD --either the article will be found notable, & the tag goes off, or the article gets deleted. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather naive viewpoint on the situation which doesn't take into consideration the fact that the rescue tag is a well-known way to get the attention of a bunch of inclusionists, who predictably come to the AfD and vote to keep it. If there is no plausible way that an article could actually be rescued (i.e. no plausible way to improve the article such that the AfD nominator's concerns are satisfied), then there is no reason for rescue tagging the article apart from attracting the attention of keep voters. If we sit back and allow users to abuse this form of legal canvassing, then it will be abused. If we attempt to monitor it and point out abuses, then hopefully the abuse will lessen. I can assure you that my actions are not designed just to quarrel, as there is nothing I enjoy less than dealing with editors like Dream Focus. —SW— ^express 01:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And do you see this tag ever bringing over people who just say keep without a valid reason? You constantly make that accusation but no proof has ever been shown to back it up. Dream Focus 02:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Epeefleche's vote above. —SW— ^gossip 04:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also Warden's vote, which begins by missing the point entirely and finishes with procedural wonkery. Reyk _YO! 21:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim back and merge- the result of the Buran Origin of Death AfD establishes that a collection of synopses of myths are not suitable for a standalone article. Furthermore, this one is a POV fork (the point of view advanced here being "I don't like the result of the last AfD"), and POV forks are routinely deleted and/or merged back into the parent. Reyk _YO! 05:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything at all that would actually be merged, or would the article just be deleted entirely? Dream Focus 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about deletion its about where to put this content. It doesn't make sense to have two articles on the same subject, from what I see so far. Redirect to whatever name we come up with up, merge and improve content.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
1. Having more closely perused the relevant policy, I would like to point out (i) that WP:USERFY#Subpage userfication clearly indicates that the userfied article becomes a WP:DRAFT. I would suggest that a new article cannot be a WP:CFORK of a mere draft, and that it is the draft that becomes the CFORK on its return to mainspace. (ii) That WP:USER gives editors almost no responsibility for/authority over material in another editor's userspace. I would therefore question whether there is any obligation whatsoever to add new material to this draft, rather than to an independently created mainspace article.
2. I would question whether the rescue tag served any function in this AfD, other than WP:CANVASing.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The rescue tag optimistically believes there are people who still improve articles out there; I don't think its use here harmed anything, except in causing completely useless debates about whether it was properly placed.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow -- the ARS has a sentient tag that's capable of forming beliefs? How amazing. I see not the slightest slither of evidence that immediate 'improvement' of this article was at any stage either (i) a matter seriously contemplated; or (ii) at issue in deciding this article's disposition (as the reason given for nomination was WP:CFORK). WP:CANVASing harms discussions -- and tends to promote a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

actually, I have seen no evidence that the presence of a rescue tag has every led in any significant number of improper articles being kept. If the article gets improved, it gets improved. If not, it almost always gets deleted. And it is not canvassing. It might even have the opposite effect. As far as I can tell, it seems very likely to attract the attention of those who disapprove of the project, and engage in attacks on the integrity of other Wikipedians. It is, after all, so very much easier to say what is wrong with an article than to make it right. Perhaps there should be a rule that we do not delete articles unless it can be shown that there is no way of improving it--and that the only acceptable way to show it is to make a documented effort, according to the spirit of WP:BEFORE, which, though an essay, is really just a rather more elaborate restatement of WP:Deletion Policy. My personal view, is that those who complain about rescue tags show an intention that articles should not be rescued, and I consider that destructive to the core foundations of the encyclopedia. If people want articles deleted, and there are tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of existing articles which probably ought to be deleted, let them deal with the merits, and not the tagging. I'm not an anti-deletionist--I've deleted about a half dozen articles today, and I'm not finished. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic: Those who complain about rescue tags intend only to put the entire deletion system on level ground. The guidelines at WP:CANVAS exist for a reason, and many editors see the rescue tag as a loophole to get around those canvassing guidelines. Whether or not you believe that that loophole is ever exploited is a common debate. But, I would think it difficult to argue that the loophole doesn't exist. And in my experience, if a loophole exists it will eventually be exploited. So, consider us "rescue tag complainers" as a watchdog group who are ensuring that the loophole is not exploited. It's not that we don't want articles to be rescued so that they are more easily deleted, it's that we want the articles to get a fair trial at AfD, not one that is biased by unbalanced attention on either side which would have normally not occurred if it hadn't been singled out for extra attention. In particular, articles which can not plausibly be rescued should not be tagged for rescue. How can an article not be plausibly rescued, you ask? Well, first you have to define "rescue". My definition of "rescue" is: to improve an article such that the AfD nominator's stated concerns are addressed. So, if the AfD nom's concern is that an article is a content fork, it's not very likely that any improvement to the article will change the fact that it is a content fork, thus it should not be rescue tagged. Rescue tagging an "un-rescuable" article serves no other purpose than canvassing for keep votes. —SW— ^express 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my book, rescue tags should never be removed until the XfD is resolved one way or the other. It might be notable, but I am not taking any side on whether it is actually notable. Tags of any type should not be removed until the issue is resolved. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Notability is not the issue mentioned in the AfD rationale, so we don't even have to worry about that. -- Avanu (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't operate on things that are "in Bearian's book". It operates on consensus. And there is currently not a consensus for rescue tagging this article, since no one has indicated a plausible way which the article could actually be improved which would stop it from being a content fork (which is why it is nominated for deletion). The rescue tag has no special status over other maintenance templates, it can be removed by anyone at any time if it is believed (in good faith) that it was not applied appropriately, or not applied to an appropriate article. —SW— ^speak 23:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Origin of death myth as the article that is appropriate in scope for this content. Sandstein 06:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note--Hrafn's probably right that a lot of this content would fit better in James George Frazer. That being said, the title is obviously a better redirect towards Origin of death myth than the Frazer one. This is gonna require some histmerge stuff.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could probably be achieved without the complexity by (i) renaming to James George Frazer's origin of death stories (not an inaccurate title, given the bulk of the content) before the merging to James George Frazer & (ii) only then redirecting the original title to Origin of death myth (thus separating title from article history). But then again, a formal histmerge may be preferred to such methods. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this, my friends, is why we don't needlessly complicate things by changing the scope of an article or doing everything possible to avoid deletion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ENVY Post Production[edit]

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

Not notable. No broad coverage found on the internet. Looks a bit like an advertisement. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of media coverage. Nothing panned out on Google and Yahoo, except for a BusinessWeek address for ENVY Post Production. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television company (one of the most notable of its kind in the UK), as indicated by significant coverage in nationally distributed trade publications—see Televisual, Broadcast, et al. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 23:05, 16 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, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing nothing reliable in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:44, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relisting comment: I have asked extraordinary Machine to expand on his comment as there is a good faith assertion of sourcing that might not be available on-line. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is. Unless significant sources appear on the page, this doesn't meet WP:COMPANY or GNG. Televisual listing is not enough by itself and Broadcast awards cite doesn't support the claim made in pagespace. Pending additional sources, delete. BusterD (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a borderline case. I see > 10K hits on Google, but they all seem to be press releases, or blogs, or minor trade publications. I don't doubt that the company is very important in the UK film/television industry, but WP:Company requires more significant mention by sources independent of the company itself ... and I'm not seeing such sources. --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small company, no refs, non notable. Szzuk (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John N. Gray. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agonistic liberalism[edit]

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

Neologism. As the article correctly states, "Gray uses this phrase to describe what he believes is Berlin's theory of politics...." Otherwise the term is not in general usage and more properly belongs in articles about Berlin or Gray. TFD (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - dictionary definition of a neologism not in common use.~~ Carrite (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just Gray. [7], [8], [9]. [10] [11] and many other sources. More mentioning Gobetti than mentioning Gray AFAICT. In short - used by academics sufficiently to meet WP notability requirements. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your source, The realist tradition and the limits of international relations says, "From the 'agonistic liberalism' of Isaiah Berlin..." and provides a footnote (No. 73) that says, "The identification of Berlin's liberalism as 'agonistic' belongs to John Gray in his Isaiah Berlin (London: HarperCollins, 1995) chapter 6 in particular. For a further exploration, see also Gray's Post-Liberalism (London: Routledge, 1993)."[12] TFD (talk) 06:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I provided five sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You conducted a Google book search for sources that have the term ag, but not Gray ("agonistic liberalism" -gray). However the search did not work, because of the two sources that can be previewed, including the example I provided, both mention Gray. Piero Gobetti (in a 1922 essay) used the term ag differently, to explain his theory that change comes about from conflict rather than consensus. TFD (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that fact means naught to you. Seems that you are more intent on deletion than on recognizing that a term has been sufficiently used by a number of academics than anything else here. The fact has now been shown that the term has been used and cited by academics other than just Gray, quod erat demonstrandum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means that two different scholars decades apart may decide to apply the same adjective to the same noun and come up with two different concepts, neither of which has come into widespread use. TFD (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all the other academics are non-existent then? Interesting concept, that. I do not buy it, however. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these other academics? Please provide sources. TFD (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I'm fairly satisfied that WP:NEO and WP:GNG is met here; it appears to be a notable concept that multiple scholars have written about. There are certainly unresolved editorial questions about the article, but I don't think they are daunting enough to merit deletion. Here are a few more potential sources for the article: [13][14][15]. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is Gray's article, your second source is about Gobetti, and your third source says, "a third possible position, which I shall call “agonistic liberalism....”" Three different writers who put the same adjective and noun together to come up with three differenct concepts without acknowledging the work of one another. Per WP:DISAMBIG, that would require three separate articles. TFD (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% certain that all of the writers cited by Collect and I thus far are using different definitions, but I'm not completely against the idea of dabbing or merging (as opposed to deleting) this. I'll try to take a closer look at the sources if I get a chance. Striking for now though. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:37, 13 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, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Somewhere, maybe to Liberalism. The article seems to be about the expression, not the thing itself. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BigJim707 (talk) 12:58, 17 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm striking my delete vote and flipping on this question based on the multiple and very substantial academic sources cited by Collect above. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is very bad scholarship because one definition is Gray's description of Berlin's theory while another is Talisse's argument against Gray while still another is a 1920s writer that has nothing to do with either. Please take the time to follow and read the links. If you did, you would realize that these are various unrelated concepts. Your vote may keep this article, but do we really want it? BTW could you please define "agonistic liberalistm". My view is that neither you nor User:Collect can do that. TFD (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is at issue is not whether I use a concept or you use a concept but whether an article subject is encyclopedia-worthy on the basis of receiving substantial coverage in multiple published sources. This term meets that standard. Am I going to go out of my way to delve into philosophical theorizations of liberalism because I recognize this term meets our General Notability Guidelines? No. I'm not a philosopher and I don't play one on TV. I don't give a damn about such things. That doesn't change the basic fact that as lousy as this article is — and it is terrible, let there be no mistake — I believe it to be an encyclopedia-worthy topic based upon the evidence that there are multiple published sources dealing with the concept in a serious way, cited above by Collect. Carrite (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - My research shows some decent uses of the term, including some heavyweight hits in Google Books (e.g. James Martin, 'Piero Gobetti's Agonistic Liberalism', History of European Ideas, vol. 32, (2006), 205-222). But they all seem to use the term relative to Gray and/or Berlin. I dont see it being used independently of the Gray/Berlin context. For that reason, the encyclopedia may be better served by having the information in the Gray article. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John N. Gray per above sources found by Collect, and the suggestion by Noleander. The definition of the term appears to be ambiguous, but the term is defined and discussed in-depth by Gray, and its inclusion seems most appropriate there. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, as the content is short and seems to be discussed mostly in the context of Gray. Sandstein 06:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion after significant expansion has leaned as such. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Gordon (sports writer)[edit]

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

no indication WP:notability. Sourced entirely from an obituary in the paper he worked for. Google does not show anything significant. noq (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail of notability criterion Jacob-Dang — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobDang (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon was a very well known sports writer when he was working. The reason many things aren't on Google is because none of his work was published to the internet. In fact, when many past famous athletes from Minnesota are asked about sports writers they liked, Gordon was often one of the most memorable for them. Regardless, here are a few things on the internet I found:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-131695434.html
http://milkeespress.com/minnesotamyths.html
http://www.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?710-A-Great-Sportswriter-Died-Yesterday

User:Gordgus (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first reference is like the reference in the article from the paper he worked for. The second reference is a single line mention. The third reference is a forum. We need things written about him - not by him - in independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original source I had provided wasn't written by him, and it seems to be reliable. I do not see how Wikipedia would be improved by deleting this article. Sorry, am I missing something?

User:Gordgus (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original source is by the paper he worked for and so is not independent. The question is not whether it would be improved by deleting it but if it would be improved by leaving it. Without independent reliable sources cannot be shown. noq (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's not much more you can expect from the internet about a topic like this. Gordon was noteworthy by people from his generation -- people who don't (or didn't) use the internet much. And of course this would improve Wikipedia. Anyone looking for information on the guy might stumble upon this page, right? Of course, you have more experience dealing with this than me, but I'm confident this page belongs.User:Gordgus (talk) 1:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletefails WP:RS and the sources need to be on the page not in the deletion discussion. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a bunch of his articles reprinted in Baseball Digest and at least two independents which seem to cover him directly. Please allow me to source this page before closing. BusterD (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found Editor & Publisher discussing an anecdote about hockey which included him, a passage from a publication of the state historical society using his opinion of Bobby Marshall, a story about him in a contemporary (1970) sportswriting textbook, and a profile of him (which I can't see) in a standard reference for notable sportswriters. That's four independent reliable sources, at least two of which directly detailing. Not all sources need to be online. Put together with the obit, we have enough to meet GNG. And the obituary says he got his big scoop (hence the nickname) on Bobby Jones 78 years ago! A man who was an active sportswriter for almost 80 years? That's notable if verified and the obit (from an RS, if not completely independent) does exactly that. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment. It appears the obituary written by Joe Christiansen was the Star Tribune's sports department coverage of the death, very unusual. The normal family obit is archived here. I've added SI's and his college journal's notices of his passing; this latter notice confirms the "Scoop" story, but I've used it only to cite his birth name and death date. The "works" section just begun could add dozens of archived stories online. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks. Is there anything I should do to clean up the article? User:Gordgus (talk) 5:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Keep A long career writing for many notable publications, makes him notable. He also wrote The official National Collegiate Athletic Association basketball guide in 1964 [16]. The name is common enough that its hard to sort through all the results, there an astronaut, a football player, and a mayor by that name. Dream Focus 18:03, 24 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no depth of independent coverage to indicate that the topic meets WP:GNG, no indication that he meets WP:AUTHOR either. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd assert a documented sports journalism career spanning eight decades is extraordinary. Offline sources on this subject must be considerable. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, there are clearly a huge amount of offline sources. I'd imagine he wrote 800+ articles during his career, and quite possibly many many more than that. Unfortunately, many of the online archives of newspapers or what not that he worked for at best have articles ranging back only a few years before he retired. The bulk of his career is unarchived online, but there are a decent amount of remnants that I am still trying to uncover. User:Gordgus (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd point out that your assertion is completely irrelevant, both to my point and to the guidelines. Nor does your assertion necessitate your conclusion. He wrote a lot does not imply that a lot was written about him -- and it is the latter that we require, both for WP:Notability, and to write an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - His large amount of works imply that his job was writing. Having a full-time job writing typically means many people read is work, implying notability. That's kind of what I was getting at. Editors have also uncovered more things written about him, and the article looks like it's in much better condition.User:Gordgus (talk) 7:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment The difference between where we started and where we are is significant. I'd invite those who have previously looked at the page to re-browse the content and check sources. While originally created by an interested party as a WP:MEMORIAL, this subject now has the sources and the notability to remain in an encyclopedia, thanks to assistance with page rescue by the pagecreator and generous help from a user with whom I disagreed in another sports-related deletion process. In explaining why I held my beliefs, I found a kindred spirit in the editor with whom I disagreed. That's why I love this place; the two of us disagree on the merits, but we agree 100% on being and acting like Wikipedians. I'll continue to build and source the page as it evolves. And if it turns out that nice editor prevails in his assertion to keep there, I'll follow the page the editor defended as well. BusterD (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough here to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion. He appears to have been one of the pre-eminent sports writers in the US from the late 1940s through the 1970s. He is not a small-town or minor sports writer. The Sporting News published 246 of his works from 1947 to 1976. His work was regularly featured in Baseball Digest, the oldest, continuously publishing baseball magazine in the US, and he was also a correspondent for Sports Illustrated (the most prominent sports publication in the US) from its earliest days in the mid-1950s. His importance dates all the way back to 1930 when he broke the story of Bobby Jones' retirement and thus earned the nickname "Scoop." When he died in 2008, his life achievements were covered (at a minimum) in the Minneapolis newspaper, Sports Illustrated and the Princeton Alumni News. Cbl62 (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At this point there seems to be enough evidence that he satisfies GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This one is borderline in terms of sourcing, but I believe that the benefit to the encyclopedia of keeping the biography outweighs any potential benefit of making this go away. Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Those of you who hate my use of the "rule of reason" here may be referred to one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules. In other words, use common sense to make the encyclopedia better. Carrite (talk) 04:09, 31 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 21:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaline Tomowa[edit]

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

Literally two unremarkable results(including the own wiki page). I decided to do this instead of CSD since an admin in the past said that even "fake" notability mentioned in an article is enough to get by CSD. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- no independent coverage. Actually, no coverage. Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BIO. No sources found in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Hoaxy hoax. i kan reed (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. Redirects for this and similar terms (compelled arbitration, compulsory arbitration, etc.) might be a good idea to help prevent future POV fork creation. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory arbitration[edit]

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

This article is presently a blatant violation of WP:NPOV as an obviously negative essay on the subject, including choice passages like "individuals would be given a choice in the matter and would not be denied their constitutional right to access the courts and have a jury trial." It does not provide any positive details of arbitration as enumerated in court opinions and legal journals. Also, it cites no sources.

Relevant details are already covered at Arbitration, so I don't see the need of this article as a PoV fork. The Arbitration Fairness Act (in its various incarnations) could have its own article, but there is nothing to salvaged from this article. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that the Arbitration Fairness Act is already discussed at Arbitration in the United States#Arbitration Fairness Act. This would appear to be lifted from that section of the article, which would make this a content fork as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hate repeating User:Ihcoyc's points, but they're spot-on: this is a WP:POVFORK that is redundant to Arbitration in the United States. POV is a reason to correct, not to delete, but here, the subject is already properly treated in a nother article. TJRC (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, the use of adjectives such as "binding" and "mandatory" arbitration are a grammatical pet peeve of mine. Their uses are redundant and smack of Newspeak and weasel words. Arbitration is always mandatory, if it's in a contract. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is non-binding arbitration, which is really designed to give the parties an idea of how well they'd fare if they went into actual litigation or binding arbitration, to encourage settlement. As far as "mandatory" is concerned, I've seen agreements that include a provision that the parties will work together to settle disputes without resort to litigation, and including such suggested vehicles as mediation, arbitration, etc. And in some cases, arbitration is not mentioned in the agreement at all, and the parties decide to go to it as a less-expensive alternative to litigation. In such cases, arbitration is not mandatory. So the qualifiers don't bother me as much. Arbitration is the name for the process, which may or may not be either binding or mandatory. TJRC (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POVFORK. Also note that Arbitration in the United States contains a section on the proposed "Arbitration Fairness Act" which is substantially a copy of material in this article (and which suffers from the same POV problems). Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:41, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Custom Mary[edit]

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

Unreleased independent film by nonnotable producer. WP:CRYSTAL issues. v/r - T P 03:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and for the reasons cited at AfD/Matt Dunnerstick. A search of Google news, Google news archive, and other news databases turns up no significant coverage of the unreleased film. It does not appear to meet notability standards. Also, I note that, in the past 3 years, the only edits by the article's creator, "Coydecoy" (interesting name choice) relate to The Custom Mary and its producer Matt Dunnerstick. Possible WP:COI concern, but since WP:GNG is not met (and the WP:CRYSTAL issued raised by nom), delete is appropriate on those grounds. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too soon--better to have waited until there were actual reviews. I am not altogether sure that G11 as promotional might not apply here. Some of the links go to people of the same name who are not the actors, which is not a good sign. But Bill McKinney at least is a well established character actor, so if it is the same person, perhaps the film might even turn out to be notable in the end. DGG ( talk ) 23:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Okay with userfication back to author while he/we wait for the film to be screened and get some critical commentary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:35, 29 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 03:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dunnerstick[edit]

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

Minor producer. First movie isn't even released yet at an independent film festival. v/r - T P 03:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, my speedy deletion tag was removed. One credit to a movie that hasn't even been released yet is not notability. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag was a CSD A7. If you read WP:CSD, A7 does not require notability; it requires a claim of significance. One credit is a claim of significance and so this article must either be deleted via WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Please read WP:WIHSD (take no offense at the title, it's a good essay). Be sure to use A7 correctly in the future.--v/r - T P 13:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did use A7 correctly. Your reasoning is faulty. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search of Google news, Google news archive, and other news databases turns up no coverage of Mr. Dunnestick. He does not appear to meet notability standards. Also, I note that, in the past 3 years, the only edits by the article's creator, "Coydecoy" (interesting name choice) relate to Dunnerstick and his current film project. Possible WP:COI concern, but since notability is not met, delete is appropriate on that ground alone. Cbl62 (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but it is good for these to come to AfD, not speedy, because someone might actually be able to show something about notability. What was not good was to write the article this early; it would have been much better written after the film had premiered and there had been some reviews published--and even then, unless there was actually something else to be said about the director, the article about the film would have been enough. One article, not two. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of any notable sources. When I typed in "Matt Dinnerstick" in both Yahoo! and Google, all I found was his IMDb page. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against recreation if this movie is successful and/or (of course) if he's successful further down the road. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 29 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. -- Lear's Fool 02:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi)[edit]

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

Non-Notable historical site. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a historic site listed on the official List of Mississippi Landmarks. I am not familiar in detail with their exact standards, but the listing would have to be approved by documentation and a reasonably objective process, meeting Wikipedia notability standards. Tag the article for further development. But under-development is not reason for deletion. --do ncr am 02:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It maybe a notable historic site in Mississippi that's pretty much it. It does not meet the criteria of inclusion into Wikipedia. I did a search on Google and Yahoo and there are very limited articles or references about the Masonic Hall in Long Beach, Mississippi and in general does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For many places listed on the National Register, of which there are about 1300 listed in Mississippi, comparable to about 890 Mississippi state landmarks, you would also have trouble finding articles on the internet, and for these i know they are all wikipedia-notable, based on having passed through multiple levels of review against objective standards, and that documentation is available from the National Register upon request. For historic sites, particularly older ones, the formal documentation exists but is not online. There would be local and state newspaper coverage, and other coverage too. Your not finding a lot of info about it in a Google search online is not surprising. The Mississippi Landmarks article describes its review process briefly involving at least 2 levels of government judgment, consistent with Wikipedia notability. --do ncr am 03:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - revisit if article is not actually improved within a reasonable time. - This AfD highlights a broader problem with many of our articles on landmark buildings: We have hundreds of one sentence perma-stubs on landmark buildings, that consist of no information except the fact that the building is listed as a landmark. Whenever these stubs are sent to AfD, the mantra is the same... that documents that will substantiate notability exist somewhere with the land-marking agency. However, no one ever bothers to find these documents and supply a citation to them. This needs to change. Notability should not be based on the assumption of documentation, it needs to be based on actual documentation that can be verified and checked. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should change but that would entail a lot of Historical Societies putting all their records online or doing a Library Crawl. Both big tasks for a Stub. It would be a fair assumption that; if a building is listed, that a Offline Source does exist. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mississippi Landmarks. This entire article is only an elaboration of an entry on the list that is cited as the only article source, and everything in the article can and should be part of the Wikipedia list-article, which does not currently seem to include this building at all. If somebody gets more information some day, a separate article could be created, but at this time there's no purpose to a separate article. --Orlady (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If somebody gets more information some day, a separate article could be created ..." Since that "some day" is today :) , would you consider changing your "merge" to "keep"? Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a keeper now. Congrats on the research you did, Cbl62. And I see that Doncram has added it to the Mississippi landmarks list article. --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This one was a challenge and required forking over $2.95 for access to a Biloxi newspaper article, but it does tend to show that these officially designated historic sites will almost always meet notability standards, if we take the time to the time to dig in. Cbl62 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The designation as a state historical landmark indicates notability. If it's notable enough to be distinguished by the state of Mississippi, then it's notable enough for us.--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But does that justify having more extensive documentation of this building in Wikipedia than is available in the only cited source (from the state of Mississippi)? --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename - if the claim to Notability is its historical status, then that is the vein in which the Article should be titled. The Article can then be expanded to show its past and present uses, as well as highlighting its architectural notability. Redirects are cheap enough that this name can remain as such. (no comment on what the name should be.) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can/should indeed be expanded that way, to explain its notability and so on. I agree about Keeping it, don't see a need to rename it, but if a different common name of the place is found then indeed it could be appropriate. --do ncr am 22:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article already has more info (alternative names, address, listing year) than is included for any other item in the Mississippi Landmarks list-article. I just added coordinates and a map displaying the location, which a reader can drill down in on in Google maps view upon clicking on the coords. Deleting this article by merger to the list-article now would lose information, unless the list-article were upgraded to include all that for all entries. IMHO the short article is fine, and conveys properly to Mississippi locals or others that more information would be welcomed. No one is nominating this for one of Wikipedia's best works. --do ncr am 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it written that all entries in a list-article must be equally devoid of meaningful content, or that list entries must be identical to article names (e.g., "Masonic Hall (Long Beach, Mississippi)") instead of being piped to fit the context (e.g., "Masonic Hall, Long Beach"? --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Rename. The fact that the building passed the process to be designated as a Mississippi Landmark suffices IMO to establish the building's notability. I've added some additional information about its history and its current use. Since the original use of the structure was by Hancock County Bank and photographs of the building here and here show that the name "Hancock County Bank Building" is emblazoned in the stone work in the facade, that would probably be the most common usage and best naming for the article. ~~I find nothing on usage of the building as a Masonic Lodge, which is probably how it was used after the bank closed there in the 1930s.~~ Also, this source (the post-Katrina Long Beach Master Planbook) at page 4 refers to the building as the Hancock County Bank Building. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an established principal that every building listed individually on the National or State lists of Historic Landmarks is individually notable. Even if the article is a mere stub identifying it and giving a reference, it's still justifiable, because stubs can be expanded, and there is always for such buildings full 3rd party information available--though not yet always online. Furthermore, the present article is much more than a stub. the proper name of the article is a separate discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund[edit]

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

organization lacks significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most of the organization's activities were in the "Dark Ages" before online coverage became commonplace, in print publications which are no longer active (and therefore not archived online, either). Third-party sources that document its notability do exist in print, but require some offline information archaeology from comics-industry journals of the period to cite. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1987 is hardly the "dark ages". Many major newspapers have archives going back that far and much further in some cases. Even if online sources aren't available, print sources are fine as references as long as they are verifiable.--RadioFan (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Calgary Herald and The Calgary Sun do not have online archives, and you'll find events in provincial Canada during the 1980s poorly represented in the freely searchable news archives which do exist. Media coverage is verifiable, but requires spending time at the library. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A time-intensive trip to the library will be necessary to provide reliable 3rd party sources for this article, but they exist. Spidey104 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being sure that sources exist isn't the same as having verifiable sources. It sounds like the best outcome here might be userfying the article to give sufficient time to locate references. A solid claim to notability is necessary as well, which I'm not seeing there currently --RadioFan (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several verifiable sources have been added so far. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 11:56, 27 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 03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramey Ko[edit]

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

I do not think a substitute municipal judgeship is a notable position, and I see no other notability DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is a judge of a city-wide court, but WP:POLITICIAN requires at least a state-wide court for notability. I see he has some news coverage for being on the receiving end of Republican Rep. Betty Brown's 2009 remarks about Asian-Americans changing their names to suit American norms[17][18][19] (also this search indicates it made Chinese-language news), but this seems like a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN in both position and coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:47, 30 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 03:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E.S.Poyser and Sons[edit]

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

Delete per lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. No references indicated or citations provided. Unable to identify references for content. Article created by a descendant family member, so could be original research. Does not meet the general notability guidelines. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 01:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. Article is about a local chain of jewellery stores, a family operation predating WWI. A longstanding consumer business like that might have some kind of cultural resonance, but Google News and Books all draw blanks: one book result for "Poyser and Sons" (no news hits) from a guy who bought an antique watch with a trademark from there and mentions it in passing. If any reliable sources can be found I might be persuaded to change my mind. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable media coverage, I didn't see anything on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 21:07, 29 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. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhi Gang Sha[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable - lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources; most refs are self-published, others are entries for books in listings - no substantial content. The few remaining are not enough information to support an appropriate biographic article; it isn't neutral, and is somewhat promotional. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are reliable sources available, [20] from Wired, [21] from the Toronto Star (behind paywall), and [22] from St. Petersburg Times (behind paywall). I think there is marginally enough coverage to satisfy the notability guidelines. I do think that the article does have content issues, and uses the subject's website as a source inappropriately, but I think there is enough in the sources to make a more neutral article. Quasi human | Talk 12:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I stubbed the article and added in some reliable sources. As it stands now, the article is fully sourced and neutral. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Withdraw nomination - keep - WP:HEY, nice work; fine. Thanks, Chzz ► 06:10, 26 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 to Internet Explorer. Content should be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HyperText Template[edit]

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

Not notable, out of date by seven years, no indepent refs (Microsoft MSDN articles, Google search, and WP search are the refs), no inlinking articles. In one word "clutter". Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books search reveals it is mentioned in a few obscure textbooks (obscure in 2011 but I imagine obscure in 1997) for Windows Millenium and Windows Me. I still say clutter. Si Trew (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 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) 00:08, 18 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 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be an obsolete bit of Microsoft cruft, but seems reasonably informative. Being out of date, or being "clutter", do not strike me as policy based reasons to delete anything. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to contain unverifiable and possibly inaccurate information. Some coverage can be found in books about Windows, but not much, and if there is not much verifiable information it should be merged. There is some information in Windows Explorer#Windows 98 and Windows Desktop Update, but as it was included in other versions of Windows, a redirect to List of Windows components may be better. Peter E. James (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge Seems like a decently significant part of IE infrastructure, but if that is the case maybe it should be merged into some part of an IE-related article, in any case I found an article about it from a quick google search http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc302292.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.149.96 (talk) 07:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Windows Desktop Update. Peter E. James (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Internet Explorer. This stuff must be kept together ~~so that we can send it all efficiently down the drain when the time is right~~ (don't sue me, it was a joke) --DeVerm (talk) 22:52, 30 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 List of Pride Fighting events. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Bushido 4[edit]

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

another non notable kickboxing event. this article is merely a results page. 2 gnews hits one of them is MMA which isn't really third party. google just shows event listings. need more coverage than sherdog.com to demonstrate notability. Also nominating:

Pride Bushido 1
Pride Bushido 2
Pride Bushido 3
Pride Bushido 5 LibStar (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:22, 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) 00:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These events were held by Pride FC, the biggest promotion in the history of MMA and featured many notable fights. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2011

that is not a criterion for notability. Please provide evidence of third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I dislike articles like these that contain only match results. My difficulty in finding sources to improve the article stems from Pride being a Japanese MMA promotion that held events prior to MMA being popular and reported on by English-speaking media and websites. I was able to find a couple Yahoo Japan articles on Pride Busiho events [23][24]. However, Google is not serving well in translating those articles to something legible in English. I think that research in Japanese media will find more coverage of the events. That may require someone who is fluent in Japanese to be able to find material to improve the articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pride was certainly a notable organization, but I don't see anything in these articles to show these events are notable. These articles also lack good sources. Even the Japanese articles I found seem to be ordinary sports reports (of course I was using Google translations). 131.118.229.18 (talk) 14:41, 22 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 00:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The encyclopedia has a list of events put on by Pride Fighting Championships, the list is List of Pride Fighting events. There is also a footer template that lists them all at Template:Pride Events. A question for the nominator is: Why have these particular five bushido events been singled out for deletion? There are 13 Bushido events: do the other 8 bushido events have more notability? In any case, it would be nice if all 13 Bushido articles (they go up to Pride Bushido 13) were treated uniformly. Perhaps they could all be merged into a single article that covers all 13? --Noleander (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all 13 Pride Bushido events into one entry? Agreed. Mr JM 02:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The individual articles are nothing but fight results (not notable, I'd say). So you want to combine the results of several hundred fights into 1 giant list of fights? Astudent0 (talk) 16:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time, Pride FC was one of the most notable mixed martial arts promotions in the world and the most notable in Japan (the country where many combat sports originated). Currently, all Pride events have their own page. The notability of its major events are well established, and given the limited number of its minor events and the fact that the promotion is now defunct (so documenting future events isn't an issue), it doesn't make sense to me to delete an arbitrary handful of events - doing so would leave gaps in what is now a complete record on WP of this promotions history. What would be the point of deleting these few articles, which would ultimately leave five red links in a comprehensive template listing the nearly 70 events held by this promotion? It seems that the value of retaining these pages outweighs any value in deleting them, or trying to merge all 13 articles into a monster sized mess. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The notability of its major events are well established" i disagree, where is the evidence of indepth third party sources to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone familiar with the history of mixed martial arts competitions will note immediately just how silly that statement is. Thanks very much for the chuckle. :-) Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Pride Fighting events (which I'm glad to see was recently moved) as clearly failing WP:GNG by lacking diversity of sources. WP:ROUTINE sports event results by reputable Sherdog and a link to the promoter's site doesn't constitute significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Adding the meager sources from this page would improve the target significantly. All five fail WP:EVENT in every aspect. Sorry to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we've deleted dozens of like events this month which had better sourcing than these five. Any assertion about notability would better serve the pagespace by adding relevant citation to the page, instead of making sweeping statements NOT based on policy. There's nothing here to keep, even if closer made that assessment of consensus. BusterD (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Badly sourced BLP tips the balance. Courcelles 03:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reka Ebergenyi[edit]

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

Nomination following WP:Prod tag removal, article has no sources that show that this person meets the general notability guide. News search, book search. That policy states that article's subject must have "significant coverage", which "means that sources address the subject directly in detail." No sources found that do so, name appears a part of larger listing. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantive news coverage. Next to no runway work. She has a number of covers, but not on any particularly important magazines. One appearance in the Sport's Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and the VS fashion show is not enough. Given her age and her recent credits, her career is basically over. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think both a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and a Victoria's Secret Fashion Show is significant enough confer notability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:38, 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) 00:06, 18 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 00:24, 25 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wolk[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Yikes. A miserable stub that drastically needs expansion and sourcing. He wrote the 1992 John Landis film Innocent Blood, produced the Mark Webber directorial debut Explicit Ills, and both produced AND directed the You Think You Really Know Me: The Gary Wilson Story, so we may have a case for WP:CREATIVE's "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work." If his works have notability, that notability is, per guideline, his AS the creator of the works. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 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, 18 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 00:22, 25 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain View Cur[edit]

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

Not a notable cur: no reliable, secondary sources were found. Sites such as Dog Breed Info, Dog Breeds A-Z, and Sarah's Dogs are not suitable since they fail to meet the criteria for self-published sources; nothing whatsoever is stated about the authors of the pages -- not even their names -- or why, implicitly or explicitly, their information is valid and worth referencing in an encyclopedia article. This cur is also listed in a couple of books that provide no information about it. Anna ^talk 14:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now found several paragraphs coverage in a fairly obscure reliable source, Desmond Morris's Dogs: A Dictionary of Dog Breeds (covers more than 1,000 -- worth checking for notability!) The author lists a publication by David Osborn about squirrel hunting as his source, and although the book seems to be self-published, the author does qualify as a reliable source himself as a Wildlife Research Coordinator at the University of Georgia. As a result, the breed is probably notable, though marginally. If no one else comments on this please close it as defaulting to keep, as I'd like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks, Anna ^talk 15:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 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 00:22, 25 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 to Thanasis_Papakonstantinou#Discography. Only the infobox keeps this from being a CSD A3 candidate. Redirecting and deleting history. If somebody actually wants to write an article about this album we can revisit this issue. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agia Nostalgia[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:NALBUMS and the general notability guideline by not having any independent, reliable sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:57, 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) 00:01, 18 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 00:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. The article doesn't currently have any content whatsoever, other than an infobox. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:28, 28 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) 00:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DeGiorgis[edit]

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

An Assistant Professor, rather modest citability (particularly for an active field) in GScholar and WebofScience, h-index of about 7. Nothing else in the record indicates satisfying WP:PROF. Contested PROD. Nsk92 (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record too slim for WP:PROF#C1. The profile in the Boston Globe goes some way towards WP:GNG but I think on its own it is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A GS h index of 8 in a highly cited field. Too little, too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't find anything to sustain the article on both Yahoo! and Google. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 28 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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Farman Ali[edit]

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

Having trouble finding reliable, secondary sources on this Pakistani journalist, who seems like he's had a broad enough career that notability is possible, if it can be evidenced. Haven't found that evidence yet, however, aside from a passing mention [25], most of what I can find in the obvious searches turns out to be about Rao Farman Ali, which confuses matters a great deal. Additional sourcing welcome as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 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) 00:00, 18 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, 25 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 21:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alliances in the Bible[edit]

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

This article is essentially a list, although it doesn't call itself that. All it is is a list of various people in the Old Testament who, at one point or another, teamed up with some other people in the Old Testament.

Not a single word of it is about the concept of an alliance in the Bible; it is simply a collection of pretty arbitrary anecdotes. Therefore, despite the name, it is definitely a list, and I think that WP:INDISCRIMINATE tends to apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►condominium─╢ 08:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TreasuryTag, with the additional point that even if the article were about the actual concept, I can find no indication that the idea of alliances in the Bible is noteworthy. Yunshui (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the end there is a section on the importance of alliances to the ancient Jewish people. Not sure if this was added after the AfD was posted or not. Still this does seem to be a notable topic, not just a list of alliances. BigJim707 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Single (and, as it happens, irrelevant) hits on gnews, gscholar and gbooks (the last two seem to be the same source). I'll grant that Google is not the universal arbiter of notability, but I've done a few in-depth and fuzzy searches using Nielsen Bookdata as well - I can't find anything that anyone's written on this topic, making it non notable per WP:GNG. Yunshui (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article isn't in fantastic shape, but the source is actually the entry on "Alliances" in a Bible dictionary, so it's not an indiscriminate list of OR composed by a user. I think better, less superficial material could also be found. However, I'm open to being persuaded in the other direction. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 20 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has reasonable potential. See The military history of ancient Israel which presents the matter as regular military history. Warden (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is based upon a (close paraphrase) single outdated (thus itself most probably a primary text) text, that itself offers little beyond a selection from the contents of the original primary source (the Bible). Unlike Colonel Warden, I would question whether Richard A. Gabriel's (biblically literalist) Old Testament-as-history account is WP:RS. The strong academic consensus appears to be that the Jews were themselves Canaanites, that Solomon's empire did not exist (and that throughout that period the Jewish kingdoms were Egyptian, and later Assyrian, vassals) so an article covering aspects of the purported 'history' of this period would need to give WP:DUE weight to such views. I'm seeing little in either Google Books or Scholar to suggest coverage on this specific topic, so would suggest that a firmer foundation be found before an article on this (or a related) topic is constructed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a move to something like Israelite military alliances or maybe Military alliances of the Kingdom of Israel. something a bit broader. This source has some good coverage of the topic, and this looks promising (though I don't have JSTOR access). Qrsdogg (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and OR. Yoninah (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is room for an article on the general subject; there is probably sufficient written on the nature of the alliances between the Jewish people at various stages of their national development and other peoples. But this article is not a basis for it. It's much too crude and simplistic. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Content may be restored and merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplified swarm optimization[edit]

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

I was tempted to tag this for speedy as "no context" but I believe it is something in computer science. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Swarm_intelligence until it matures enough to stand on it's own like Particle_swarm_optimization --DeVerm (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep and clean up, or merge to Particle swarm optimization. The optimization algorithm described in this article appears to be a simplification of the particle swarm optimization algorithm, so it might be worthwhile to cover this subject within the PSO article. Maybe the original author of this article should be notified of this discussion and given the chance to edit it to give it some context. In fact, the original author should have been notified, regardless. WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT isn't really a good deletion reason. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are dozens of variants of PSO, most of them not very notable. I'll have to look closer into this on, but as WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT isn't a very good reason for deletion, it shouldn't be a very good reason to keep either. —Ruud 22:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable variation of Particle swarm optimization (PSO). Of the 5 references, only one relates to the subject, and it's an unrefereed and uncited report. There has indeed also been a 2011 journal paper by Yeh, but it has not yet been cited at all, so there is no indication that this variation of PSO is notable. In addition, the term "Simplified Swarm Optimization" also appears in a number of publications by Noorhaniza Wahid, but in those cases it refers to a different method of the same name, which makes this a poor article title. -- 202.124.74.243 (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would the IP care to elaborate on these (incorrect afaik) statements? You first say that only one of the 5 references relates to the subject, only to follow up explaining that others are also related but you don't like them?! I just read through the linked reference from Kennedy and Eberhart and it is about this article, no matter how they call it (mostly "simplified version" etc.) Also, I do not follow your requirements for reports... it sounds like you only accept reports from scientists when they have references for their findings? Would be history instead of science imho. --DeVerm (talk) 15:03, 24 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he means is that 4 of the references are about Particle swarm optimizations in general and were published many years prior to Yehs. Looking at the dates of the publications, I would have to agree. The only reference I see that is directly related was the one published by the author. That isn't to say that subject couldn't eventually become notable, but I can't find any other 3rd party work citing this work or any website/conference/journal/etc that mention the paper besides Wikipedia and http://ieemweb.ie.nthu.edu.tw/project/index.php?num=7 (which appears to be the university page where Yeh attends or attended). snaphat (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one reference is directly related to the article in question. The other 4 are related to Particle swarm optimizations in general and were published many years before the variant in question existed. Moreover, The one citation that is directly related is from the author and is simply a research grant proposal title with no information. The citation is written such that it looks like a report, but is simply taking the funding duration for the project and using that as the dates mentioned. See http://ieemweb.ie.nthu.edu.tw/project/index.php?num=7 . If anyone has access to the report mentioned or can verify its existence do share as I cannot find any 3rd party information or even verify the content of the article without a primary/secondary/tertiary source. snaphat (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I understand that he looked at the title of the documents. I have actually read them and found descriptions of the simplified form inside. Sources do not require a title that is an exact match... they require to have the matching content described in detail, but it does NOT need to be the main subject. --DeVerm (talk) 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The sources you refer to were written prior to the simplified forms existence according to what the article states. So either the article is incorrect or something else is up. I will check the sources myself tomorrow. snaphat (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes these dates are suspect. I appreciate it that you check the sources too, tnx. --DeVerm (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I took a look at each reference and none are specifically related to SSO. They contain algorithms similar to the one mentioned in the article, but do NOT contain the one mentioned in the article. As for what the references contain:

Reference 2 - formulates the PSO method.
Reference 3 - formulates a version of PSO that works on descrete binary variables (DPSO).
Reference 4 - is simply an emperical study of the performance of the PSO method.
Reference 5 - is a book on the subject of particle swarms in general.

The SSO of the article is a variant of the DPSO mentioned in reference 3. Essentially, the original DPSO is simply a a modification for the PSO to work in discrete ranges. The SSO introduces a special update mechanism for the particle position that doesn't exist in the original DPSO (the original is simply the particle position + particle velocity = particle position in next time step). Other than that, the procedure for computation is the same. Basically, there are many variants based on that first DPSO paper and there is nothing that makes this particular variant notable as per WP:N. snaphat (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone does find an additional independent source. —Ruud 09:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a description of a personal variant of an algorithm. The text is enough to move me to interpretive dance: The best fitness function value of a specified solution with its own history is called pBest and the solution with the best fitness function value among all solutions is called gBest; both are adapted from PSO. The major difference among all soft computing methods is the UM. The fundamental concept of SSO is that each selected variable value may be generated from the current solution, pBest, gBest, or a random number according to specifics in SSO. The UM of SSO is based upon the following simple mathematically model after Cw, Cp, and Cg are defined. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing as the SSO was devised in 2009 and the other reference all predate that. One technical report does not a notable article make.--Salix (talk): 07:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Like everyone else here I agree that this article doesn't stand up to WP:N, hence the reason I did not go for keeping it. But I do not understand why it should be deleted instead of merged into it's parent article because imho it's clear that this isn't a hoax, as it's clear to most editors that vote to delete here too. I do think that it can be merged into a section of Particle_swarm_optimization --DeVerm (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Now the algorithm may well be an improvement to the PSO or it may not. I'm not qualified to judge. Indeed we only have the authors word that it is better as the technical report has not been peer reviewed which would offers at least a basic check. Further as there are no citations no one else in the academic community has looked at the algorithm. So we are suggesting adding an untested algorithm to PSO article. Potentially this could have serious consequences as we essentially give our recommendation to the algorithm and if it were to turn out to have a serious bug some third party could be badly affected. --Salix (talk): 13:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, besides not having any outside references, there isn't enough new information about this to warrant putting it on the PSO page. The only thing new about it is the method to choose the position. DPSOs in general are more notable and those aren't mentioned either. snaphat (talk) 14:05, 27 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 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -65 kg[edit]

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

also nominating:

Women's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -60 kg
Women's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -55 kg
Women's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -50 kg
Women's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +70 kg
Women's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -70 kg

another sprawling series of sporting results of a non notable sporting event. women's kickboxing struggles to get any third party coverage. these dismally fail WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sport result articles are highly annoying; last I checked, we were an encyclopedia, not a compendium of sports trivia. There's no plausible reason to have these articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 18 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are over 40 of such articles , all linked to from this main page: W.A.K.O._European_Championships_2006_(Skopje) with a "details" hyperlink. Clearly too much, with some of these individual events having only 4 participants. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:ROUTINE. Only independent sources are blogs, so don't meet WP:IRS. BusterD (talk) 19:57, 29 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. Consensus is that the coverage of the monsters is not significant enough for them to merit an article. Sandstein 06:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Silent Hill monsters[edit]

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

Not notable (not enough coverage by third-party reliable sources). Golden Sugarplum (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Golden Sugarplum (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Just from looking through the Silent Hill 2 reviews, I noticed that nearly every reviewer comments on the monsters; it's probably the same for all the other SH reviews. That alone covers third-party notability. There's also ample development info about the monsters (symbolism, creation, etc) from Team Silent floating around. The article itself just needs some work to reflect that. Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. But the article needs tons of general fixes, it contains tons of original research it's largely written like a game guide. It's like a wikia. Let's wait to see what others say about it. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 19:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that it needs some work—some meaning a massive clean-up—but the sources are all there. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 18 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not enough coverage of reception and/or significance, violating WP:NOT#PLOT. Also, Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. A concise summary of the enemies is suitable, but a comprehensive list of monsters is not. (Keeping in mind that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, if only until they're nominated for AFD too.) Shooterwalker (talk) 00:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is not SIGNIFICANT coverage in third party sources. For why there can appear to be many, many sources when there really are nothing belong catalog-type entries, see my essay wp:OOUOnly — Preceding unsigned comment added by HominidMachinae (talk • contribs) 06:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm inclined to think "Silent Hill monsters" could pass WP:GNG. But this is an unnecessary WP:CFORK right now and with the amount of sources could be easily covered in the respective articles. The minor mobs are not notable, only a few bosses are worth a mention (and Pyramid Head already has an article). There is little to no real-world impact. The article is practically useless to a general reader and is currently a list of trivia bordering OR. I'll echo Shooterwalker that OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in fact, ALOTOFOTHERCRAPEXISTS. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we are going to have a well-sourced article on "Silent Hill monsters" with the sources below, then this should be Silent Hill monsters, and not "List of...". We don't need a list or monsters, we need development, design, reception, impact, critical commentary. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but if there were to be such an article the appropriate name would be "Monsters of Silent Hill". The development-design of the SH2 monsters can be adequately covered by the making-of DVD included with the European release of SH2 and Lost Memories, an official guide book by Konami which contains info on SH1, SH2, and SH3. The development-design of the SH1 and SH3 monsters can be covered by Lost Memories, but I'm not sure this is enough coverage. Check this translation of it and judge (it's unofficial, but this isn't against the rules of Wikipedia, we've used this translation for SH articles). The development-design of the SH4, SH:O, SH:H and SH:SM monsters I have no idea if there are reliable sources for them. For the impact and critical commentary of all the SH monsters in general (except SH2's, for the reception of which multiple links have been provided below) I, too, don't know if there are reliable sources to cover them. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever name is suitable best. I'm not against moving this to Monsters of Silent Hill, as long as all the trivial mobs/bosses are dropped and proper real-world related info (development/reception) is included. But as it stands now, this article is not about monsters per se, but about listing every one of them. It's gameplay trivia. The few referenced facts can also be easily covered in the parent articles. Until someone writes up enough material for a stand-alone article, we don't need content forking. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A model to base it on could be Covenant (Halo); it contains design, reception, and tie-in merchandise, with the individual monsters briefly mentioned in the "Species" sub-section of the "Appearances" greater section and individual characteristics of each monster also briefly mentioned without the article being like a game guide or wikia. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kaguya-chan said that almost all reviewers comment on the monsters and that that alone is enough third-party coverage. I strongly recommend we first see reviews to see if they cover the subject in depth, before any decision is made. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes (for the SH2 ones anyhow): "Many, if not all, are disturbing on a subconscious as well as visual level, making this a game that's definitely not for kids (even though it's been toned down since earlier work-in-progress versions)." & "Take, for example, the monster design. Rather than having your run-of-the-mill zombies or ghouls dripping blood from their fangs, the first creature you'll encounter looks vaguely like a person sealed up in a head-to-toe plastic bag." & "The game's creepy monsters are one of Silent Hill 2's real strengths... There aren't many different creatures in Silent Hill 2, but the few that are there are unique and add to the general atmosphere." There's also "with bizarre, twisted, slimy and deformed creatures shambling around to provide the all-important horror element." & "The monsters are extremely original and do an excellent job continuing the creepiness" in addition to a piece by Gamasutra's news director: Alexander, Leigh (2007-07-19). "Column: The Aberrant Gamer - 'Sundering the Mind'". GameSetWatch. & a piece in the print-on-demand book: Rusch, Doris C. (2009-03-10). "Staring Into The Abyss – A Close Reading of Silent Hill 2". Well Played 1.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning. ETC-Press.—considered an RS by the Video Game project. There is also the making-of documentary included with the European release of SH2 that covers the creation of the SH2 monsters. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the SH 3 set: "And not just your hulking, Doom-style video game monsters, either, but really icky, nasty-looking ones that your eye can't quite categorize. Silent Hill 3 creature designer Ito Masahiro must have some really juicy nightmares." & The monster design follows very much in line with the other games in the series."&"Each enemy is rendered with an equally high level of detail, and they are animated in an unworldly, unsettlingly horrific manner."&"We're not sure quite why or how this formerly sleepy town manages to mutate its former occupants in such bizarre ways, or what they're doing hanging around in darkened corners, but there they are, groaning away in the darkness again, scaring us half to death." Not nearly as much as SH2. Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more for the reception of the SH3 monsters: "The music score and sound effects have once again been crafted by Konami's talented Akira Yamaoka while the disturbing monster designs are the work of Konami's Masahiro Ito". For the reception of the SH1 monsters: "That's not to say that the monster design is under par though. In fact, there was one species in particular - a shaggy man-thing that barks and sets after you on all fours - that sent a chill up the back of my neck every time I saw one" and "But Resident Evil did some things better. The enemies in Silent Hill are all sort of pinkish and don't move very well. The settings and the mood are actually scarier than the creatures themselves." ... "uninspired monsters". For the reception of the SH4 monsters: "Speaking of the enemy, the series is well known for its down-right disturbing creatures and The Room is no exception" ... "Both the enemy and human characters are extremely well designed", "In the mean time, Konami does a pretty good job of scaring you with surreal circumstances, unexplainable deaths, and a series of undead creatures of obscure origins", "Also, several of the creature sounds are just wrong. In the hospital (yes, there is yet another hospital), you'll meet several giant Amazon women who have giant foreheads and carry axes. They burp when you smack them. No, really. Burp. They also make the funniest sound when you kill them off, like an old woman yelping after realizing she's stepped in dog poop. Lovely. These she-beasts transform from being incredibly intimidating to the silliest character in the game. Um, who gave that sound effect the green light?", and "The ambient and creature sound effects are often very important to horror games as well, and the sound in Silent Hill 4 is great, for the most part. Creatures all have their own distinct calls, footfalls, and death rattles". This includes a SH1 monster, a SH2 monster, and a Homecoming monster: "Gaming's freakiest monsters: A biological study" (page 2); this includes two Homecoming monsters: "Gaming's freakiest monsters: A biological study" (page 3). For the "Merchandise" section: "Silent Hill resin statues bring the creeps home for Christmas" and "Would you spend hundreds on a figurine?". Golden Sugarplum (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as violating what Wikipedia is not. (Not a directory, not a plot summary, etc.) There might be some good data that gives complements to the art in this game in general, and it's better to add that to the main article than to use it as a reason to list every possible monster. Dzlife (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFaqs --Djohns21 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's plenty of coverage of the monsters, which shows that reliable third-party sources exist. If you'll excuse me sounding like Mulder and Scully, the sources are out there. The monsters are a major topic of coverage whenever this is reviewed, so this is a legitimate topic for a standalone list.

In what I will call the Silent Hill Dispute, Wikipedians disagree over whether an article should be deleted if the article does not establish notability, or whether it should only be deleted if no sources to prove notability exist. I tend to fall into the latter camp. The article may be in bad shape now, but the topic is legitimate, and so I would not say that an article/list by this title should not exist. We do have such articles as List of My Little Pony characters, so if this is simply made into a character list with appropriate sourcing rather than a game guide, this can become a good list. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belonging to the second camp too, I agree that there are people who seem to approve deletion just because it's wrongly written, but I don't agree that the word "list" should be kept in the title if the article doesn't get deleted. The article's purpose isn't to just list the monsters, but inform people about them. "Monsters of Silent Hill" or "Monsters in the Silent Hill series" accurately reflects the article's purpose. The fact that "list" is included in the titles of many character articles doesn't mean it's correct; many mistakes are common in Wikipedia. About notability, I'm 100% sure about SH2's monsters (design is adequately covered by first-party sources, the making-of DVD and Lost Memories, and reception is adequately covered by different third-party sources) and 25% sure about SH1 and SH3 monsters (design covered by the first-party source Lost Memories, but I don't know if it's enough, and for reception I don't know if there's enough third-party coverage); for the monsters from other games I don't know too if their design and reception are adequately covered. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've transwikied this page to StrategyWiki:Silent Hill/Monsters (with full history). The page will likely be split up for each guide on each game, but the information will be available if users want more details. -- Prod (Talk) 20:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content fork + fancruft Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to ask people who intend to vote here to first take a look at the sources provided above. I'm searching for more. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CFORK. While there is reception enough it is in relation to the game, and not the monsters themselves. The quotes above should be used to further expand the respective game's receptions. I see plenty of coverage, but nothing significant -- just bit-and-pieces quotes. --Teancum (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the sources provided do not comment on the game, but on the monsters or the monsters' design, in some instances; carefully examine their exact wording and you will see it for yourself. The fact that they are bit-and-pieces quotes does not lower their quality; a quote is more than enough to indicate if the opinion of the source's writer is positive, negative or so-so. We should wait until sources for the reception of the monsters from the remaining games are provided, as well as wait to see if more sources for the design exist, before we make any conclusions. The "Merchandise" section is already covered. I can tell that the number of the reception sources will be very large, so a very large collage of quotes will be the material for the "Reception" section. I've only searched 4 or 5 sites to find these, imagine what I will find if I search all the reliable video game sources. The problem is finding sources for the design of the SH4, Origins, Homecoming, and Shattered Memories monsters and something more for the SH1 and SH3 monster design. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 03:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acres of Dead Space Cadets[edit]

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

Non notable album by band with little notability, also unreffed. Benny Digital ^{Speak Your Brains} 12:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 18 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one source (and of uncertain quality); album evidently didn't make any national charts or honours; thus fails WP:NALBUMS. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 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. Merging may be an option. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lowe Bucharest[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this particular subsidiary of Lowe Worldwide meets the WP:CORP standards. It's a nice piece of advertising by a possible employee, but not an encyclopedic topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an artciel about Lowe's expansion in Romania and it does meet the WP:CORP standards. This is not advertising, the article mentiones sources and cold data. There is no direct or indirect advertisement and it builds on the same structure as pages written for other local subsidiaries of Lowe. Through Lowe, the Romanian market opened for advertising, after the communistic regime, lowe was one of the pioneers. This is important, encyclopedially and also business wise. - Kundahala ^Talk 11:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" used are rather thin: a few routine reports about profits and acquisitions that never normally attract notice from this encyclopedia. And the one vaguely notable-sounding claim, that this was "one of the first advertising agencies in Romania", is both uncited and easily disprovable. The first advertising agency in Romania was that of David Adania, established in 1880 — a full 113 years before Lowe Bucharest. Moreover, there were numerous ad agencies in Romania following World War I. It wasn't even the first Romanian ad agency after the fall of Communism; that was Centrade in 1990. So I really don't see any particular claim to notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it should be saying is was one of the first adv. agencies after the fall of communism, I will change that. Regarding your claims for notability, I think maybe you are confusing notability with universality. This is a page about Lowe Bucharest and the notability of the information should be compared against this objective, not against a larger one. Same goes for already existing articles about other offices of Lowe in other countries such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowe_Lintas or this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowe_Roche. And the examples can go on. They surely meet the WP:CORP or else they wouldn't be existing there. As with the info about the other offices, which alredy have a short and comprehensive description, this page should too. Of course it can be improved. I plan to add more info about notable campaigns done by Lowe in Romania. However, one cannot do that if the page is deleted. So maybe, instead of suggesting deletion, you might suggest how to improve it, it seems more constructive. Thank you - Kundahala ^Talk 10:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... And just one more thing. I see you commenting upon my sources: Holmes Report and PR Week are m&a internationally known and respected publications. If they are "thin" then maybe rri.ro, a website which only locals know is also thin? - Kundahala ^Talk 10:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX: yes, we have other articles about Lowe branches, but those are also quite spammy, and the fact that they haven't been nominated for deletion doesn't indicate they should be there.

My point was not that publications like PRWeek are unreliable. It's that not everything they publish is necessarily in-depth coverage. (This is true of any magazine of newspaper, no matter how respected or circulated.) What you've cited as sources are routine news briefs that this encyclopedia never normally bothers to notice. That's the sense in which the sourcing is thin.

I won't say how I found this out, but it's pretty clear the article creator has a conflict of interest. For the benefit of other participants here, she should, as "strongly encouraged" by our policy, disclose whether that's the case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite clear from the affiliations that this is a major agency. Regardless of who wrote it, the article does not appear promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point isn't what "affiliations" this branch has. It's if it's been "the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (emphasis added). I'd say the coverage goes no further than the routine. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lowe Worldwide. Same probably true of the articles about the other subsidiaries. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:21, 24 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 26 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. Though I'm completely disregarding the second delete !vote, this is a poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Marcus[edit]

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

Article was deprodded by article creator without making any change sto address the concern that it appears to fail WP:FILMMAKER. I have attempted to locate any evidence that Dan Marcus is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, that he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, that he has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I could not locate enough evidence to pass WP:GNG either. It appears this may be too early to have an article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any evidence that any of this filmmaker's films have received noticeable distribution yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally know Dan Marcus and refute his credentials. 07:33, 25 July 2011 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.80.33.130 (talk) — 216.80.33.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 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 Steroid Maximus. Courcelles 03:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gondwanaland (album)[edit]

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

This article was previously proposed for deletion and the prod tag was removed and replaced with three sources. One of these sources is hosted on Foetus.org, a website run by the album artist, and therefore the only indication that this source is a secondary source is derived from a primary source. Another of the three sources does not even mention the album in question. A further search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 16:33, 18 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} 16:44, 18 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge to Steroid Maximus. Clearly notable artist, and this and the other SM albums were reviewed in the music press when they came out. Much of this coverage is offline. It may be best to merge both this and the other album article to the group article.--Michig (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michig. --Noleander (talk) 21:57, 25 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) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Style Guide[edit]

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

Tagged for notability in October 2010, but still no indication of independent coverage. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 18 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant independent coverage of this book by secondary sources. --Noleander (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indicia of notabilityCurb Chain (talk) 11:42, 26 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 03:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kahn[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines and is likely an promotional "autobiography" of a non-notable individual. There is one main contributor to the article, who I believe is its subject and thus holds a conflict of interest. He is also the one who created the article in the first place. He removed the ProD tag that I placed there earlier this month, apparently before admin could examine the article for deletion. ask123 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article from JazzTimes and this article from Atlantic Weekly appear to be independent and cover the subject in-depth. This brief description of his concert series also seems legitimate. I agree the current article is needs to be cleaned up, but these sources seem to be suitable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, I saw the Jazz Times article -- the only source of the bunch that even approaches suitability (the rest are blogs and user-contributed sites) -- but the information contained in is mostly non-notable, like him being an occasional performer in Jazz club shows in Philadelphia and his having played music since childhood. The only potentially notable piece of info is the mention his "writing and producing" Karen Young's Hot Shot. However, even that bit is found nowhere else except the blogs and other user-contributed websites that he has conveniently provided. Moreover, I suspect that that piece of info entered the Jazz Times article because Andy Kahn told it to the writer, not because it was actually investigated. I actually see no clear evidence that he wrote or produced the song and think that he is either creating his own history or, if not, needs better sourcing to prove notability. ask123 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that Andy Kahn simply "told it to the writer" and that the info in the JazzTimes article was "not investigated?" I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Atlantic Weekly is not simply a blog, and it contains a typical staff and independent editors like any news source. The content is not user generated. Please read here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jethrobot, yes I saw the Atlantic City Weekly article. It covers Kahn's recital at the Ocean Club Condominiums apartment complex in A.C, NJ. Respectfully, if that is grounds for notability, then every guy playing a piano in a retirement community in South Florida should have a Wikipedia page too. This and also the Jazz Times article describe an interior design consultant and part-time piano player with a deep love of music. In each of them, there is a one sentence mention that Kahn "produced" and "wrote" a dance song in the 70s. Did they make a call to West End Records to verify? I don't know. But what I do know is that ACW is the most local of community zines. It pubishes non-notable stuff and word-of-mouth every week of the year. For whatever reason, it decided to cover Kahn's recital at the condominium -- maybe Kahn phoned the magazine or maybe the condo wanted to get its name in the paper -- and I'm sure that after hearing Kahn wax nostalgic about Hot Shot, that bit made its way into the article too, in the form of a 1 sentence mention. I'm suggesting this because I wasn't born yesterday...and, also, I worked in publishing for years. Writers make judgements. It happens all the time, especially in ultra-small papers. You may see this as just an accusation, but I'm just illustrating the dearth of sourcing that exists here. You must take a common sense approach. It's a lot of word of mouth and assumption and 2 extremely small publications. I see little to lead me to believe that the information on Andy Kahn on the internet didn't come from Andy Kahn himself. Of course, this aside, assuming these 2 sources are 100% reliable, then maybe you can make the case that his work on Hot Shot offers notability, although I can't say with certainty what is true role in the creation of the song was. Was he the main writer or is he an uncredited writer who made a line-change. Did he produce the work or was he an audio engineer. I just can't be sure about any of it given the information that exists. But, if you give the benefit of the doubt to all of this uncertainty, then we're talking about a one, maybe two sentence article on the guy. That's all that's includable. I know that many articles start off as stubs and grow into beautiful oak trees, but unless Kahn suddenly gets a big break, I think this will remain a 1 sentence article forever. Respectfully, ask123 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin - This AFD was malformed. The article did not have an AFD notice on it. I have just added the notice and the listing period should be extended accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Jazz Times article noted above is a reliable source and contributes to establish notability. The Atlantic Weekly is a reliable sources but as a local guide, contributes less strongly to establishing notability. However, he is the composer of a hit song sharing credit with one other person as noted in the ASCAP entry. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, WHpq. If the results indicate "keep," then I will edit out non-notable information accordingly. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 15:53, 20 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appears to meet the WP:GNG, I've trimmed back the unsourced stuff on his article and cited a couple sources that have been mentioned here. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - But only barely meets notability requirements. I could go either way on this one. --Noleander (talk) 22:00, 25 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 03:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SSD (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable local band, no notable members. Band released only two albums other than on its own ephemeral label, each on minor indie labels. No evidence that it meets any of the criteria of WP:BAND, the article's been tagged for being unsourced for nearly three years, and the article's BEEN unsourced for over SEVEN years. The previous nomination is a six year old VfD apparently based around a misunderstanding concerning redirects. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 21:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added (easily found) sources. The band is obviously notable and meets several criteria of WP:BAND. The albums released on labels other than its own were on Homestead Records and Taang!, neither of which is a "minor indie label". --Michig (talk) 06:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Non-notable local band, no notable members." - You're being so ignorant. If you knew anything about American Hardcore I'd knew how influential this band is. Here you are http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ssd-p14363. Local band.... Damn! Who do you think you are to judge which band is local?! SSD are all over this film http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Hardcore_%28film%29 http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/membre_groupe/photo/Ben_Shepherd-12792.jpg -> Maybe Ben Sheperd form VERY sourced and NON-local band didn't have clue what SSD was and why he was wearing their shirt? Think about it... Vaultsuit (talk) 13:56, 21 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig's sources. Note to Vaultsuit: Calling other editors ignorant, saying "if you knew anything about x," swearing, or providing pictures of someone wearing their t-shirt is never helpful in AfD arguments, and doesn't help your case. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:10, 25 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 to List of Professor Layton media. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Layton and the Illusory Forest[edit]

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

This page is now five months old. However, nearly all data present on the page can also be found at List of Professor Layton media, and adding onto the lack of information is the fact that the book doesn't really meet WP:NBOOK. I can see no real reason to keep it. Hammerbrodude (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 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, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't see why we need to go through and AFD here when there is already a logical place that already has the info and that could have been done much quicker than this.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:RS, WP:INDY, and WP:NBOOK. The image might or might not be worth moving to List of Professor Layton media, pending a review of the individual articles for the other items in said list (and possible selection of a limited number of images from said articles to be moved to the list article). Note that if the image is moved, its "non-free media use rationale" info will need to be updated accordingly. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:05, 26 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.