Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 12

< 11 June	13 June >

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 delete under criteria G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This is "substantially identical" to the article as originally discussed and deleted, and is not only not an improved version, but is actually worse in terms of formatting and completeness. Moreover, the consensus to delete at the first nomination was not because the original article was in poor condition, but because it was not the proper title, because it duplicated other articles, because the time period was arbititary, and so forth. Because of this the recreation of the article may be speedied under G4. Neutrality^talk 22:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality^talk 22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest natural disasters from 2000 to 2011[edit]

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

This article was deleted earlier today and was recently recreated by a new user. The reasoning for deleting this remains unchanged (see previous deletion discussion). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious reasons. Consensus clearly was against this article's existence, and while the new article may not be similar enough to the old one to be a candidate for WP:CSD G4, it should still be deleted. Bstbll (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuwarmon and Tyutyumon[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:NOTE. While the individual character names are a likely search term for the character list, combined like this, they are not. —Farix (t | c) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe context or notability, no reliable sources. --Crusio (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went ahead and redirected the possible search terms Tuwarmon, and Tyutyumon to the character list, delete per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks reliable sourcing to meet notability. Truthsort (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. No evidence that the fictional characters meet the general notability guideline and that their article can be anything other that a plot-only description of a fictional work. As pointed out by nominator, together they are not a plausible search term, so a redirect is not a justified option. Jfgslo (talk) 01:30, 16 June 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 Kurdistan Workers' Party. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and organizations that list the Kurdistan Workers' Party as a terrorist group[edit]

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

It's a list and WP:NPOV. Could also be merged to Kurdistan Workers' Party. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kurdistan Workers' Party. This doesn't need to be a separate article. The main content is only 30 words long. That's not even as many words as this "merge" recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the reasons just given. Rupert Clayton (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge makes sense here, no real reason to have a separate article here given the size. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow merge. Per the above. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 15 June 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) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Willoughby, 9th Baron Willoughby of Parham[edit]

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

An inherited title does not make someone notable. No own achievements. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now-centric nomination, that would have been laughed out of court by 17th century wikipedians. He was a member of the legislature of what was probably at the time the second most powerful state on the planet. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it is now the 21st centrury. And he was only a few months a baron... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the same grounds as for the 8th baron. --AJHingston (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand the significance of aristocracy. But I don't think that a single aristocrat is automatically significant and notable. He/she should have achieved something significant on his/het own merits 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep Being a member of the House of Lords, a national governing institution, is a notable achievement, even if achieved only as an accident of birth. Mellie107 (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with you. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Members of national legislatures are notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep The details of each Baron come forward over time, the article is a stub that can be expanded. The Barons Willoughby of Parham were powerful, there were 17 of them and they played a role in both national and local history.

--PL.-Snr (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Member of a national legislature. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 17 June 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) 02:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Willoughby, 8th Baron Willoughby of Parham[edit]

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

Inheriting a title does not make someone notable. No own achievements. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now-centric nomination, that would have been laughed out of court by 17th century wikipedians. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always notable Nominator shows a complete lack of understanding of the historical significance of the aristocracy. --AJHingston (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand the significance of aristocracy. But I don't think that a single aristocrat is automatically significant and notable. He/she should have achieved something significant on his/het own merits. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a member of the House of Lords, a national governing institution, is a notable achievement, even if achieved only as an accident of birth. Mellie107 (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with you. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Member of a national legislature. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnet[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable website. Has 6 references. 2 are to the website itself (not independent). 4 make no reference of the website (they're articles used by the website and used as references to show that the website uses them) (not significant coverage). A Google News search] produces no results and a Google News Archive search either produces non-reliable sources or articles about RPG some sort of .NET launch of whole or partial migration of RPG applications (I have no idea what that means other than it doesn't have to do with the subject of the article). OlYeller^Talktome 19:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This website has a sizable forum. As you can see on the talk page, several users of the website have demanded that their opinion be left on the talk page and threatened to revert my removals per WP:FORUM as vandalism. I fully expect several new anons to come to this discussion to vote. OlYeller^Talktome 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - Don't think it should be deleted at this time. Ol yeller is moving too fast and aggressively IMO. Within the gaming community it is notable (as are EN World, Pen and Paper Games, and THERPGSITE among others). RPGnet is probably the foremost site for table top rpg reviews. However there is considerable debate over the website because of its moderation policies and because of a perception that there is a heavy liberal bias on some of its subforums.

The problem is it is a gaming website and the gaming community is small enough that any relevant news will appear on online blogs, online rpgnews sites, forum news features, etc. As a gamer I believe things relevant to the hobby are notable enough (and that our community is sizeable enough) to have wiki articles on them. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Yeller: no one demanded anything of you. You went ahead and deleted legitimate posts that were part of a discussion about the political composition of the forum. You did so more than once. When you were challenged you used wikipolicy as bludgeons for removing the sort of content that is on virtually any wiki article discussion page (and it appeared to be done with the intent to derail the discussion). Please stop acting like a mod. You are an editor. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also a single google search seems like an early way to conclude something isn't notable. Have you checked the gaming trade magazines, game magazines, etc? Did you do a search of the kobold monthlies? Have you bothered to examine Knights of the Dinner Table? There are a number of gaming news sources out there (in print) that you won't find searchable on google. Google is not the final word in these matters. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 98.110.177.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - As this new user isn't familiar with AfD format, I've added a "Keep" !vote before their comments. If the user or anyone else feels that "Keep" does not represent their !vote, please feel free to change it. It should also be noted that the anon is an SPA account. OlYeller^Talktome 23:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 98.110.177.20 - Your opinion that the subject is notable isn't backed up by any reliable sources; only your own opinion (see WP:OR). The problem you pointed out isn't a reason to include the opinion of non-reliable sources; it's a reason why the article doesn't belong on WP. Yes, you're correct, no one demanded anything of me. I edit Wikipedia because I enjoy improving the project. I removed the comments from the talk page because it was becoming a WP:FORUM for you and others to state your opinion on the subject of the article and not the article itself. Also note that I've written a lengthy description of why it should be removed on the talk page and the only counterarguments you've presented is that the subject is so small, no one knows about it. I've already commented on the single Google search you mention above and suggested that you provide a reliable sources which have still failed to do. I haven't checked gaming trade magazines or game magazines (I'm not even sure there's a difference) but I have checked the most widely used new aggregator on the planet and discussed the results above. Are you saying that Google isn't able to produce a single article that's found in other reliable sources? You're right that Google isn't the final word on these matters but if sources are so abundant, please provide a few for this discussion. OlYeller^Talktome 23:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please don't edit my posts for me thank you. I believe you are engaged in bully editing at this point. I provided a number of possible sources rpgnet appears in. I also think we need to establish what online sources are admissable, because there are plenty of online rpg news sites as well (and they rarely come up on google news search. Any good researcher knows google has serious limitations. I suggest we take more time to collect sources and attract interested editors rather than steamrolling ahead. There is no need to rush on this article.98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting your response was a courtesy for you and other editors. I'm not sure how I've bullied and I'm sure you won't be able to prove such. I don't appreciate the personal attack but I'm guessing you feel bullied because I've countered every argument you've made and backed up my arguments with WP policy. You're new to WP so it won't be surprising to anyone that you're not familiar with WP policies and guidelines and that's not your fault but it doesn't exempt this article from the same policies.

You have actually provided zero references (if you have, feel free to paste them into this discussion). Your suggestion is noted but AfDs don't just go away because you want them to. OlYeller^Talktome 23:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop being condescending. There should be more time to look for sources on this one. And we need to discuss what online gaming news sources will and will not be admissable.98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to change my !vote if anyone can provide some decent sources that use RPGnet as a secondary reference. So far, I've seen two that are about as watered down as they come. OlYeller^Talktome 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm a member of the RPGnet community. Those coming here to defend the RPGnet article I recommend: do your homework. That is, if the article does not currently meet notability guideline, find the resources that establish notability so there is no question. Look in your gaming print mags, your podcasts, your rpg news sites, and even mainstream news sources. RPGnet is a major hub for the rpg community with lots of hits, so I believe that such sources probably exist, it's just a matter of finding them and documenting them. If you need help adding a source you have found to the article, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>IAR keep I agree there isn't much in coverage about the site (at least that I can find). There are however a LOT of refrences to the site in reliable sources that use this site a the "defacto" introduction to roleplaying games . A Google book search turns up tons of references to various specific pages [1], [2], and plenty more. A news search turns up similar references [3] and [4] for example. It's pretty much the de facto site for learning about RPGs and has plenty of reliable sources (dozens if not hundreds) that use it as such. This is a classic case where WP:N doesn't fit. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey Hobit. I'm not familiar with "IAR keep" and I'm not seeing it in WP:AFDFORMAT. Can you elaborate on the phrase, please? My opinion on the references you gave are as follows: [5] is a book that only references the website and does not constitute significant coverage. [6] doesn't mention RPGnet at all, only RPGs. [7] only uses RPGnet as a reference in its study and does not constitute significant coverage. [8] makes no reference to RPGnet at all (the link points to this article).

Did either of you (Sang and Hobit) read these articles? Why should this be a case that WP:N doesn't apply? OlYeller^Talktome 01:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read both the book links and one article; the other appears to be behind a paywall. As for IAR, I'm not convinced it will be needed. RPGnet sees a lot of traffic and is a pretty big hub in the online gaming world. I believe the sources should be out there. It's just a matter of finding them; this provides at least some evidence of its status as a hub in the meantime.- Sangrolu (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to answer both questions. First of all WP:IAR is the policy which basically says "don't let the rules get in the way of doing the right thing". It is one of those things that needs to be applied carefully. I'm arguing that WP:N doesn't anticipate a situation where a topic is recognized as important by many reliable sources, but none of them cover it in any real detail. A news archive and book search show dozens, and maybe more than a hundred sources that cite RPG.net (I only walked the first few pages of each search and a majority were relevant). I'd say we've hit on a topic which is commonly referenced by others but rarely described. A similar situation happens with academics--we have reliable sources (their schools) that provide bios, but only their work is cited, not them. We keep those folks around per WP:PROF. I'm claiming a similar situation here. It's a fairly weak !vote and only carries the day if there is a strong sense that it should. Which is exactly how WP:IAR should work. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nice finds, Hobit, I find them compelling. Of course, some of them should be added to the article in some capacity to help deflect accusations of non-notability. - Sangrolu (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. If other reliable secondary sources simply assume a site is authoritative, that's good enough for me. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hobit makes a strong case. Those look like acceptable references. If they weren't a lot of other notable subjects on wikipedia need deletion. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm not seeing enough reliable sources here to show notability. I'm actually a fan of RPG.net, and use the forums quite often... but that doesn't mean it's notable per Wikipedia's standards. Maybe third parties will take notice of the site in the future, but it just doesn't seem to be there yet. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Third parties have certainly taken notice of this site. As I say, there are many many reliable sources that cite this website. I agree though that there isn't coverage of the site itself. Is that enough per WP:N? No. Do I think it should be enough? I do. I'm curious what you think about that. Hobit (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is why I asked if you read the references. You keep saying "many many" and "several" but have only provided four references.
    1. One is essays written by people that are published on RPGnet which could be considered not even RPGnet content but content it published (does a reliable source citing two essays published by RPGnet establish notability?).
    2. The second isn't really verifiable as it's simply citing an entire edition of a journal and not what was actually written about or referenced from RPGnet.
    3. The third is behind a paywall but from the description, it may be using RPGnet's community as a primary source or as a reference (it's not significant coverage of RPGnet but people here feel that it being used as a reference can establish notability so I'll go with this one).
    4. The fourth and last you've provided is an article that mentions an author who's published work that can be purchased at RPGnet (how much more watered down can this get?).
  - From my count, you've loosely provided only two references that maybe use RPGnet as a reference. In my opinion, there's zero that have been verified. While I can get on board that if "several" or "many many" notable sources use RPGnet as a reference, it can be notable, you never really provide any of these references past the two. Can you provide any more or will we continue to establish notability with "many many" and "several" as references? OlYeller^Talktome 22:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - All 4 do. Just do a Google news archive search and a book search on rpg.net. There are some misses but there are a lot of hits. book search [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] (that last is a directory entry). Those are from the first 2 pages, and I left off one reference to a (apparently popular but now defunct) James Joyce page hosted there. The news archives search is less successful but I count 4 or 5 references in the first 2 pages. [18]. Again, that makes some 13-15 sources using rpg.net as a source only looking at the first 20 Ghits each from a book and news archive search. The book ones seem to keep going and going. And that excludes some questionable ones (someone's bio, a cite to a review from rpg.net praising the author). Hobit (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - These new sources definitely seem more reliable themselves and in their use of RPGnet as a source. I can't retract my nomination but this does seem like an IAR case. I've never been a fan of IAR and think it's overused but I'm sold. OlYeller^Talktome 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Are the Keep !voters sure that they're not letting the ends justify the means? To me, this seems like any other non-notable website/forum but this one happens to have a lot of WP users who may be jumping on board this newly constructed reason for inclusion that has, at best, barely been satisfied. I'm on board for the reason (reliable sources using it as a reference) but I'm not feeling that it has been satisfied. OlYeller^Talktome 22:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the sources above help. Again, if you follow the book search, I think you'll find that there are dozens of reliable sources using rpg.net. I was actually surprised by this (I don't read rpg.net, I do however read and contribute to enworld). But apparently rpg.net has been around for a long long time (one of those cites appear to be from 1995!). Hobit (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. With it being that old, I hope we can get it into the article.
Request - This article has a lot of unsourced information and what seems to be WP:OR. If you're interested in improving the article, I'd like to request that you help out with a few edits. There's a large group of new anons on the talk page that aren't completely clear with the concept of WP:OR and I'm afraid that the article may turn into a large user opinion piece. Most notably, there seem to be some editors who have been banned and/or would like to include that the website has a strong political bias with only a Xanga blog article as a reference. Anyway, I won't drag this conversation into this AfD. If you'd like to help out, I'd greatly appreciate it. An article about a website this old deserves to be written well. OlYeller^Talktome 01:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the article is a hodgepodge of fan-generated content coupled with owner-generated "kudos" and claims, I'd say delete it. The fact that their page-view reference (which was allegedly used to garner advertising dollars) turned out to be a locked, non-supporting reference (which was challenged and afer much back-and-forth finally removed), speaks volumes.. There are no solid references to it anywhere on the web, so basically all content is user-genrated opinion.--Agoodbadhabit (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hobit. Sufficient sources are available to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit. BOZ (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Lohan[edit]

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

No individual notability for this person. Just another celeb family member. Sourced only to imdb. Hairhorn (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, notability is not inherited. There is no indication this person is anywhere near notable. Disclosure: we are very distant cousins. Bearian (talk)
Delete - Sole claim to fame appears to be an appearance on a reality show that was based around family ties. Notability is not inherited, even if TV residuals are. Carrite (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fanboys (2003 film)[edit]

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

Fan film with no evidence of notability, prod declined without explanation Jac16888 ^Talk 11:50, 28 May 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, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem to pass WP:FILM Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per prior AfD discussions here and here. MikeWazowski (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments here would not necessarily be accepted now; consensus has changed, and citing GHITs and IMDB can be enough to get one sacrificed to Wiki-Tan now. The consensus here seems to have been mainly delete for Fanboys, with the ones who explicitly mention the movie all citing the previous AFD or asking for a procedural keep. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability and thus fails WP:NOTFILM. The previous AFD someone said "It is a notable fan film", yet there is not one reference in the article. How do we know it's "notable"? —Mike Allen 07:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just gave the article a long-needed cleanup for style and format,[19] and urge that New Zealand and/or Australian Wikipedians with access to hard-copy reviews of the film add the needed sources, as the film may prove to have enough of a cult fanbase to be seen as notable. My own searches were hampered by the fact that this fan film about Starwars seems to have inspired the 2008 film of the same name, and by the fact that the term "fanboys" is spread throughout the internet in multiple other uses, thus making searches even more difficult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On evidence of IMDb entry the film doesn't appear to have been distributed, and no reviews independent of subject online. In print perhaps? Rachel0898 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed... in print or archives showing its reception when released in 2003. As IMDB is not the king of reliable information, and as the film HAS been released and is available still through youtube and other online sources, we can accept that it has been "distributed" through that medium. And too, the film screened at the Commonwealth Film Festival in Manchester in 2004. Not all films have theatrical release, but that is never a mandate. And again, searches are made more difficult because there was a feature film by this name that first screened in 2008.[20] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we get off the fence with this one? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I would like to keep this film, I am not seeing the sources needed to support an article. As an aside, I would opine that distribution over the internet does not generally satisfy the "widely distributed" criterion of WP:NOTFILM. Nearly anyone can upload a film to YouTube or their own website. It doesn't represent the barriers that getting a theatrical or home video distribution deal do. On the other hand, internet distributed fan videos certainly can be notable if they can demonstrate coverage in reliable sources; I'm just not seeing that coverage here. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record, this one predates YouTube - it was released in 2003, and originally hosted at TheForce.net - if I recall correctly, they didn't host just anything, like YouTube does now - there was a screening process and they were very selective with what they did or didn't host... MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more clear in my comment, because I didn't mean to imply that the history of the film was otherwise than you have described. I am aware that TheForce.net exercises editorial control over films they host, and indeed think that they are good judges of fan film quality. I just don't think that "hosted by TheForce.net" is a realistic notability criterion for Wikipedia purposes. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Page-Pagter[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Searches yielded no substantial coverage in reliable sources for this subject. Only non-reliable sources or trivial coverage was uncovered. Also long-term unreferenced BLP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, while meeting the GNG is always a great yardstick by which to measure notability, it is not the only yardstick we use here at Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. He is a talented voice actor and voice director. Rtkat3 (talk) 2:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how you think "talented" is a reason to keep. Oh wait, IT FREAKING ISN'T. You've been here as long as I have, you should know that "but but but I like it!" won't get an article kept. Use your freaking head. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He has worked on Power Rangers acting as a producer and voice overs on some of the monsters. He voice acted and voice directed some of the anime. He also managed to gain a spot on the Adventures in Voice Acting DVD. (Rtkat3) (talk) 2:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

But there are no reliable sources on him. It's possible to work on notable works and not be notable yourself. WP:NOTINHERITED. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but guideline does indeed instruct how and when the notability of one's work DOES reflect back to the work's creator. And while reliable sources not being IN the article is always a good reason to add them, it is not always a decent reason to delete simply because someone else has not yet done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding TenPoundHammer here - notability is not inherited, and it is very possible for people to work on notable productions and still fail notability in their own right. Biographies of living people require substantial sourcing, and this article has none. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To politely disagree on those points: Guideline specifically allows that notability can indeed be "inherited" through the established and verifiable notability of one's work. "Substantial" while terrific, is not a criteria of WP:V. And while the GNG is always a great yardstick by which to measure notability, it is not the only yardstick we use here at Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added. Kthapelo (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sound like they're likely to be trivial mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:55, 3 June 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, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verifiable career meeting WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE, even if only for "popular" televsison and film. Among those many notable productions for which he has made significant and verifiable contributions, he has produced more than 450 episodes of the Power Rangers series. Article has been expanded and additional sources are being added. Always better to improve than delete. And yes, while meeting the GNG is always a great yardstick by which to measure notability, it is not the only yardstick we use here at Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While WP:GNG is (as the name implies) a guideline to which we can make excpetions, WP:V and WP:BLP are policies—indeed core policies—to which exceptions are not appropriate. I see that there are some soures in the article so we're not looking at simply copying IMDb here but I don't really have an opinion as to whether they are sufficient or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 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! 17:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had a substantial career, and people who have never met him and don't expect to might want to look him up, which is my criteria for biographical articles, and a much better one than all the thousands of words in the official policies. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba P. Kovesdy[edit]

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

Does not meet Wp:Academic. The one concept he has been linked with was found to be not notable at a recent AFD (see Burnt-out diabetes mellitus) Article has single author who seems to be a single issue editor and removed Prod without further elucidationPorturology (talk) 05:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I tagged this for notability just a few minutes ago, I have meanwhile checked the Web of Science. Subject has 125 publications listed (some of them just abstracts, most are regular articles, though), that have been cited 1595 times in total. His h-index is 21. Top citation counts 275, 150, 90. Meets WP:PROF. --Crusio (talk) 05:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just two thoughts - which criteria of WP:Academic does he meet? I don't think his academic output is very high for an ass-pro in nephrology and as we have just discussed his concept of burn-out has not set the world on fire (sorry for the pun). Porturology (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, for an associate prof, this is a very respectable output. In addition, people like Kovesdy cannot spend all their time on research, they also practice medicine at the same time. Finally, just publishing is, of course, not enough: all academics publish. But Kovesdy's publications have also been noted with very respectable citation counts. To me, this is a clear meet of WP:PROF C1. As for the burnt-out diabetes, this is a new concept (only published in 2010), so we'll have to see whether this will become more generally accepted (for the moment, that paper has been cited just once - not unusual for such a relatively new paper). --Crusio (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Burnt-out diabetes as a concept has existed for decades. According to User:Burntout1234 (or whatever his name is) it was just Kovesdy who coined the name. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope we do not kill the messenger. A biased scientist has this far managed to delete the "burnt-out diabetes" concept. It is now being appealed via conventional escalation. Kindly allow balanced discussion and support paradigm shifting, despite the fact that the conservative scientist cammp will likely not tolerate new concepts and progresses towards a cure for diabetes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout1234 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE You are currently blocked. Creating a sockpuppet to evade such a block is a serious offense and may get you blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Please desist. --Crusio (talk) 06:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Burntout123 (talk · contribs) and the related account Burntout1234 (talk · contribs) have made few or no other edits outside this topic. —C.Fred (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1, although in a highly cited subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Would like to endorse the astute comments, analyses and suggestions by "Crusio" and by "Xxanthippe" without further comments.

[Also in the interest of avoiding further distractions, I would like to suggest removing my own comments above ("... hope we do not kill the messenger...") along with the subsequent comments about my temporary blockage, so that the discussion remains focused on the merit of the page and not be influenced by peripheral events.] Burntout123 (talk)To_Expand_Tolerance_ —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Question to Xxanthippe: how has "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." (emphasis added). I don't see that the impact has been deemed significant by WP:RS (just being published does not make one's contributions significant). JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If all he had done was publish, you'd be correct: all academics publish. What counts is whether those publications get noted. In the present case, 1600 scientific publications have cited one or more articles of Kovesdy. To me, that equals "significant impact". --Crusio (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But of his >100 publications and >1000 citations in how many was he the sole or lead author Porturology (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with 99% of articles in life sciences, he was sole author on none or only a few. He was first or last author on many of the >100 articles (sorry, no time to start counting all that, you can find most here) Of the 1600 citations he was not an author of the vast majority (obviously, a he doesn't have 1600 articles... :-). --Crusio (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument being that the gross number of articles must be tempered by his contribution to them - if he was a junior researcher then his notability is considerably less than if he was the lead author Porturology (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apologies, but I don't see the subject meeting the criteria of Wikipedia:Academic (AKA WP:PROF), but feel free to point out where I'm incorrect:

No evidence of significant impact yet - The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

No - The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

No - The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)

No - The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

No - The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.

No - The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

No - The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

No - The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area.

No - The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With all due respect for the latter notes the above is not valid, since one needs to meet only one or a few of the criteria. In this case he meets the first criteriopn significant impact per analyses by "crusio" (see above). Moreover, the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions as evident by his/her publication record and citation record.-burntout123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio problem. Other than the last sentence, the entire article is a copyvio of his profile at touchnephrology.com, and the article existed in that form as of 4 May.[21] IMHO, recreation from scratch of the page is permissible, but the new page must cite secondary sources that are independent of Kovesdy (and not papers he co-authored). —C.Fred (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the copied text, the page has been reported at WP:Copyright problems. —C.Fred (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio situation has been corrected; see new comment below to make time sequence clearer. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with JoeSperrazza. If we are going to create articles on all academics who have made some minor innovations in their field, we'd end up with 1000s of BLPs that are not interesting to anyone. Clearly Burntout123(4) has taken it upon himself to glorify this researcher. The concept of "burnt-out diabetes" is not even Kovesdy's - the idea that glycaemic control often improves as renal function deteriorates has been around for decades. JFW | T@lk 19:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AfDs of researchers are judged according to WP:Prof and WP:GNG alone. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. WP:PROF and WP:ACADEMIC are both shortcuts to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Not meeting WP:ACADEMIC means the subject does not meet WP:PROF. JoeSperrazza (talk)

Comment - Kovesdy is associated with Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh, someone with a very similar interest (he coined the slightly controversial concept "reverse epidemiology", which is cited more widely). I have the feeling that both seem to have a wiki-suave support base. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Just revised the article to avoid copyright violation (and I am not him, seriously) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Csaba_P._Kovesdy/Temp

Revised article, fully compliant with copyright regulations, is now posted. - (talk)- --_To_Expand_Tolerance_ 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Strike duplicate !vote added by Burntout123. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment wasn't a duplicate, but the !vote was, so I've pared it back to strike only that. —C.Fred (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice. As I indicated before, secondary sources are a key component of this article that are missing. So long as there are no secondary sources, the article should exist. If at some point in the future he gets substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then I would have no objection to an article being created. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Crusio's analysis. The citations are sufficient to show him an authority in his field. If we were to use the GNG, we would find that there are hundreds of secondary RSs from the articles citing him--the normal case is that 1/2 to 1/4 of them will discuss his work specifically, not merely cite, and many of them would be substantial discussions. The reason we have WP:PROF is that using the GNG in this literal sense would permit us to have an article on essentially anyone who has been cited more than half a dozen times, which would be an inclusion of our notability criteria to includes most assistant professors in the sciences, a great many post=doctoral fellows, and a large number of graduate students. (as an estimate, I think we could find a quarter-million in biology alone) I do not think there is anyone here who would argue for that degree of inclusion for academics--it would violate the spirit of WP:Directory. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 June 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! 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantially the same findings as Crusio. The article itself is not well-written, but the subject does appear to be notable according to WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burndennett Cricket Club[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability (sports) as they play in the second tier of a provincial league and, other than inevitable match reports, have no significant independent coverage. GNG probably is not met because the remaining sources relate to ephemeral non-notable news stories about a bar, a fire and possibly losing their ground. Sitush (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, the argument that the WikiProject Cricket guidelines apply here is just laughable, you can not transpose sports notability across different countries, Cricket is much bigger is England or Australia than Ireland. It is also not the place of a WikiProject to trample over the centrally agreed guidelines such as WP:GNG or WP:CLUB. Mtking (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had a run-in with a WP Proj situation on a fairly recent AfD regarding a fork from University of East London. My argument then was that the Universities project guidelines would have disallowed the fork. The consensus was that the project guidelines were, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. Even thought I had raised the issue there prior to the AfD. I'll try to dig out the precise AfD if anyone is remotely interested. It was related to the UEL law school. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that AfD (it's at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of East London School of Law) and the article was kept as a breakout article from the main University of East London article. This was because the article is too detailed for the main, general article. The notability of it (or the lack of it) as an institution/organisation separate from UEL did not arrive at consensus - it didn't need to. I don't understand the relevance of that discussion to this one though. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that the UNI project's guidelines had no bearing on WP guidelines and, to paraphrase, "counted for nothing". Perhaps that was said on my talk page but I'm pretty sure it was in the AfD. In any event, that was the relevant point I was trying to make here: project guidelines are A Good Thing, but not The Thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has citations from WP:RSs and hence it meets WP:GNG. The claims above that it fails GNG have not been explained. In the absence of specific Irish cricket guidelines the English cricket guidelines are good enough to go on for now. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." so please point to the WP:RS that addresses the club directly and in detail. Mtking (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[22], [23], and [24]. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are trivial and tangential references. They carry next to no weight. Arson, bar, potential loss of ground have little to do with cricket, which is the primary function of the article as I see it. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have appeared in newspapers more often than that. And I am definitely not deserving of a WP article because none of those appearances had any particular co-relation other than my name. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "trivial" or "tangential". How can you say it was a "tangential" reference to the club when the club is referenced in the articles' headlines? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a club for training arsonists? Is it a world famous bar? No, it is a cricket club. The stories are tangential. People reading the article will 99.9% be after cricket information, not stuff about (an admittedly soul-destroying) arson attack. My rugby club's buildings have twice been burned down. There is no mention of the events in their article in WP. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the only RS that counts is one that overwhelmingly references the club's sporting activities? If that's the case then a few million citations will have to be deleted from wikipedia forthwith. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. You are confusing reliable sources with notability. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confusing no such thing. Nice to know that you agree with me that the club's sporting activities don't have to be the primary focus of the cited articles though. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines. Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Irish cricket and English cricket are not comparable, it would be like saying the Baseball guidelines for the US should be applied in Australia, the guidelines work only for the explicit League they are designed for. Mtking (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be your inadequately-informed opinion, but Irish club cricket is comparable to English club cricket at provincial level. In fact, it is arguably of a superior standard, given that ODI international players are selected from Irish provincial leagues, and Irish clubs attract overseas Test cricketers as club professionals. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mooretwin, please provide some evidence from reliable sources that the two are comparable. Does Wisden cover this? (I suspect not, but just asking). How many of the clubs playing in Burndennett's exact division of the exact league have professional players? Who are they? Why are they not in the articles? How many ODI players have come from the division, while playing in that division? I know next to nothing about cricket. I do not need to. The burden of proof is not on me. Please remember also that notability is not inherited, and that Wikipedia project guidelines do not usurp the main guidelines. Therefore, although I refer to the division of the league above, it probably really needs to be drilled down to the club itself. This article simply does not demonstrate the notability of its subject, and that is the issue here. If notability can be proven then all is fine and good. I did say somewhere that people would most likely "pile on" here. Piling on is an unfortunate tendency. You have to take a neutral view. As I have no involvement in cricket, am not from Ireland, and so on, my only concern is WP:N. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wisden cover this? No, and neither does it cover English provincial leagues - so coverage in Wisden does not support your false claim that English provincial club cricket is superior to Irish provincial club cricket. Mooretwin (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Wisden does cover some Irish competitions, but presumably not this one. The information has been provided in the Cricket project discussion referred to below. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does cover the North West Senior League, I'm afraid. It appears not, however, to cover the ECB Leagues in England, therefore Wisden considers Irish senior leagues to be more notable than those leagues, and therefore by the standard of the WP guidelines, Irish senior cricket clubs are notable. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bite with my last ever edit on Wiki. Off the top of the head without a google search (which seems to be all the deletionists rely on - the Irish press and cricket press cover it adequately) the folowing players are just a sample of the pros who have played in NWCU. Shahzad Butt and Salman Butt (Drummond) inluding timie in Section 2, Kapil Dev (Limavady), Shoaib Akhtar (Strabane), Kamran Akmal (Limavady), Raman Lamba (Ardmore), Akram Raza (Brigade), Kiran More (Coleraine) when playing in NW Section 2, Ata Rehman (Brigade), Surinder Amarnath (Eglinton), Ridley Jacobs (Eglinton), Heath Davis (Eglinton), W Wasti (Brigade) (cant remember the spelling of first name sorry), Hasan Raza (Glendermott), M. V. Narasimha (known in Ireland as Bobby) Rao MBE (Strabane, Sion Mills & Eglinton), Adnan Akmal (Limavady), Umar Akmal (can’t remember exact club) plus many others in their 100+ years of existence. Promotion & relegation operates between the two leagues and Section 2 currentl has Sion Mills in it for instance - one of the oldest and most successful Irish clubs (numerous Irish internationals Colhoun, Harpur, Rao and several others) - by your reckoning they are unworthy despite their past successes. I believe the Cooke brothers started out at Burndennett (and can be sourced) etc etc. I work for a living - not being a tax dodger with unlimited time to add endless material to wiki and seek out conflict. Workers like me only have a limited time to edit - content takes time to source and include. Please learn something about the subject matter before dismissing the significance of a league. Bye and good luck to all.Weejack48 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be worth people asking the opinions of the members of WP:CRIC at the projects talkpage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I took up the suggestion of AssociateAffiliate, after leaving it for a while in the hope that those seeking to avoid this article being deleted might do so in order to bolster their position. I was surprised that they did not, since there is an entire project out there involving people whom, I would presume, have an interest in developing cricket-based articles on Wikipedia. The result can be see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#North West Senior League 2. I do appreciate that I am posting this fairly soon after I raised the issue there but, so far, the consensus appears to be that there is no inherent notability for any club involved at the level which Burndennett play, contrary to the stock response which has been provided by Mooretwin above. "Stock response", because the exact same comment has been used elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the changes to the guideline - at your prompting and designed specifically to exclude Irish clubs - were based on fallatious reasoning, as I have noted on the relevant talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my question was not designed to exclude anything. It asked a question, in as neutral a tone as I could manage given that the issue cropped up in an AfD in the first place. As it happened, other people whom I presume to be far more knowledgeable about cricket than me, responded and so far appear to be of the opinion that no club in Section 2 is inherently notable as a consequence of their being in that section. The consensus in the discussion at CRIC appears to be that those in the top tier might be inherently notable, and that those interested in cricket in "minor" participating nations might want to assist the project in drawing up suitable guidelines for the future relating to those nations. I apologise for using the word "minor", which is not intended to be offensive - I just don't know the correct term. How much weight is placed on what a project thinks is another matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already pointed out, the reasoning behind the comments of two editors was fallatious, as I have explained on the relevant talk page. Sitush's confession of ignorance about cricket is relevant here. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 12 June 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! 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... or it could be that the fact that I have little knowledge of cricket, and am also not (knowingly) of Irish origin, means that I have no particular axe to grind? I am as near to neutral as could be. Although I will admit to having partaken in a couple of wonderful walking/camping holidays in Ireland & met many wonderfully hospitable locals over those combined 5 or 6 weeks. So perhaps I am biased, after all.

I don't like the personalising of this discussion. I am genuinely trying to approach this in a neutral manner. If the sources are there to prove notability, and if those sources arise as a consequence of nominating this article, then AfD has done its job. This is not a war & AfD does not always have negative connotations. One of my own GAs was an AfD rescue. Since raising this AfD some sources have appeared in the Burndennett article, and this is A Good Thing. Happen I have doubts that they are sufficient, but kudos to those who found them and have taken note of the issues. One of them has contributed to this discussion, which is fine. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a war, you should stop edit-warring at the cricket project page - trying to enforce a change to the guidelines that you imposed yourself, for the purposes of supporting a campaign to delete Irish cricket articles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but where have I edit warred? I cannot recall changing any statement made by anyone else there. Please, try to maintain a sense of proportion here: you are throwing accusations around against people without, it seems, much thought. I note that there are others involved in that discussion aside from me, and that you could have started that discussion as suggested by AssociateAffiliate above. Why you chose not to is not my concern. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club this club is not playing at a level comparable to the ECB Premier Leagues and other than coverage of a new road and a fire nothing covering the cricket exploits of this club would appear to exist. VER Tott 10:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage do you find of teams in the Lincolnshire League? Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. And your point is? - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought that the point was rather obvious. The WP guidelines accept the notability of clubs in E&W for which there is little non-local coverage on the basis of the league to which they are affiliated. Applying this same standard to clubs in Ireland means that this club, and others, should also be accepted as notable. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage is of specific events so does not cover the club as a whole. Does not meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 20 June 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) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hama-Allepo[edit]

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

This article was PRODded, but deletion was contested on the talk page. The PROD rationale by Schumeru (talk) was: "The article is most likely a hoax: 1. Hama and Aleppo are two distant Syrian cities; 2. "Aleppo" is spelled incorrect; 3. http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Syria/Missile/facilities.html does not list any site linked to missile production or testing in this region. In fact, Google Earth shows that there doesn't exist any structure at the given location at all; 4. It seems to be impossible to find any other source other than astronautix.com and that one bases its information on an obscure blog article."

The German article has been deleted as a hoax. The IP defending this article on the talk page says that it is not a hoax, because Syria has rockets and does test launches, but admits that "The article could be wrong (and likely is wrong) with the coordinate and the name." But the whole content of the article is the assertion that there is a launch site at the named and specified location, and as there is no reliable source for that statement, the article fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the German article had ben deleted at my request, I am glad to give the reasons here again.

There is no evidence whatsoever, neither from satellite photos nor from written documents, that this area has ever been a launching zone for Syrian missiles.
Contrary to the argument of the defending IP, the supporters of a deletion do in no way imply the lack of such missiles in Syria. They are very likely to exist in other parts, but the respective launching areas are to be found elsewhere (e.g. north or south of the area in question, as valid sources quoted on the talk page of this article say).
In conclusion, the only assertion made by the article, i.e. that there is a launch site at the named and specified location, is false and misleading. Therefore it should be deleted.

Best regards, Altkatholik62 (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there is one news search result, and a few quazi-mentions in books, it isn't significant coverage, so does not pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment apart from WP mirrors, all of those references that I looked at are lists of cities which have "Hama" next to a mis-spelled "Aleppo." None of them is about a place called "Hama-Allepo." JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any evidence that this place exists. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence means no article. Nothing else matters. -- Schumeru (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nexus grammar[edit]

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

This page contains no sources. A google search yields few relevant hits, and those are from mirror sites. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article need a lot of work, but it does seems to be a valid area of linguistic. For example, see here. As it stands though, the article does need improving and expanding. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but with a plea for sources and more context. "Nexus" is indeed central to Otto Jespersen's approach to grammar, but I'm not familiar with the formalism introduced here and don't know where to look for more information. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the two previous !votes and the scholarly reference I just added. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 19 June 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 DELETED by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). postdlf (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who Adventures serials[edit]

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

Can't make out what this is, but it looks like a hoax. I have a feeling it's the same guy back trying to write about some amateur YouTube stuff again (sorry I can't remember the old ID). 2 Doctor (deleted, admins only, sorry) is linked from here and said "The 2 Doctor is the 2nd and current incarnation of the protagonist of Science fiction on youtube science-fiction series Doctor Who Adventures.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

Delete - Agreed. This is promotional material, trying to establish promotion for a youtube series. Other articles created in this same light by the same editor include: Doctor_Who_Adventures_series [25] and Doctor_Who_Adventures_youtube_series [26] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, closer examination shows it's quite plainly the same unimportant YouTube stuff - I'm speedy deleting the lot as A7, so I'd like to withdraw this AfD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practice Intelligence[edit]

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

I can find no third-party reliable sources supporting the notability of this neologism. The PROD was removed by the author who indicated that more references would be provided. A number of days have passed since that was said, and nothing has been done to the article. Singularity42 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any third-party sources either. It does seem like it has a chance to be notable some day, but that day isn't today. First Light (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-neologism apparently still looking, unsuccessfully, for something to mean: a methodology for the dissemination of direct and reflected knowledge acquired in part of an organisation, to the rest of that organisation and/or other organisations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:08, 12 June 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) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Treanor[edit]

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

I've been unable to find any reliable sources that would establish meeting WP:BIO for this author. January (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing in any of the databases to which I have access. LadyofShalott 15:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find coverage in secondary reliable sources other than rehashes of his website bio and verbatim copies of press releases. This is insufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR in particular or WP:BIO in general. nancy 17:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most propably not notable enough to be kept, no reliable sources found or cited. WP:AUTHOR. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it is not really relevant to whether the article should be deleted, I find it interesting to note that, according to her talk page posts, at 16:09, 6 June 2011 the author of the article was simply someone who had read Treanor's book, and thought it should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but by 17:01 on the same day she was his fiancée. Talk about a whirlwind romance! JamesBWatson (talk) 10:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Przemysław Jastrzębski[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played at the highest level of domestic football in Poland. This is factually incorrect. He was under contract with Jagiellonia Białystok, but never actually played for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 16:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This is the top league in Poland, not a youth league. Why not have a single article on the entire squad. Break out article for especially notable players. Ajh1492 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youth teams are generally not notable either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may be under contract with Jagiellonia Białystok, but neither of them have actually played any games, which is required for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched online and nothing turned up. I think it doesn't help that they are a foreign team, so there's less of a chance there would be reliable sources (at least to our knowledge). SwisterTwister (talk) 06:51, 16 June 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 The Fly (1986 film) or appropriate target. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Quaife[edit]

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

A group of IPs and users (who are probably the same person, but that's neither here nor there) has been slowly edit-warring with me for months over these articles; some other editors and I have occasionally redirected them because they are articles about a characters that only appear in one film, contain nothing more than detailed plot summary, and have nothing encyclopedic or out-of-universe in them. The edit warring IPs always just undo the redirects without discussion. Bringing to AfD now to get an explicit consensus on these articles (so that that consensus can later be enforced if the IPs choose to continue edit warring).

The articles/redirects in question:

Veronica Quaife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
Anton Bartok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly II)
Seth Brundle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
Telepods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
Stathis Borans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly (1986 film))
Martin Brundle (The Fly) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (R to The Fly II)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 15:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Support redirecting to the film's main pages. The separate pages don't appear to add anything new. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the link to Martin Brundle in the above list is to the wrong person - it goes to the very notable Formula One driver and commentator, who has no connection with the film. --AJHingston (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad; corrected now. Thanks for pointing that out. rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all and protect against article recreation: All articles are either unreferenced or rely on primary sources, but none of the fictional characters or the fictional device meet the general notability guideline and the content of their articles is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Also, most of the content is original research by synthesis. While Telepods and Stathis Borans are currently redirects, checking previous versions, I do not see a good reason to keep them either. Jfgslo (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, they were still redirects when I opened this nomination, but given that the editors in question periodically restore them, I figured they should be included in the discussion as well. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:33, 16 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Romney[edit]

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

Like Tagg, another WP:NOTINHERITED case and a bit of WP:BLP1E. This son did get slightly more press for his role in Mitt's campaign, plus the "will he or won't he?" speculation that invariably pops up with people hint they may run for office. As with Tagg, absent the famous family, this person would be just another thought-about-it-but didn't office contender, and an campaign aide, nothing more. Tarc (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have done anything notable. Per WP:POLITICIAN, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". It looks 4 of Sarah Palin's 5 children are redirects, so we seem to have some precedent for judging that just getting media coverage as the family member of a candidate for political office doesn't make one notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitt Romney#University and missionary years, marriage and family, where he is already mentioned. This should be a straight redirect, with no deletion and no merge needed. If Josh becomes notable in his own right beyond WP:NOTINHERITED, or if Mitt becomes president and Josh does inherit notability that way, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this solution. To the closing admin: my "delete" vote above doesn't preclude redirecting, I don't really care how the article is deleted, I just think it shouldn't be an article; redirecting seems like a fine way to handle it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. --John (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the coverage is in relation to Mitt Romney's campaign, and the rest was mere unfulfilled speculation about a run for public office, and not significant coverage of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Hekerui (talk) 20:42, 19 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagg Romney[edit]

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

Simple case of "notability is not inherited". Held several ordinary jobs before working for his father's presidential campaign, making a small handful of talking head-type news appearances on his behalf. One WaPo story on the brothers' blogging doesn't cut it for notability for Tagg. Not even really worth a redirect, IMO, he just hasn't done anything worth searching for. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding the redirect, it's not for us to judge what readers should be searching for; the fact is if they are searching for a topic and we have related content, it's our job to get them to it. I agree on the whole that this topic's notability is derivative and it doesn't merit its own article, but would suggest an approach like Malia Obama and Family of Barack Obama as the best solution. Skomorokh 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have done anything notable, just worked ordinary jobs and happens to be related to a well-known politician. It looks 4 of Sarah Palin's 5 children are redirects, so we seem to have some precedent for judging that just getting media coverage as the family member of a candidate for political office doesn't make one notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mitt Romney#University and missionary years, marriage and family, where he is already mentioned. This should be a straight redirect, with no deletion and no merge needed. If Tagg becomes notable in his own right beyond WP:NOTINHERITED, or if Mitt becomes president and Tagg does inherit notability that way, the redirect can be turned back into a proper article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete worked for Mitt's campaign as a surrogate but is not independently notable by sigificant coverage standards. Notability is not inherited, as the nominator stated. Hekerui (talk) 20:38, 19 June 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) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eujobcentre[edit]

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

WP:PROD concern: The subject of the article does not appear to meet the appropriate notability requirements. Meph^talk 13:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Meph^talk 13:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Appears to have been created for promotional purposes. No independent WP:reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noq (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 June 2011
Delete I originally proposed the deletion of this article of this article since it didn't meet the notability requirements for organizations, and I still believe that it doesn't. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any indication that it meets WP:CORP. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam/promotional page created by SPA 'Eujobcentre'. Dialectric (talk) 21:45, 15 June 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 Abbie Hoffman. v/r - T P 02:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

America Hoffman[edit]

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

Unnotable person. Redirect to Abbie Hoffman#Personal life or perhaps to Steal This Movie.

The lede says it all. Article leads give a concise description of who the person is and why he is notable. The lede for this article is "America Hoffman is the son of Abbie and Anita Hoffman". And that's the sole claim of notability for this person. He neither accomplished anything of note nor was he in the news in any meaningful way.

But we don't have articles on people just because their parents were notable. The article is entirely about some obscure lawsuit in which Hoffman was the plaintiff. This material is repeated in the article Steal This Movie which is where it belongs. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abbie Hoffman — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Abbie Hoffman per nom. Rob T Firefly (talk) 11:45, 17 June 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 Nomination withdrawn. R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plants and animals of Belize[edit]

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

This article has never been more than a stub. We already have the large Flora of Belize and now we have the stub Fauna of Belize. There's no need to keep this article ... except maybe as a disambiguation page? Rennell435 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The articles you quoted have scientific names. You could even probably merge those 2 articles into Fauna and flora of Belize.Curb Chain (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The discussion page makes the history clear. It is now a remnant stub and can be treated as a fork. --AJHingston (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore as a disambig only page, as a likely search term. Lugnuts (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect There is no dispute that the topic is notable and the content encyclopedic. There is a history of good-faith edits that should not be deleted. According to the discussion page, content has been merged from this article...I don't know the details but there is some kind of copyright requirement to retain the edit history of such contributions. Since the editors don't want to maintain the article with referenced content they can redirect it to Belize and be done with it. Based on what has been said here at the AfD, I'd consider making it a two-item list with Flora of Belize and Fauna of Belize. Unscintillating (talk) 05:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, seeing as the general consensus here seems to be favour turning into disambiguation. That will keep the edit history intact. Rennell435 (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it a list? Rennell435 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to a dab page. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list, not a dab page. A dab page identifies different topics that may be referred to by the same name. This page lists two subtopics of a single broader topic. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:51, 14 June 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. Nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet and there are no other arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Hron[edit]

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

~~Fails our notability guideline for victims of crime. The crime may be notable, but the victim does not inherit notability from it. Anthem 10:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)~~ revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - is this nomination really serious?. Its one of swedens most known criminal/murder cases. This should not be delete on some vague reasoning by a single user.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also 1996 Hron was posthumously awarded the Stig Dagerman award for free speech an award winner, makes it notable beyond the murder itself too.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Murder of John Hron may be a notable topic, but he isn't unless there are sources concerning him independent of the murder. --Anthem 07:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Weak Keep I want the article to be expanded before voting a Strong Keep. Jivesh • Talk2Me 14:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~May I ask what your justification for keeping the article is ? --Anthem 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

May I just mention that the AFD user here Anthem has been blocked indefinite for sockpuppeting.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [27]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stumbled across this article after reading the article [Murder of James Bulger]. I think it is very useful for anyone researching child murders/murderers. Given that the user who suggested it for deletion is blocked, can we close the discussion and remove the AfD notice? Also, I was actually looking for a Swedish (maybe, could be Norway) case of a child who killed another child around the time of the Bulger case in Britian. I couldn't find the case, anyone who remembers could put a link in a 'See Also' section in the article. Bendav (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The Natural Sapphire Company[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails to establish notability; some of the external links are either blogs, commercial announcements, or only incidentally mention the company. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is blatant propaganda material and goes against Wiki’s G11 policy should be deleted with immediate effect — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.212.25.8 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 203.212.25.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete all references are self generated press releases with no news value article to be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep There are numerous news references that are not press releases, propaganda, etc.: Fox Business[28], New York Times[29], CBS[30], The Australian[31], CNN[32], and more. Some of the articles feature the company. This seems like a company that is plenty notable enough for a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm changing my !vote to "Delete", after a further look at the references in the article, and reviewing some of the comments here. The only third party neutral Reliable Sources in the article are about the replica Kate Middleton engagement ring. There are only one or two sentences in the entire article that should remain, if this article is kept. I would reduce the article to those 1-2 sentences now, but I understand that is not best practice for an article up for deletion, so I will do it after this is done, if it is kept. The article should essentially be about the Kate Middleton engagement ring replica, and nothing else. That is the only event that the company is known for in reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not the news, so this single minor news event should not have an article.

Note to closing admin: at this point the only 'Keep' vote is from a company representative. First Light (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With all due respect, I am VERY confused here. I have looked at other jewelry and gemstone companies on Wikipedia and see even less real links to news articles then this page has. For example: Michael C. Fina has NO real news articles, has links going to its own press releases, has links that point to transcripts of TV shows it's not even in, etc. I didnt write about the history of The Natural Sapphire Company as there were no online references that I could prove things with, so i didnt. There are multiple TV, magazine, newspaper, online articles that discuss our brand, items we sell, etc http://www.thenaturalsapphirecompany.com/Sapphires/Company/Press/. If to keep this wikipedia entry, I need to be more like Michael C. Fina and list self made press releases and talk about the company history with no references, then please let let me know and that's how I will edit it to. Also, according to Reliable Sources, http://www.professionaljeweller.com/ is a unbiased, professional news source. http://www.professionaljeweller.com/article-9241-the-natural-sapphire-company-unveils-69ct-ring/ has an article about the "largest natural blue sapphire ring currently available on the market today" (please ignore the comment made by Transpacific in the comment section on that page). How does this not make the company "notable"? EvanWasHere (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is for us to decide whether professionaljeweller.com is a reliable source by our standards. Secondly, once again, you are linking an article that tells us next to nothing about The Natural Sapphire Company - the article is about the ring, not the company. Frankly, it reads as if it is nothing more than a recycled press release - we aren't interested in what the company CEO has to say, but in what neutral outsiders have to say about the company. With regard to other Wikipedia articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a useful argument - we are trying to improve article quality, not accept the lowest common denominator. If the Michael C. Fina article has problems, this isn't the place to discuss them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EvanWasHere, Professionaljeweller.com clearly does not meet the Wikipedia standards of Reliable Source. Their own site disclaimers include that their content is "for informational and online transaction purposes only" and "Promedia Ltd intend for the Content on the www.professionaljeweller.com site to be accurate and reliable, however, since the Content has been compiled from a variety of sources, it is provided to you “as is” and “as available”." They then disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy of their content. To the contrary, Reliable Sources at Wikipedia must have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." The Michael C. Fina article is also a candidate for AfD, and a comparison between these two articles does not help your case. First Light (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several of those links appear overly trivial. Meph^talk 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Their products may be trivial/pop stuff, but at least three of the articles feature the company and their trivial product(s): the Fox, Australian, and CNN articles.~~ First Light (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking this comment, after my change of !vote above to delete, and after seeing the other references in this article. The only Reliable Sources in the article are about a single minor news event, the replica Kate Middleton engagement ring made by this company. A Google search for "replica kate middleton engagement ring" (without quotes) shows that this single event is hardly unique or notable enough for a Wikipedia article. First Light (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: company resorts to self generated publicity for SEO benefit through send2press-release and PRwire-press release most references are various versions of these releases — Preceding unsigned comment added by Transpacific23 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can only !vote once. As mentioned above, several of the references are legitimate mainstream reliable news articles, including the Fox, Australian, and CNN articles, among others. First Light (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatant advertising/hype. I'm still trying to figure out how you can 'manufacture' natural sapphires... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The manufacturing portion of this company is for the custom jewerly it creates. The company does not "manufacture natural sapphires". EvanWasHere (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned, there are numerous mainstream news references that are NOT press releases or so called propoganda. A number of these articles are exclusively about this company. The company is legit, in business since 1939. Note: Transpacific23 and 203.212.25.8, and any other non registered user IP used in the editing of this wikipedia page is all the same person/company (please see the history page of the wiki to see some of the random IPs this company has used to vandalize the page). <Redacted - ATG > They are using a proxy IP to hide their IP to cause confusion as well. EvanWasHere (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that your only contributions to Wikipedia have been in relation to this article, I don't think you are actually in a position to complain. I have also redacted part of your last post as potentially libellous. Please observe proper talk page etiquette, and stick to issues of direct relevance. All participants need to note that this is not a vote, and any decision as to the article's fate will depend on issues of Wikipedia policy. Now can anyone provide clear evidence that The Natural Sapphire Company meets Wikipedia's requirements regarding notability, as laid out here: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).? Unless this can be provided, the article will be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved a lengthy discussion to the talk page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An advert, pure and simple. Does not satisfy notability. P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pure unadulterated non-notable WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to the closing admin.. If, as seems likely, this article is deleted, can I ask that it be salted to prevent recreation - note than an earlier AfD resulted in deletion, [33] and that there were apparently speedy deletions prior to this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:44, 20 June 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) 02:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burwood Soccer Club[edit]

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

I've just finished removing a lot of uncited claims in this article about such and such being the best player ever to live. Now I think it's time this article faced up to AFD. I can't establish any notability myself and it seems to fail WP:ORG with no reliable sources asserting notability. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 09:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the general notability guideline as far as I can see. --Anthem 09:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [34]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't competed at a high enough level to be considered notable, per WP:FOOTYN. Giant Snowman 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. not notable enoughZanoni (talk) 08:38, 16 June 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 Star Trek races#Sphere Builders. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere Builder[edit]

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

~~Plot only coverage of a fictional topic. There is a lack of reliable third party sources for this alien race. Anthem 09:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)~~ Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please discount any comments by Anthem of Joy, he's a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced OR plot, without out-of-universe relevance or notability. --Crusio (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, let a real person re-nominate it if they want, but don't feed the sock puppets. Mathewignash (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sockpuppet or not, this seems to be a perfectly sensible discussion, irrespective of the status of the nominator. I propose continuing per WP:IAR. --Crusio (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per mathewignash.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [35]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional alien does not meet the general notability guideline and as a subject it can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article doesn't provide any reference to back up the content, so all of it is original research by synthesis. Jfgslo (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Trek races#Sphere Builders, merge content at editorial discretion. I couldn't find evidence of notability, but it is perfectly appropriate for merging in that list. Cenarium (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cenarium. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage outside of a plot retelling provided, the episode plot summary is sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 20:55, 19 June 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 to delete. T. Canens (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural references to A Clockwork Orange[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list of cultural references is inappropriate because it is necessarily going to be a list of trivia and thus conflicts with the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Almost none of the "cultural references" have any notability, and the cultural impact of A Clockwork Orange can be covered elsewhere without this unsourced list cruft. Anthem 07:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup per WP:POPCULTURE. Tagged.—RJH (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to an encyclopaedic article called Cultural impact of A Clockwork Orange or something similar, but I don't understand how this list of trivial "cultural references" would be of use in creating such an article. --Anthem 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of wikipedia pages that include a subsection called "references in popular culture". This page serves the purpose of this sub-section but in a separate page. If this page is to be deleted on the basis that it is a "list of trivia", then all those subsections on other pages should also be deleted. --Bigbadman (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to something like this version and keep. The rename suggested above is also a good idea -- if it is not called "list", perhaps that slows down the cruft accumulation. —Kusma (t·c) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an inherently incompleteable trivia list. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move This content, cleaned up as suggested by Anthem of joy, should be a "cultural references" section in the Clockwork Orange article. Mellie107 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that this list was originally split off is that it contains both cultural references to the book and to the film. In many cases it is clear that the reference is to the film (Bart Simpson in Alex costume), in others it is not (nadsat references). —Kusma (t·c) 05:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [36]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps move to A Clockwork Orange in popular culture, and make it more of an article in paragraph format. -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 20 June 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 close. Nominator blocked as a sock and there are no other arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway Recordings[edit]

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

This artist management company seems to fail our notability guideline for organizations as well as the general notability guideline. Although there is some coverage in reliable sources, it mostly amounts to trivial mentions of Kates' status in the company or that a particular group has been managed by the company, which cannot be used to substantiate notability. The only real significant coverage is in the Boston Phoenix, which deals with now defunct record label side of the business. Previous AFD in 2006 closed as no consensus. Anthem 07:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [37]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:40, 15 June 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. After discounting the blocked sock nominator there is an (albeit narrow) consensus that the sourcing is sufficient for a standalone article. Even if one would discount some "keep" opinions as not addressing the sourcing issue, it's at least a no consensus default to keep. Sandstein 20:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ankheg[edit]

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

This fictional monster fails the general notability guideline, due to the lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. While there are multiple citations to reliable sources, none of them are third party, all being associated with the official Dungeons and Dragons brand/game. A search engine test provides no signs of independent coverage. Anthem 07:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC) Revert AfD nomination of sockpuppet, see WP:Banning policy. Unscintillating (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources relating to this topic were not self-published and so are quite satisfactory for our purpose as there is editorial independence and commercial distribution. Warden (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are in fact "self-published" in that the publishers of the books cited are TSR, Inc. or Wizards of the Coast. Both TSR and Wizards of the Coast have owned the Dungeons and Dragons trade mark and have been the producers of Dungeons and Dragons products. There's no real editorial independence of these sources from the games, as they are essentially produced by the same companies. --Anthem 08:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most publishers and authors protect their intellectual property by means of copyrights and so forth. The publishing operation here is quite standard - there are separate authors, editors and publishing staff and numerous publications and journals. This output is sold commercially and so is not a vanity press or free promotional material such as advertising. There is therefore no reason to discount such sources as they are satisfactory for both notability and verifiability. Warden (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it was "vanity or free promotional material" - that's a straw man. A better analogy would be that they are instruction manuals as how to play the game. They don't substantiate the notability of individual parts of it - they're primary sources. --Anthem 09:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this fictional species is protected by intellectual property rights does not mean that we shouldn't expect there to be any independent sources. Harry Potter (character), Superman, and Mickey Mouse are all protected by copyright and/or trademark, and yet the articles about them have sources independent of their creators/publishers. Obviously, I don't expect ankhegs to have as many independent sources as those characters, but they ought to have at least one to justify including a separate Wikipedia article about them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Ankheg, like many other D&D monsters has been included into the System Reference Document (SRD) and used by other roleplaying game publishers (creating verifiable secondary sources of the same element of culture). I'm suprised that Anthem's "search engine test" did not throw up the Ankheg page in the Pathfinder Reference Document, which is Paizo's conversion of the specific D&D monster in this article to their own upgraded (but compatible) rules. I'm also suprised that he did not stumble onto the Ankheg article on Pathfinder Wiki. Pathfinder Wiki is an independent encyclopedia of things that relate to the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and is a high quality wiki, with accurate citations. If you check their sources, they have four Paizo publications that further develop the fictional monster on this page. It took me less than 10 seconds to work out that Ankheg had been republished by Paizo. I'm sure that someone with more time could find other sources from other 3rd edition era publishers. I think this AFD should be scrapped and that Wikiproject D&D should be asked to clean up the article and add more sources. Big Mac (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the suitability of Pathfinder Wiki in the light of WP:SPS? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our guidelines on reliable sources. Wiki-projects which anyone can edit such as the Pathfinder Wiki are not reliable sources, and the System Reference Document is a primary source, because it is not independent of the publishers of the game. Anthem 19:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The sources quoted are not independent of the topic. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about dragon magazine, dungeon magazine, third party modules, etc? The Ankheg has most definitely appeared in reliable sources, but even if it hadn't it is something every gamer knows about. Why are editors suddenly trying to delete gaming material?98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we are applying overly stringent standards here. Applied elsewhere we'd have to delete lots of information. Something doesn't have to be hugely notable to earn a wikipedia entry. It simply needs to exist as a component of something notable. D&D is notable. It is THE role playing game. I see no reason why monsters from any of the monster manuals or from different editions couldn't have their own articles. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. The place for information on a component on a notable thing is as a component of the article on that notable thing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Warden and Big Mac. Note that there was only recently a similar Afd (over Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)) that failed to produce a consensus to delete. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- our requirements regarding independent sources are very clear. If there aren't any, we shouldn't have an article on it. This article is sourced solely to stuff produced by people who have an interest in promoting it. There is no evidence that anyone else has taken any notice. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how this interview hosted on Tor.com, Tor Books' website, is produced "by people who have an interest in promoting it"? I don't see anything else published by Tor in the references list, and I thought that TSR and Wizards were the vested companies. Jclemens (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're basing your assertion of notability on a single name-drop in half a sentence in an interview with the guy who invented this fictional monster? Really? Reyk _YO! 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm asking you a specific question about a blanket statement you made that I don't see matches reality. If there's an error of fact in your deletion rationale, it might well be discarded by the closing admin, and I wouldn't want your voice to go uncounted simply because you were too hasty in writing your rationale. You have plenty of time to amend it appropriately, that's all. Jclemens (talk) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Reyk. A Google Books search is very instructive here, since Ankheg was entirely made up for D&D. In addition to the two independent RS that appear in the article already, I found four in Bastion Press (not TSR or Wizards-owned) publications 1234, and one in Computer Gaming World. Likewise, Google News Archive shows mention in multiple Baldur's Gate reviews. Google Scholar duplicates two of the Google Books entries, but adds another mention in what appears to be a fan-generated GURPS supplement that I'm unsure why they chose to include. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion was Delete, so when you start saying things like "keep per Reyk" you are deliberately being a dick. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said it must be covered by independent sources to be kept, and I entirely agree and explained why with plenty of examples. Nothing dickish about that, just AGFing that you meant what you said. Jclemens (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You found a bunch of trivial name-drops, and you are twisting my words. You are trying to maneuver me into a position where I either have to agree with you or admit bad faith. It's the second time I've seen you do this in about a week. It's a cheap trick. Knock it off. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I merely posted the links, explicitly calling two of them "mentions"; triviality or not is something for the editors commenting here to evaluate. If you want to be a bit more verbose in the future--that is, finding such references, linking them to the discussion, and commenting on their triviality--then we could avoid avoid such misunderstandings in the future, which I'm sure is a goal you can agree with. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        ~~Per WP:BURDEN, you find the sources on this topic. --Anthem 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete per Reyk. "Trivial name drops", as he put it, do not confer notability; the topic has to actually be discussed in some detail in third party sources. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - "Trivial name drops" sound like another way to say "independent resources"; "trivial" is in the eye of the consensus. I add merge as an option because while I think D&D creatures deserve coverage, its hard to justify separate articles without delving too deep into in-universe style. This article does have some factual publication history sort of info, but that sort of info is conveyed better, I think, in larger summary articles. While some entities are important enough to the property to warrant separate articles, ankhegs seem mostly a background feature. - Sangrolu (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep particularly per the arguments of Jclemens and Sangrolu. BOZ (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, interesting article, that only lacks an image for perfection. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's just go through all the sources on offer to check whether they constitute significant coverage in reliable third party sources:

The Monster Manual is not independent because it is published by TSR, who are the same company which produces Dungeons and Dragons and owns the brand.

Dragon (magazine) is also not independent, because it is published by TSR. It is an official magazine, containing primary coverage.

The interview with Erol Otus contains no significant coverage of the Ankheg.

Monstrous Compendium Volume Two is also not independent, because it is published by TSR.

A later edition of the Monster Manual is also not independent, because it is published by Wizards of the coast which is not an independent source.

A user edited wiki such as [38] is a classic unreliable source.

[39] is just someone's internet database of monsters in the Final Fantasy series and thus is of dubious reliability.

Moving on to Jclemen's sources:

[40] is not significant coverage. Significant coverage must address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.

[41] is not significant coverage. The mention of "ankheg acid" in a table and a short explanation of what it is does not constitute significant coverage of ankheg, per the definition of significant coverage.

[42] is not significant coverage. The fact that the ankheg is in a list of creatures with six legs does not give it notability.

[43] is not significant coverage - ankhegs are just listed in a table along with other creatures.

[44] is not significant coverage - the ankheg is not adressed in detail.

Pointing at hundreds of "possible sources" at [45] makes my life difficult, but none of the first five sources are reliable or proffer significant coverage.

Out of the three GoogleScholar sources, two just list Ankhegs in lists of D&D creatures, and one states that the Ankheg was an inspiration for an illustration. Not significant coverage.
So, I remain committed to deleting this article unless someone can show how this meets Wikipedia's criteria for significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources, or provide other sources which do provide such content. There seems to be an aberrant local consensus among editors of D&D articles that notability is unimportant, and unless you can find sources which support your keep !votes, that opinion of mine will be reinforced. Anthem 10:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I agree with Sangrolu. The ankheg is a monster unique to D&D that has existed in most versions of the game, and there are enough sources to merit at least minimal coverage somewhere, whether it's on its own page or not. zorblek (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~If by "minimal coverage" you mean one or two sentences on a list of D&D monsters, I agree with you. If so, may I ask why you're !voting keep as well ? Anthem 11:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Anthem this seems like a lot of reliable sources have been provided. The majority clearly supports keeping this article. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Read my comment about all the so-called "reliable sources". Anthem 16:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I did read them. I believe most of these are reliable sources and so do most of the other posters. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the minority can be right. Unless you specifically rebut my points, I assume that you don't have any legitimate arguments to support the reliability of the sources. Anthem 17:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem you don't get to make the final decision here. But to your point, I think the fact that it is listed in those sources makes it a significant monster in RPGs. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close - I recommend closing this AFD, as the nominator has been indefinitely blocked as yet another sockpuppet of User:Claritas. BOZ (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. The discussion has been perfectly sensible. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say that because blocked users such as Claritas/Anthem are not permitted to edit, and that includes starting AFDs. This is not the first time this user has created a sockpuppet account to continue his disruption (User:Blest Withouten Match was the last example I recalled). BOZ (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no disruption here, but a civilised and sensible discussion. If there's a rule against it, then I would ignore it Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK? BOZ (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable. was nominated by a sockpuppet.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [46]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Regardless of the source of the complaint, I think it's still a valid concern. I am not opposed to D&D monsters having their own entry, if they are notable creations that have had a major impact on the game and through it, popular culture, such as the Drow, Beholder, or Mind Flayer. However, I don't think that this particular entry counts as one of them. This is a minor monster and I don't think Wikipedia should be a repository for every single D&D creature--this is written in an in-universe style and really ads nothing else other that a sourced bibliography. I think many of the D&D monsters should be moved either to their own Wiki or turned into a list, similar to what was done with Pokemon. JRT (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that the fictional monster meets the general notability guideline. The majority of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work and that which is not is merely its publication history, nothing to presume that the monster has reception or significance in reliable third-party sources. I also believe that this is not an appropiate topic since Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details and this is a minor monster in the Dungeons & Dragons game. The article is referenced with primary and tertiary sources and lacks reliable secondary sources independent of the subject to presume that it has notability to deserve a stand-alone article. As Reyk mentioned, random Google hits is not the same as notability, as notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trivial mentions in secondary sources (such as reviews of games) or detailed mentions in tertiary sources (such as gaming guides) are not evidence of notability. Jfgslo (talk) 00:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly because there is little to merge to and it has a 30 year history of coverage - I'll pay this as significant, but do concede it is a bit "in-universey". If I get a chance I will keep hunting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bastion Press is owned by Dragonwing Games, a company with a direct commercial interest in promoting D&D. The argument "keep because there's nowhere to merge it to" seems particularly weak. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone (magazine) has a direct commercial interest in promoting music. Hmm, so does Billboard (magazine). Are those, then, impeached as independent sources on music? I thought not. Jclemens (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they have a direct commercial interest in promoting a specific piece of music, which has an article, and that article is up for discussion, then thid comment would become relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so you're saying Bastion press has a specific commercial interest in promoting Ankhegs in specific, instead of just publishing RPG subjects for D20/D&D in general? While I'm not going to argue that the coverage is hugely broad, I will say this: if that's your definition of independence, then that is an insurmountable hurdle for third party publishers to ever be considered independent on anything deriving from primary sources. Yes, if you sell X, even though you didn't originate X, you make money from X. Music, RPGs, Pokemon, TV shows, novels, etc. I think it's clear both from policy and common sense that you're drawing the line far too narrowly. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has a direct interest in promoting the game which is the only place where this entity appears. However, independence is only one of the problems in my comments below. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's consider this source in detail against the criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Ankheg is a fictional entity in a particular game which this source discusses and out of which the publisher making a living. Is that "independent"? The book is indeed (more than a bit "in-universey": in fact it's entirely about suggestions for how this game might be played. Is that "reliable"? Finally, let me quote the entire coverage (don;t worry, this isn't going to violate anyone's copyright!). It's on a page about how a plain of grass might be viewed in the game. "A knowledge check ... provides awareness of the relationship between tripweed and ankheg." "Burrowing through the ground underneath the intended target, the ankheg waits for the ideal opportunity to surprise its prey." "There is a 15% chance of enountering an ankheg while passing through a patch of tripweed." One mention in a table and the index and that's it. Three sentences. Is that "significant coverage"? Does this add up to notability supporting a free-standing article. I say no. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:30, 19 June 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 speedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Booiaka[edit]

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

This is a dance-style subject. There are some obviously promotional areas on some of this page, but the main problem is, I cannot find any news sources to establish notability. Minima © (talk) 05:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The dance is copyrighted. It has no cultural significance.Curb Chain (talk) 12:41, 12 June 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. Favonian (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Wayne Cole[edit]

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

Porn performer. Fails WP:PORNBIO. One-time councilperson, so may meet WP:GNG if someone can find sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notableCurb Chain (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more or less per nom. Seems to be no sign of significance as a political candidate, apparently lost the city council race, getting between 1% and 1.5% of the votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 14 June 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. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sajid Ali Howlader[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All the sources appear to be in Bengali and I can't find a program to translate that, but judging on the titles of the already cited articles he meets the GNG. jorgenev

Delete: Fails WP:PROF. The article is also an autobiography as the subject himself wrote most of it. (@Jorgenev, I can help translate a Bengali news article if you want). --Ragib (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with no cites on GS. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I searched for references in an both Google and Yahoo and didn't find anything reliable, except for a Facebook and linkedin page. There is zero notability for this person. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:45, 17 June 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) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born Vietnamese footballers[edit]

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

Generally, we do not categorize people by their nation of origin. In addition, WP:LIST says that lists should include only people for whom it is a defining feature. None of these people are notable for being from outside of Vietnam, they are notable for being football players. In addition it is typical to make lists on the basis of what people are, rather than what they are not. If this was a category I'd say it was overcategorization, and that same argument applies to the list. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. There's nothing inherently special about a football player being born outside Vietnam but currently living in Vietnam. JIP | Talk 06:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial cross-categorisation, fails WP:NOTDIR. --Anthem
- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [47]. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please don't keep an article that will establish a precedent for a nonnotable set of articles.Curb Chain (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. — Meph^talk 16:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft, unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LISTCRUFT; consensus also exists that these kind of articles aren't notable, such as this AfD. Giant Snowman 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Penguin Booter[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a non-notable boot loader. The article is unreferenced; and searching for "Penguin Booter" -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum on Google Web returns 134 results that Google considers to be unique. The majority of these are mirrors of the Wikipedia article; and the remaining are either primary sources or sources that do not satisfy WP:RS and therefore cannot be used as evidence of notability. Google News and Books returns a questionable source and a book republishing Wikipedia content, respectively. Rilak (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 June 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) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not coming across any non-trivial reliable source coverage. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation Training[edit]

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

This article appears to be comprised solely of original research. The only external link on this page is to a blog entry. Furthermore, a Google search of the article title yields no related information. This article appears to fit into the following categories:

Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed Armadillopteryx (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:52, 5 June 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) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I'm finding is training for dealing with actual radiation, nothing on the actual subject of the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:31, 15 June 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. As pointed out, none of the secondary sources currently meet our notability guidelines. If some should be unearthed, please contact me or any other admin to have the article userfied for possible reinstatement. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder[edit]

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

I put a proposed deletion on the article because I do not feel its subject is notable enough and there are no independent references for the article. All of the references have been created by the subject himself, and I was unable to find any independent references myself. This proposed deletion was removed by an anonymous user who did not give any edit summary or provide any sources. Concerns about a lack of references have been raised in the article's talk page. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What specific Notability criteria does this personality violate? If Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks, an arguably marginal personality on the left consigned mostly to satellite radio, merits a Wikipedia page, then Steven Crowder - who is similarly popular on the right from his Web, talk-radio and Fox News appearances - certainly does. Just because you've never heard of someone (or obviously don't consume the media they are prominent on) does not meet they violate Notability guidelines. Crowder is a popular conservative comedian and commentator and his bio is an appropriate Wikipedia contribution. As far as referencing goes, there are independent sources out there that can confirm the details of the article; I can add them if no one else is willing to do the research. Keep. --SchutteGod (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 6 June 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) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article does not fit under any of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. I understand he has done work for some substantial organizations but I have not found any evidence that he himself meets any of the criteria for a Wikipedia page. Two wrongs do not make a right... If you believe another article does not belong on Wikipedia, you can propose its deletion, but the notability guidelines are used to determine what belongs here and what does not. I have tried to find independent sources to credit the subject and the information in this article, but I was unable to find anything. Please provide me with any independent sources that you can. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following Crowder's career as a political pundit and entertainer for several years. He has a tremendous following in conservative circles, and is a frequent guest on nationally syndicated radio (e.g., Dennis Miller, Hannity) and TV programs (Red Eye, Fox & Friends). I believe he merits a wiki page for his prominence in popular media and the widespread recognition of his talents. Just because Rogerthat94 isn't familiar with Crowder—or possibly dislikes his politics—is no reason to delete the page. Trackerseal (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the notability criteria does he qualify under? Could you provide third party soruces for any of the information in the article? If most of Crowder's work has been for a specific news organization, perhaps a solution could be to redirect this page to a section about Crowder on one of those organization's articles.Rogerthat94 (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His Youtube videos regularly get tens of thousands of views, he has been a contributor on the highest rated cable news show in their time slots, Hannity and Red Eye, was Master of Ceremonies at CPAC, worked with PJTV, and posts at Big Hollywood, to name a few things he is known for. The reality is that he is well known in conservative circles, as this list proves, and I suspect that you just don't like him. However, political or personal dislike of a person should not be the reason for deleting them. If wikipedia were to delete this page based on that basis, it would open a very dangerous door to political censorship which I'm sure both the left and right would prefer not to tread.

I understand that he has definitely accomplished things, but nothing he has done falls under Wikipedia's notability criteria. Remember, Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic content; not a place to advertise. If he has done work for an organization that is notable enough for an article, include information about him there. Regardless of whether I know about or like Mr. Crowder, I am maintaining a neutral position on that in my reasoning for this article's deletion. This is not a proposed deletion based on bias. Every article on Wikipedia is on a subject which fits under the same notability criteria; that's about as unbiased as it gets. No one is saying that this deletion is a form of censorship. If you want to take information about Mr. Crowder and add it to an article that does fit under the notability criteria (such as Fox News or CPAC), you're welcome to do so. I have proposed this deletion as a result of the subject lacking the notability required for a Wikipedia article; nothing more. The fact that nobody has been successful in finding any secondary sources further proves this point. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established - lack of significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Also, a couple of comments: The comparison upthread to Cenk Uygur isn't really applicable, given that Uygur anchors a daily show on a major television network (MSNBC), and nobody seems to be asserting that Crowder has that kind of notability. Also, please try to remember to assume good faith - there is no reason at all to believe that this nomination is motivated by politics or personal dislike. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall a deletion petition that was posted on Cenk Uygurs wikipedia entry when he was just posting Youtube videos, but feel free to prove this observation wrong. As for the notability criteria, quote, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"; here is Steven's imdb page, here is his BigHollywood biography, here is his PJTV profile, an interview with Dennis Miller and here is a PR newswire piece on one of his films. He is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have even replied to the comment about Uygur above - the bottom line is that whether or not Cenk's page exists or was ever nominated for deletion is completely irrelevant here. On the sources, Big Hollywood, PJTV and PR Newswire are not 3rd party, and nothing there amounts to significant coverage. My !vote remains unchanged. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, conservative commentators when starting out have a higher standard to attain than liberal ones; I see. Thanks for clarifying, dawn. Whether you agree or not, impartiality and fairness should be one of wikipedias strengths and to effect that, comparisons of how some personalities are treated depending on their political persuasion is certainly valid and applicable here. If a liberal is treated more favorably than a conservative, or vice versa, how can that be considered fair? As I have provided many secondary source links to evidence of Steven Crowders notability, I would ask whether there is any legitimate reason to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.242.243 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misrepresenting my position. Please don't do that. Note that nobody's reasons for deletion say anything about the fact that Crowder is politically right wing. Thank you, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone had submitted Cenk Uygur's page to AfD before he was notable enough for an article, his page would probably have been deleted as well. The notability criteria exists to eliminate the exact double standard you're accusing Wikipedia of imposing. None of those links you submitted qualify as secondary sources. Wikipedia defines secondary sources as "second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research. Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." In addition to the links Dawn pointed out, If you click around the IMDB page you can see that it was submitted from Crwoder's own website which makes it a primary source. The interview videos you have posted are obviously primary sources as well. My request for at least one secondary source still stands. The reasons the article should be deleted are still lack of notability and secondary sources. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But someone didn't submit Cenk Uygurs page, which is exactly my point. Someone did submit this one. This is a double standard. The notability criteria would seem to be a safegaurd against pointless or exagerated articles. He works for two very popular websites, has been a guest with audiences in the millions on Hannity and the hundreds of thousands in Red Eye, and the links I posted are to reputable secondary sources. Your criticism about imdb does not count, as it was only the biography that was provided by Steven Crowders website, not his list of accomplishments and credits, that speaks for itself. As for Dawn Bard, you tried to have Sister Hazel, a band with a gold and a platinum album, several movie soundtrack credits and with a massive following deleted; how good could your deletion judgement be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant to get so off topic here, but I am being attacked and I feel compelled to defend myself. My editing history is being misrepresented here in order to question my judgement, and I do not appreciate it. My single edit to the Sister Hazel entry was to add article improvement tags [48] in 2009, which is not at all the same thing as trying to have it deleted. In fact, article improvement tags are being proposed below as a way of keeping and improving the Steven Crowder article. Anyone having any further concerns about my prior edits should feel free to initiate a discussion on my talk page; this is not really a good venue for that. Thank you, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that nobody submitted the article on Uygur to AfD has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policy or the notability guidelines. If I had seen Uygur's page before he was notable enough for an article, I would have submitted it as well. The fact that I wasn't aware of his page until after he was notable is not a double standard. An article about a subject without enough notability is a pointless article, since it only really applies to a small number of people (in this case Crowder's fans) and generally has a lot of unverifiable information (which is true with this article). That's why the notability guidelines are so strict. I understand you believe Steven Crowder is accomplished and you believe your links are reputable secondary sources, but as it has been explained to you above, Wikipedia's notability guidelines and source definitions state otherwise. I personally don't know where IMDB got that list from, but the fact that part of the article was submitted by Steven Crowder's own website disqualifies that source from being independent of the subject. Even with that list, that is still not enough notability to merit a separate Wikipedia page for Steven Crowder. I again extend you the challenge of finding an independent source on Steven Crowder, such as the references on Cenk Uygur's reference section. Until you are able to do that, I maintain my position that the subject of this article is not notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. Also, please refrain from personal attacks. Rogerthat94 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's an actor with legitimate credits and a fairly popular political pundit. 5minutes (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand he has legitimate credits, but none of them are part of the notability criteria. Rogerthat94 (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did VO work in some Arthur specials, starred in "3 Needles", "The Covenant", and "To Save a Life". While one could argue which one of those qualifies as "notable", the fact is that he's been acting in films that have achieved both limited and wide releases consistently for over 10 years. Additionally, his punditry on major news outlets and websites would qualify him as a significant voice among a dedicated cult following. Furthermore - he doesn't meet any points under WP:Notability that would qualify him for deletion. He isn't famous because he knows someone, he's not listed here because of Google hits, he's not notable for only one event, etc. If anything, the Notability guidelines would call for a reasonable re-write or edit, if any action at all, but honestly, I think the article establishes his notability fairly well. Either way - deletion is an overreaction under the notability guidelines. 5minutes (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as is further proved by the fact that nobody has been able to provide any independent published sources and I have been unable to find them myself. A rewrite would not help improve the reliability and the quality of Wikipedia, unless such sources are found. Additionally, no credentials you have stated fall under the criteria of "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," or any other criteria for an article on a living entertainer. Arthur is only one show and none of those other works are notable. I have not found any evidence that would qualify him as having "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following" as he still has less than 50,000 subscribers on YouTube (which is much less than other YouTube personalities that have articles), there are no fan/cult sites dedicated to him, and he has made too few appearances on Fox News to be considered a regular guest. He doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, as there is a case for his notability; that's why I added a proposed deletion and submitted it to AfD. What evidence do you have to support your claim "He isn't famous because he knows someone, he's not listed here because of Google hits"? I have not seen evidence supporting or opposing those claims and I don't see how they affect his notability. I feel that if independent third party sources could be found, there may be a case for an alternate solution, but nobody has found any; thus deletion is an appropriate solution. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Playboy playmates have wiki pages.. Crowder is more notable than any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.236.143 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted this page to AfD because it didn't fit in the notability criteria, not because it is the least notable page. What notability criteria does Crowder fall under? Nobody has pointed out how he is considered notable, according to Wikipedia's criteria. Rogerthat94 (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logical thing to do here seems simple. Steven Crowder is notable as has been proven by several secondary sources that I have posted, from imdb to PJTV, to Big Hollywood, Dennis Miller Show etc, as well as in others. As deletion seems entirely unreasonable at this point, given the evidence, I agree with the poster who suggested an extension or cleanup of the article. This would seem to be the most fair approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to this comment below, where it has been posed a second time. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm chiming in on this to add my vote to keep the Article. I just saw one of Crowder's videos (a good one) on YouTube. Since he's a right winger, he is definitely not someone I would follow regularly. That said, I saw your notice and have read through the discussion and done just a bit of research. Just from what I can see based on a cursory search, I'd you're being pretty unfair. He is all over the right wing media - a Lexis search turned up 183 hits in the last two years, almost all of which were the Steven Crowder at issue here. He is verifiably a frequent contributor at PJTV, a contributor on Biggovernment.com, and a frequent guest on Hannity. Plus there is that IMDB entry, listing 14 show/films in which he has appeared over more than a decade. I'd say that he meets the notability criteria for entertainers in that he clearly has a significant fan base, and he has had a significant presence in both film and TV. And we are, after all, talking about keeping or deleting his Wikipedia entry. Given that Wikipedia has room for a lengthy entry on Milhouse Van Houten, and a somewhat less lengthy article on the likes of Siuan Sanche, I'd think they could retain a similar length article on someone who actually exists and is of some note.

The argument for deletion seems to be that he doesn't meet the notability criteria, and this argument is grounded in the claim that most of the references to him are "secondary" sources as opposed to "primary" sources. Are not the verifiable appearances he has made on TV and the internet and in live venues over the years sufficient "primary" sources? What would Rogerthat94 consider to be a sufficient "primary" source? -- Lloyd S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.231.183 (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing primary and secondary sources. Articles need to be referenced with a significant basis in independent published secondary sources to maintain the format, quality, and verifiability of Wikipedia. The type of source that would satisfy this criteria would be an article in a publication (which was researched under editorial control) that was published by someone who is independent of the subject. Examples of this for other actors are articles about a film they are in (written independently), which give them significant coverage, or an article about their career. As no such sources have been provided (and I have been unable to find through many pages of google searches on the subject), I maintain that the most appropriate solution is to delete the article. No one is concerned that articles are taking too much space on Wikipedia's servers, but articles like this one have lots of unverifiable information and this can lead to problems. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Couple of Side Points and a Proposal[edit]

First - I do not, at this time, believe that the proposal for deletion has been done in bad faith, i.e. it does not appear to be politically motivated. If we are honest with ourselves, a lot of articles do get inappropriately edited or deleted, or inappropriately defended by those with political agendas. While I can't peer into Rogerthat94's brain, based on his contributions to Wikipedia, he doesn't appear to be pursuing an agenda. He may be - I may be wrong, but the appearance is not there, IMO. I commend him for attempting to keep politics out of this discussion.

Second - these types of proposals are common. Often, someone feels that some person isn't notable enough for whatever reason to have a page on Wikipedia. Rogerthat's earlier propsed afd was successful because he found a person (Jenna Rose) who DID miss the notability guidelines because they were famous for making a couple of videos on Youtube. One day, Ms. Rose may be popular enough, but as it stands, her attachment to the ARK bunch and her "Jeans" video on YouTube just weren't enough to meet those guidelines.

Therefore, what I'd like to suggest is something I mentioned earlier. While Mr. Crowder does have some popularity, enough, I believe, to meet those notability guidelines, but certainly enough to call this AfD into question, I'd like to propose that the AfD be changed out for a and a tag.

First - I'd like to commend you on staying civil, assuming good faith, and keeping politics out of your response. I agree that there is a debate that can be had over whether or not his credentials meet the notability criteria, but the fact still remains that no independent sources have been found. Even if his credits did merit notability for an article, a lack of independent sources presents a serious problem in creating encylcopedic content. For example, the current article on Crowder and several of his online profiles state that he was born in Detroit, Michigan, U.S. but his imbd page states that he was born in Grosse Pointe, Michigan, USA. That's only one example of a problem, but there are many more that can arise when there are no independent sources. Remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source. That means that information should be referenced mainly with secondary and independent sources. Even if sources come from a video of Crowder saying something himself; it can be hard to tell if he's being sarcastic or not since he is a comedian. Referencing mostly published independent sources eliminates this problem.

Aside from the lack of credentials, which I know there can be made a case against, the fact that there are no independent references leads me to the position that the most appropriate solution is to delete this article. If Steven Crowder becomes popular enough for multiple reliable secondary sources, that are independent of him and independent of the organizations he works for, to be published and amount to significant coverage, I would agree that a separate Wikipedia article for him would be appropriate. However, at the current time, no such sources exist and I feel that there isn't really a case to me made for an alternate solution. If you are successful in providing enough independent sources that amount to significant coverage, I will withdraw my AfD nomination. Until those sources are provided, I maintain that the most appropriate solution is to delete the article. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no independent references, then the solution is to leave the article up and request that users search for and provide independent references. That's why I believe my solution is preferable to the deletion of an article about a man who is an actor (with verifiable credits in films with wide distribution) and commentator. 5minutes (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your solution is that it leaves unverifiable information on Wikipedia. I know we disagree about whether or not he is notable enough for an article, but I think you can agree with me that, for the sake of maintaining the quality and reliability of Wikipedia, the best solution is to delete this article and recreate it once independent sources are published. If the article has to be rewritten anyway, there's no harm in waiting until proper sources are published to do so. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. That's why the community edits it. No article is perfect from the get-go, which is why we have the improvement tags.5minutes (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article is perfect from the get-go, but every article subject (no matter how small the article) is required to have a significant coverage in independent published secondary sources for verifiability reasons and to keep Wikipedia, well, an encyclopedia. Improvement tags are meant for articles (that do need work) about subjects for which the correct type of sources do exist; not subjects for which no required sources exist (such as this one). If you feel strongly about having an article about Steven Crowder on Wikipedia (which I'm assuming you do, since you have repeated your position multiple times in this AfD discussion), once an appropriate source is published, create an article based off of that source. At the current time, no such sources exist and thus no information on the subject can be properly verified and deletion is the most appropriate solution. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logical thing to do here seems simple. Steven Crowder is notable as has been proven by several secondary sources that I have posted, from imdb to PJTV, to Big Hollywood, Dennis Miller Show etc, as well as in others. As deletion seems entirely unreasonable at this point, given the evidence, I agree with the poster who suggested an extension or cleanup of the article. This would seem to be the most fair approach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided any independent published sources that fall under the criteria that Wikipedia requires. Until such sources are provided, I maintain that the most appropriate solution is to delete the article. Remember, Wikipedia is a place for encylcopedic content that is verifiable, not a place to advertise for Mr. Crowder. You have stated multiple times that you believe he is notable enough for a separate article, but there is a disagreement on that between multiple editors. If independent sources are published in the future and amount to significant coverage, that would be an appropriate time to create an article on him. At the present time, no such sources exist and deletion is the most appropriate solution in order to maintain the quality and verifiability of Wikipedia. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, and many others, have pointed out the fact that imdb is a reliable source, as are the Dennis Miller show and Big Government.com, to name a few. These certainly are included in the secondary sources guidelines posted. Your unwillingness to acknowledge them doesn't change their status as legitimate secondary sources. You keep mentioning the advertising angle, but the reality is that you would need to know about Steven Crowder in order to find your way here, which would imply prior knowledge. You have not suggested anything that has been stated about Mr. Crowder in this article is false, and so I ask; where is the advertising, false or otherwise? Insistence on deletion in the face of the evidence that has been provided is beginning to smack of something other than legitimate concern for Wikipedia. I'll simply say what I have before; Steven Crowder has been proven notable, via both secondary sources provided by multiple sources on this thread and by the very nature of the debate. Any attempt at this point to delete would run the risk of being tainted with partisanship. No one wants this for Wikipedia or the community it represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyHudson (talk • contribs) 06:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary source definition states: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The Dennis Miller show link is an interview, which means that it is a primary source (it is not one step removed). The IMDB link was partly submitted by Crowder's own website and it does not list any primary sources. None of the links you have provided were published, researched under editorial control, or independent of the subject. Regardless of whether or not a source is considered reliable or not, the notability guidelines state that the subject of an article must have significant coverage in "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." No such sources have been provided, and thus I maintain that deletion is the appropriate solution. If such sources existed to prove the notability of Mr. Crowder and provide a framework to create a stub article, your sources would by fine in addition to the independent published sources. Wikipedia articles tend to rank high in google searches, so it is in fact a place people try to advertise on. I mentioned advertising because it is a common reason that people strongly contest AfD in the manner that you have done. You are posing from an account, created the day after I proposed this article for deletion, that has only been used to post long and repeated arguments in this single discussion, so that does raise some suspicions; however, I was not accusing anyone of using this article to advertise anything. As there are no independent published sources on Mr. Crowder, I have no idea what information in this article could be true or not, but his birthplace is something you should certainly clarify. I simply used the possibility of misinformation to illustrate one of the many problems that can arise from keeping an article on a subject which is not covered by any of the said sources that Wikipedia requires every article to be referenced with.

I have stated this multiple times, but you keep insisting on bringing it up, so I'll state it one more time. I am not proposing this article for deletion because I am opposed to any of Steven Crowder's political views. I have not mentioned any reasons remotely relating to this. There are plenty of articles on subjects with conservative viewpoints who are notable, so your arguments of censorship and partisanship are completely invalid. In addition, there have been articles on subjects with liberal viewpoints, who were just as notable as Mr. Crowder (but also not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia) that were deleted. The fact is, I believe Steven Crowder does not have the credentials to make him notable enough for an article (which I admit there is a case to be made against) and there are no independent published secondary sources about him and no one has been able to provide any (your links do not satisfy Wikipedia's source guidelines). Wikipedia represents a community of people who volunteer their time to provide a source of free and reliable information. Almost anyone who has dedicated a significant amount of time to Wikipedia would want an article, which does not reference any reliable published independent sources, to be deleted. No one would have a problem with it being recreated once those source are published, but at the present time the sources do not exist and the best solution is to delete this article. Unless you are able to provide appropriate sources (which fit the criteria, unlike the ones you have repeatedly listed), my position remains the same. Thanks, Rogerthat94 (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at this point, it appears that your opinion is in the minority. Therefore, would you be willing to replace your deletion tag with my proposed "let's get this article up to snuff" tags? 5minutes (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide an independent published secondary source, I stand by my position that deletion is the appropriate action. I have no problem with recreating the article once such sources are published. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's the problems you're going to have. First - you obviously have a different opinion as to what qualifies as a sufficient source. The problem is that this is your opinion, and other users have already pointed out that there are, per Wikipedia guidelines, primary and secondary sources already given. Whether you find them acceptable or not is opinion, not guideline. The other problem you're going to have is that the vote on this deletion currently stands in favor of rejecting the deletion, and while head counts are not enough of a reason to delete, it does indicate that there is no consensus to delete this article. The other issue you're going to have is demanding perfection in an article on a community-driven encyclopedia, where different members of the community have different opinions and different sources. No article is going to be perfect out of the gate, or ever 2-3 years after its creation. It will always need updating, which is why I've suggested the tags I've had. Again - my suggestion is for you to bow out of your suggestion and allow the Wikipedia community to do what the Wikipedia community does. 5minutes (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My request for independent published secondary sources is in fact a guideline. None of the sources that were given are published, independent of the subject, or fit under that guideline. I am not demanding the article be perfect by any means, I am just requesting an appropriate source. The only valid argument against deletion is that his credentials qualify him for an article under the additional guidelines for an actor (which I disagree with, but it is a valid argument). This is not enough grounds to keep the article without even one proper source. Again, deletion is the appropriate solution unless someone can provide such a source source, but I have searched a lot and found nothing. Rogerthat94 (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Stevencrowder.net (his own site) qualifies as a primary source, as do his biographies on organizations that employ him. 5minutes (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. That's why I stated that no independent published secondary sources exist. The notability guidelines state: "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. 'Sources', for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." These guidelines state that "Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical sources is unacceptable," and "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources." No such sources exist; thus, this article should be deleted. It may be recreated if such sources are published. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't a lack of secondary sources, it's that you're rejecting the listed secondary sources for personal reasons. Crowder's notability has already been established - and referenced by multiple sources, both primary and secondary (I've added both in the past 12 hours), both as an actor in multiple roles in wide releases and as a political commentator. One would think that a person concerned with references and accuracy would be inclined to accept the widely-used tags for improvement (which is exactly what a community-editable encyclopedia is about). 5minutes (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only secondary source that I am aware of is the IMDB page and there are multiple problems with it. I have stated them each time it has been brought up in the discussion. My position has nothing to do with any personal reasons and nothing I have stated in this discussion contradicts this. Please remember to assume good faith. I have also stated the correct place for the improvement tags and this article is not one of them; it should be deleted. You are misguided in your analysis of Wikipedia and its community. I would recommend that you read through the documentations on Wikipedia's policies that I have posted through the discussion before responding because many of your arguments are covered in those documents. Thanks, Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make up your mind. You demand secondary sources, and then when they're provided, you say they're not good enough. Primary sources are provided and you jump to the false claim that the page is being used for personal promotion. I suggest that the article be improved, and you demand that the article be near-perfect before it's published. At this point, I want the admins to make a call. I'm done. 5minutes (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely misrepresenting my position. I stated a need for proper sources in my original proposal and have stood by that through this entire discussion. I would have no problem leaving the article up to be improved if independent published secondary sources exited, but they don't. I think the fact that nobody has been able to provide a single one is pretty good proof of this. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And secondary sources have been provided. You just don't approve. Again, I'm done. Let the admins do their job. 5minutes (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only secondary source that was provided was the IMDB link and, as I have stated above, this is not a published source or researched under editorial control and it does not amount to significant coverage. It was also partly submitted by the subject's own website, so it is not independent of the subject. No independent published secondary sources exist and deletion is the most appropriate solution. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Because asking people to improve the article is just too much for a community-edited encyclopedia. /sarcasm 5minutes (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clogher Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fourth Tier Irish cricket club, clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no claim to significance made in the article. Mtking (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because the article does indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: it says that the club plays in the NCU Senior League, i.e. it is a senior cricket club in Ireland, the highest status of cricket club in Ireland (as opposed, e.g. to junior cricket).

WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines.

There is no reason why each senior-league cricket club in Ireland shouldn't have at least a stub. A club may be in the fourth tier this year, but equally may be in the second or first tier in a few years' time. Mooretwin (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... or they may not. WP:CRYSTAL may have some bearing here. If they get to a suitable level then an article may be appropriate. Until then, it is not. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Administrator : WikiProject Cricket have clarified the guidelines, and Irish Cricket clubs do not meet the English criteria and are notable if they meet the WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. One of the editors here, who is seeking to get the articles removed, changed the guidelines himself. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 12 June 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) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Irish cricket club playing at highest club level. --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously failed to read both the page and nomination, it plays in the FOURTH tier. Mtking (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The club plays at level four of the league, which is well below the standard expected per WP:CRIC guidelines until their peculiar (& unilateral) change by an interested party today. If it should ever play in the Premier section then things might be different. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and your pal must have some serious dislike of Irish cricket to be bothered to go to these lengths with your deletion campaign. Mooretwin (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go again with your accusations. What makes you think that MTKing is my pal. I do not think we had any dealings with each other prior to these recent AfDs, we are not tag teaming and we are both approaching the issue on the basis of policy and in the face of what appear to be disingenuous statements. Look, it is simple: if the club is notable then please provide some proof of that notability. Decent newspaper coverage, books etc. From what you say, it should not be too difficult. - Sitush (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Normally I only get involved in Deletion's when I see an article trying to be deleted that should be kept, but as a member of a English club cricket team who has played some games in Ireland I can say that the claim that this club is of the same standard as there ECB league counterparts, is wishful thinking. I can find nothing significant covering this club, so does not pass WP:GNG. VER Tott 10:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find any "significant" coverage of teams in the Lincolnshire Cricket Board Premier League? Teams in the Lincolnshire League are considered notable under the WP Cricket guidelines, so the same standard should apply here. Mooretwin (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mooretwin (talk) 08:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm concerned in seeing some of the same discredited arguments to Keep as in the recent Cork County Cricket Club AfD, with people stoutly arguing that a FOURTH tier club is really a "top-level" club, that there is some bias against Irish cricket or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS nonsense. The bottom line is that this team doesn't pass the GNG, and the only explanation for the Keep proponents failing to come up with the reliable, third-party sources that would save these articles is that they know there aren't any. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 17:17, 17 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donaghadee Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fourth Tier Irish cricket club, clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no claim to significance made in the article. Mtking (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because the article does indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: it says that the club plays in the NCU Senior League, i.e. it is a senior cricket club in Ireland, the highest status of cricket club in Ireland (as opposed, e.g. to junior cricket).

WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines.

There is no reason why each senior-league cricket club in Ireland shouldn't have at least a stub. A club may be in the fourth tier this year, but equally may be in the second or first tier in a few years' time. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since others are trotting out stock responses/comments across a range of these articles ... Or they may not. WP:CRYSTAL may have some bearing here. If they get to a suitable level then an article may be appropriate. Until then, it is not. This club is apparently at level 3, by the way, not level 4. - Sitush (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Administrator : WikiProject Cricket have clarified the guidelines, and Irish Cricket clubs do not meet the English criteria and are notable if they meet the WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. One of the editors here, who is seeking to get the articles removed, changed the guidelines himself. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 12 June 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) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Irish cricket club playing at highest club level. --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you will see it is in fact the Fourth level. Mtking (talk) 03:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club this club is not playing at a level comparable to the ECB Premier Leagues and nothing covering this club would appear to exist. VER Tott 10:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What non-local-news coverage is there of clubs playing in the Lincolnshire League? Teams in the Lincolnshire League are considered notable under the WP Cricket guidelines, so the same standard should apply here. Mooretwin (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - club plays outside the top level, being in the third division/section of a provincial league (Ireland has no national league). Article is unreferenced even after being nominated here for some time. Appears to fail GNG. - Sitush (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The dissenting keep votes say that the team is playing at the "highest possible club levels", but this has been shown not to be the case; the team is three tiers below that level. Moretwin asked a reasonable question: "Why would you want a situation where a club gets relegated, its article is deleted, then it gets promoted and the article has to be re-created?". Generally, this is not the situation, once a team has been at the top tier ("Premier League" for this sport), the team will be subject to much more extensive coverage and the notability is also greatly enhanced. Even if the team is later relegated, the history remains notable per WP:NTEMP. However, no evidence has been given that Dungannon has ever been in the Premier League, so that argument does not apply in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dungannon Cricket Club[edit]

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

Fourth Tier Irish cricket club, clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, no claim to significance made in the article. Mtking (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club is mentioned in third party sources as cited in the article. Does not fail WP:GNG. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because the article does indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: it says that the club plays in the NCU Senior League, i.e. it is a senior cricket club in Ireland, the highest status of cricket club in Ireland (as opposed, e.g. to junior cricket).

WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines.

There is no reason why each senior-league cricket club in Ireland shouldn't have at least a stub. A club may be in the fourth tier this year, but equally may be in the second or first tier in a few years' time. Mooretwin (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since others are trotting out stock responses/comments across a range of these articles ... Or they may not. WP:CRYSTAL may have some bearing here. If they get to a suitable level then an article may be appropriate. Until then, it is not. - Sitush (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most (if not all) Irish cricket club articles are being systematically targetted for deletion. Since the same rebuttal applies to the same objection being raised on every article, you would naturally expect to see the same rebuttal across the discussions. Your reference to "trotting out stock responses" is disingenuous at best and uncivil at worst. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing Administrator : WikiProject Cricket have clarified the guidelines, and Irish Cricket clubs do not meet the English criteria and are notable if they meet the WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. One of the editors here, who is seeking to get the articles removed, changed the guidelines himself. Mooretwin (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... after others contributed to the discussion on the project TP. You really do need to appreciate that there is more than one purpose to AfD, including that it may result in an article not being deleted but being improved. There are other purposes. When CSD and PROD have gone their course without significant improvements to the article, AfD is about the only option available to bring about improvement. As things stand, various Irish cricket club articles need some additional content/verification and this is the only recourse left. Perhaps try to find something to achieve this? I, for one, would be happy if you did. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out to you several times that the reasoning of the "others" who contributed was fallatious. One based his reasoning with comparison between Irish leagues and the Lancashire League, yet the guidelines recognise the notability not only of the Lancashire League but of ECB Premier Leagues. He also pointed out that the Lancashire League has a "long history" - yet so too does the North West League (over 100 years). The other based his reasoning on the lack of a "first-class structure" for Irish clubs to feed into", yet Irish leagues feed into an ODI international team and the Ireland county team that plays county cricket in England. Mooretwin (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE - is very clear "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" so rather than going point, counterpoint about the project guidelines, can you show how this club meets the WP:GNG becouse if it does not then it should be deleted. Mtking (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Why would the English criteria apply? A bit of a red herring, really. Appears to be that articles on Irish cricket clubs are being systematically targeted for deletion. Are all such articles to go? RashersTierney (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was Mooretwin who asserted that they meet the WikiProject Cricket guidelines, and there are a number of stubs on clubs (mostly created by Mooretwin) that don't meet the WP:GNG for inclusion. Mtking (talk) 01:01, 10 June 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) 02:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the context of Irish sport, this cricket club is playing at the highest possible club levels in Ireland. It's the equivalent of someone trying to delete --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly failed to read both the page and the nomination reason, because if you did you will will have seen that they play in the fourth tier of cricket in there area. Mtking (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The club plays at level four of the league, which is well below the standard expected per WP:CRIC guidelines until their peculiar (& unilateral) change by an interested party today. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What User:HighKing said, plus article meets WP:GNG. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can you support HighKing's reasons when they are do manifestly based on false information. As for the WP:GNG claim, please provide the reliable sources that discuss the club in significant detail ? Mtking (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - highest level = senior cricket. The club is in the NCU Senior League which means it has senior status and may gain promotion to the top division. Why would you want a situation where a club gets relegated, its article is deleted, then it gets promoted and the article has to be re-created? Mooretwin (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club this club is not playing at a level comparable to the ECB Premier Leagues or even at the top level in Ireland (admitted to by one of the sources) and even though some coverage exists it is all local news stuff. VER Tott 10:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What non-local-news coverage is there of clubs playing in the Lincolnshire League? Teams in the Lincolnshire League are considered notable under the WP Cricket guidelines, so the same standard should apply here. Mooretwin (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the sources state "Unfortunately Dungannon CC never reached the top of Ulster cricket and much of their success over the years has been in the junior ranks". Do not play at a sufficiently high level to establish notability. Separately the sources fail to meet WP:GNG. One source is an incidental mention of an incident. The other source specialises in covering junior cricket. TerriersFan (talk) 17:37, 20 June 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 Shahjalal_University_of_Science_and_Technology. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture, SUST[edit]

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

Fork from the article Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. The department is not exceptionally notable to merit its own article. The article itself is written like a brochure, complete with "Philosophy" and "Faculty list". The department fails WP:N ... it is not independently notable in Bangladesh or elsewhere. There is no reason why the actual info (after you take out the faculty roster and "philosophy") cannot be handled in the university page. I had redirected the article to the university page, but the creator insists on reverting that. So, I'm proposing deletion per WP:N. Ragib (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the partent article, per nomination. No other member of Category:Architecture schools in Bangladesh has a separate article for its architecture department. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, no other architecture school is separately functioning from the university as how Architecture, SUST is. --Rossi —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

How so? The department website clearly states that it is an academic department of the university. So, your claim doesn't hold water. I also just noticed that you plagiarized large chunks of text from the university's website and added to the article. In any case, independent notability of the department has not been established ... all the current content can be merged to the university article. --Ragib (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid argument, Rossie, as per Ragib. » nafSadh did say 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Sir JJ College of Architecture and Department of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossi (talk • contribs) 09:00, 12 June 2011

Take a look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - that is not a valid argument to prevent this article from being deleted. If you feel the Oxford article needs to be deleted it then propose it. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad example Rossi! Sir JJ College of Architecture is a separate body. » nafSadh did say 12:32, 12 June 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) 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete not notable enough to have a separate article and shall be covered withing the scope of parent university. » nafSadh did say 12:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hardly a strong delete then. If we are to cover the department then we need to merge content back so deletion breaches our GFDL licence. TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not GFDL violation. Coz this article in question can not be source of information (it have no encyclopedic content at all), if we cover the department in universities scope - we'll have to write freshly. » nafSadh did say 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back. Obviously not separately notable but there have been no valid arguments for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify plz! if not separately notable why we even need a redirect? » nafSadh did say 20:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

for the rather obvious reason that redirects help readers find information within larger articles and it is wholly normal to redirect to sections within pages on more notable topics. TerriersFan (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the accreditation niblet and notable faculty members with SUST article, delete the rest, which is wholly run-of-the-mill, and promotional to boot. Brammers (talk/c) 14:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Notability is not inherited. No information is cited.Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Journey for a Nation[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be the subject of any coverage independent of the topic. Only google hits are to music sales and Napster. As such it fails WP:N and WP:V HominidMachinae (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 5 June 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) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated - no significant coverage in reliable 3rd-party sources. No claim of notability either. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escdaily[edit]

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

I'm bringing this to AFD rather than using a PROD as I usually would because there are a few google news hits for Escdaily. However all of them mention it only in passing, none are ABOUT Escdaily, but rather they use Escdaily as a primary source while reporting about Junior Eurovision.

In short, there are no sources here, so the article fails WP:V and WP:RS. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication that this is notable, as it is only a website that reports on a music comp not sure how this is not CSD A7 - Web Content. Mtking (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I indicated above I erred on the side of caution because there was some scant news coverage that used them as a source (did not talk about them). I prefer to save CSD for when the case is remarkably clear to me, as an American this is outside my area of expertise. If you want to put up a speedy tag you'll get no objection here. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've declined the speedy deletion as they do appear be being used as a source in news articles, and there is also quite a few name matches in non-English news results where I don't know if they're a source, a quotee or the subject. It seems therefore that there might be notability and so letting this AfD run the course is the best option. This is without prejudice to the outcome of this discussion, about which I am neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was at the Eurovision Song Contest this year in Düsseldorf and Escdaily is certainly a source of news, although less so than ESCtoday which I believe was deleted a while ago. Escdaily also get press accreditation and they're certainly a major source of information and are quoted in other sources. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 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) 02:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find an independent assessment of the website in English or German, only self-references and links from fanpages. I can't identify criteria of WP:INTERNET as met. Hekerui (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pr33 Ringz[edit]

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

Mixtape, per WP:NSONGS generally not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Redirect to artist was contested twice, and one source covering the mixtape was added (MTV 1). The one other mention of the mixtape I found per Google news only mentions the name of the mixtape (MTV 2).
The community asks for coverage in multiple reliable sources; as far as I can tell this topic does not show enough encyclopedic notability to warrant a stand-alone article.
I read an unsourced statement that this mixtape is serving as an introduction to the album Thr33 Ringz (the title suggests it as well), if true it may be best to merge/redirect it there. Amalthea 10:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 6 June 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) 02:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds with sufficient references to reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.Smith[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Djc wi (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete, but not sure. I declined a speedy A7 on this (and was going to bring it here, but was beaten to it) as there are claims of studio albums and a book. But the albums look self-published (the only sources given are self-published, at least). There's a Barnes & Noble source for the book, though, and "P.Smith" is a tricky Google search, so there might be something else out there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 6 June 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) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds with references to reliable third-party sources. Sources listed are self-published or indiscriminate. (B&N will list any book or album for sale online, even self-published.) - Dravecky (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real assertion of notability, and no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, so notability is not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia:V and Wikipedia:N. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riftforge[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I've searched for reliable sources based on the WikiProject Video games guide to sources as well as the WPVG custom Google search and found nothing. Current references in the article are all self-published/primary. All others I could find are press releases, blogs, and forum posts, nothing that we can use to write an article. Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Wyatt Riot (talk) 12:06, 5 June 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) 02:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Here's a press release [49], but that is considered primary. Other than that I don't see reliable secondary sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:59, 14 June 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) 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and sex integration[edit]

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

In spite of the title, the article in fact contains very little information about religion and sex integration, instead throwing in various scattered topics including the gender of deities, women's rights with or without reference to religion, and other stuff that's even less related to the ostensible topic. In theory, "women's rights in religious movements" is an encyclopedic topic (there's a category, but I don't think it has a main article); so is Religion and sex segregation, which already exists (this article, even if written in a coherent fashion, would thus still probably be redundant). But this particular article contains far too much extraneous content and original research. Even assuming there is a non-redundant topic here, which is questionable, there is not enough salvageable content here that it wouldn't be better to blow it up and start again from scratch with a clearly defined aim and structure, an appropriate scope, and a commitment to NOR. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. There are no sources here that talk about the conflation of all these topics. Also, there are a spate of these "x and sex integration" articles that all seem to be entirely original research. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are all research as a number of authors have mentioned on the subjects in each title including this one. Research makes for good encyclopedia articles and pages, as do the included appropriate references. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that no one mentions either of the titles it's that they don't mention them together in this context. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I added this to the first paragraph: "Occasionally there are some protests on the concept of religion and sex integration and revolts from feminist groups to provide equal rights as men to perform sacrileges, yet they never persist or are suppressed.^[1]" Enjoy! Marshallsumter (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "essay" you cite is appallingly badly written, presumably self-published, and quite unsuitable as a Wikipedia source. 86.160.220.131 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (PS: I've just noticed, do you suppose "sacrileges" is a mistake for "sacraments"? That would be hilarious!)[reply]

I agree with you on all of your points about the source. I could not find the author, and frankly don't care. But it serves a valuable point. As Metropolitan90 has pointed out below sex integration or gender integration is generally not in common use among scholars or theologians with respect to women sharing roles in religion with men or having deities of their sex as most religions use to have. This is unfortunate. Government funding cannot be spent on analysis of religion per the separation of church and state, only on discrimination on the basis of religion. As far as I know only Australia has investigated the level of sex/gender integration of the occupation 'ministers of faith'. Most private funding is often from those who are religious and may not want studies made of religion. I wrote this article from the definition of sex integration. There is no implication made and there is no synthesis or original research per WP:SYN, but I'm not putting in the time to prove that by listing twenty-four authors and demonstrating they are discussing these matters even though the phrase "sex integration" may not be on every page. Reality is reality. A better title for such an article might be 'Gender and religion' so as to characterize the appalling lack of equality at all levels, and the efforts some religions have made per their view of their respective God (monotheists), for example, to resolve this problem. Researchers usually need funding to perform research. Religion is one of those quasi-taboo areas. Just a note: One person's idea of haphazard may be another's idea of order. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article seems like a haphazard collection of whatever random things came into someone's mind that seemed connected to women, gender and religion. 86.160.222.19 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article seems to be somewhat confused, either underestimating or overestimating the number of female deities in various religions. "At many times throughout human history an occasional god or deity is male or female. Neith was an early goddess in the Egyptian pantheon. Ishtar was the main goddess of Babylonia and Assyria. In pre-Islamic Mecca, the goddesses Uzza, al-Manāt and al-Lāt were known as "the daughters of god". And, the Greek and Roman ruling male gods were named Zeus and Jupiter, respectively. In the years near the birth of Jesus Christ, Judaism included the worship of a goddess (probably Astarte). Hinduism concedes that the divine can have human form and even be a woman." The only source cited in this passage is a book published by a vanity publisher which does not itself cite sources for its more controversial claims. This passage also ignores the fact that there were hundreds of Greek goddesses and Roman goddesses, and that Hinduism doesn't just "concede" the possibility of female goddesses, but has many of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that the roles of women in various religions is a notable topic (see Women in Buddhism, Gender roles in Christianity, Women in Hinduism, Gender roles in Islam, Women in Judaism, and other articles), as is the role of female deities in various religions (see Goddess). However, the term "sex integration" is not in particularly common use, as far as I can tell, at least not to refer to all the activities and concepts described in this article (it is used in some contexts but not all of these). Note also that the Wikipedia article Sex integration was written primarily by the same editor who created this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the page's creation on 8 May 2010, six editors and bots have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it 12 June. Have any improvements been made since then? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Substantially all of the substantive content in the article was added by the article's creator, not by other editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this strange mish-mash of WP:OR. Goddesses, the roles of women in religion, and gender equality are all important topics, but this seems to be trying to combine them in an essay to make some sort of point; I'm not even sure what point it is. LadyofShalott 21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Grab bag of facts, some right and some wrong, none of which support the notional article topic. This ill-considered article should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LastBASH[edit]

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

Article on an apparently non-notable media player, authored primarily by the developer. No sourcing at all, despite a cleanup tag since 2009. Can't find any third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut (talk) 13:30, 5 June 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) 01:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no refs or indication of notability, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Word[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. No releases on a major label. Google web search brings up only primary sources, news search brings up no relavant hits. RadioFan (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 6 June 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) 01:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE for WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CRYSTAL. Only references cited are Youtube videos. Consider for UNDELETE if recording subsequently meets WP:MUSICBIO and secondary references are provided. Mariepr (talk) 02:20, 12 June 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 Bitcoin. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Nakamoto[edit]

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

No notability demonstrated as per WP:N. No major press coverage, most links are to bitcoin forums etc. Hell they don't even know if he's a real person or not. This article should be merged with Bitcoin. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted. Speculation about a software developer which appears to be non-notable his creation of bitcoin. It's full of random speculation, and the lack of substance makes the existing content unsuitable for merging. At best this could hope to be is a terrible coat-rack article, unless he does something else interesting and unless more cite-able material becomes available.--Gmaxwell (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; Nakamoto doesn't have any notability apart from Bitcoin, so merge any relevant info into that article. The fact that Nakamoto might be a pseudonym is irrelevant to his notability. There's a fair bit of major press coverage mentioning Nakamoto too, but only incidentally to Bitcoin, and so there's no need for a separate article on its creator. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bitcoin. Like other articles about people known for one thing only, Nakamoto (or whatever his name really is) has no notability independent of his single work. The article can be resurrected if he does something else. This has been done before (here) so there's a precedent. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People have accused Satoshi Nakamoto of being a pseudonym but now you accuse him of being software? You've gone too far! --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Bitcoin is probably the better option, given the lack of proper sources --SF007 (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as only thing of note this character is linked to it is far more informative to have information in the Bitcoin article itself. If there is significant evidence of notability independent of Bitcoin then go ahead and have the separate page but wikipedia users are better served by not doubling up information unnecessarily. 194.66.0.122 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The guy invented bitcoin, and as of the time of this comment he's mentioned in 18 news stories, his paper has been cited 4 times, and google claims 56,000 references to him on the interwebs. You can't in honesty claim he's not notable, particularly if the hype around bitcoin continues. For better or worse, his invention might change economics as we know it. 121.45.247.39 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bitcoin. I came here wondering what the deal with the creator of Bitcoin was because there was no information about him/her in the article. It's reasonable for people to be curious about the creator. The creator's anonymity is worth mentioning, as, currently, there's no reason for an average person reading the Bitcoin page to think Satoshi Nakamoto isn't just some Japanese guy. That's misleading (not intentionally so, but still). I think a brief "Creator" or "Origin" blurb would be good--something to acknowledge the mystery. --76.115.3.200 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The inventor of a global electronic currency is blatantly notable. The article may need more sources, but deleting it for that reason would be silly. — O'Dea (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Mentioned in the Guardian earlier this week, in the New York Observer today, in London's City A.M. last week, and on Raznick's Forbes blog also last week. Oh, and in the Wall Street Journal last week too. --Tris2000 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. In either case, make it clear to the reader from the start that it probably is a non-existing character, a pseudonym. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldCar (talk • contribs) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 14:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bitcoin, redirect The problem here isn't notability. The problem here is anonymity and lack of information. The name is probably a pseudonym. There isn't enough information available about this person (or persons) for an article. --John Nagle (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG has presented here. I do not buy the claims that he qualifies per WP:CREATIVE in the absence of WP:SECONDARY coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. While enigmatic, Satoshi Nakamoto is certainly notable. The very fact that he is so hidden and mysterious by nature adds to his notoriety. Besides the aforementioned Guardian, New York Observer, and Forbes, he has been name dropped in Business Week, The Atlantic, and The Wall Street Journal. This, at the very least, demonstrates that this article is deserving of a keep. --Sharkface^T/_C 09:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage there is minimal / trivial. Given the secretive and pseudonymous nature of this guy, it's unlike it will ever be more. All those articles are mainly about bitcoin, not him. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bitcoin — the aforementioned individual is not notable and it appears that very little is known about them. I don't think this will work. Kinaro^{(say hello)} ^{(what's been done)} 07:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The fact that it's a pseudonim clearly indicates that the identity is unknown or intentionally hidden. Jefferson's pseudonim was not known for over a century [50]; arguments continue three centuries later whether "Shakespear" was one [51]. "Satoshi" case is particularly interesting in the context of libertarian fears of government persecution and Bitcoin connection to controversial The_Silk_Road_(anonymous_marketplace). There are already dozens of mentions in mainstream media and 349,000 Google matches. It's now a cultural phenomena, potentially interesting to a wide audience. Get over it, maybe Satoshi is not Lady Gaga, but notorious for sure. --WalterKin (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging and redirecting seem to be the most sensible thing to do. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I'm a fan of Bitcoin, but per WP:N (WP:BLP1E) Satoshi does not merit an article when notable only for creation of Bitcoin. Casascius♠ (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Per above. Cloudpersona (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Satoshi maybe a pseudonym but we have to remember he needs to protect his privacy, but its unfair that because he wants privacy that he should be denied acknowledgement for his invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.191.161 (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Satoshi is well known for TWO significant things. 1) He is an Inventor who has successfully created the first decentralized digital currency the world has ever known. 2) He is an Academic Author of a book selling at amazon.com that brilliantly details the key concepts of peer-to-peer distributed currencies. Disallowing him a page is illogical. His name and contributions to the world only grow larger with time. --Misbach (talk), 23 June 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 07:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- A book with 4 citations in Google Scholar, so of negligible academic impact right now. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just looked this guy up on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.156.103 (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no reason to censor this. It is the name used by the inventor of Bitcoin, there's more than enough evidence and coverage of that. --Tiago Rinck Caveden (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no reason to delete on Wikipedia. Satoshi already has a popular presence on the internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.154.113 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If BitCoin ends up being the digital currency of the future, this man will become incredibly significant. You wouldn't Merge Alexander Hamilton and the US Dollar. Heck the US Dollar alone has twelve different articles associated with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.154.113 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.74.177 (talk) [reply]
Strong Keep Why should the entry be deleted? He has significance although his real name is not yet known. Famous examples in literature are B._Traven and Mark Twain. Martin.Emmerich (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course Many readers will search for the creator of Bitcoin; additional content will find its way to the page if we can just hold off on the censorship. However lest Wikipedia run out of pages, we should indeed delete the article at "Mark Twain" because that is just a pseudonym for a now nonexistent person dealing with archaic "books" which are much less important than the world's most modern currency worth hundreds of millions of euros/dollars and billions of yen. We could also now delete "David Chaum" and "DigiCash" because his own digital currency didn't make it this far. (But please don't try!) Parsiferon (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why should the entry be deleted? He is the creator of BitCoin, a notable man. JulioSantosMonteiro (talk) 15:45, 26 June 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. Favonian (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Jay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. The "Urban X" award, by repeated consensus in AFD and DRV discussions, does not demonstrate notability. Most GNews/GBooks hits are clearly spurious, a small number refer to the unrelated musician known as Sara(h) Jay, associated with Massive Attack, and an even smaller number are PR/press releases/presskit pieces for the article subject. All citations in the article are promotional, mostly from the subject's own website, except the award announcement -- which, curiously enough, doesn't mention the article subject. Article has already been PROD-deleted once, AFD-deleted once, speedied three times, and protected against recreation -- but it's back, even though the logs say the protection was never lifted. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From Wikipedia:Notability (people), section Pornbio criteria: "Has won a well-known award such as an AVN Award. (See Category:Pornographic film awards or Category:Film awards for other awards which may apply.)"... Well, Urban X Award is present in the first category. I think this guideline-section should be (re)written more clearly, saying explicitly which awards "pass the exam" and which are not. --Cavarrone (talk) 22:09, 6 June 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) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - Hullaballoo, can you show us where the Urban X award has been determined by consensus not to demonstrate notability? I looked through both previous AfDs and it was never mentioned, As it stands right now, as Cavarrone said, it seems like she passes WP:PORNBIO #1. I know the link in PORNBIO says "may apply," but unless consensus dictates that it not be considered "well-known", I fail to see why the Urban X award should be disregarded, particularly since it it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Further, I don't really think the previous AfDs are very applicable, since they were both dated from 2007, and she received the Urban X award in 2009, so it would seem that she became notable after both previous AfDs occurred. If you can show where consensus turned out against the inclusion of the Urban X under PORNBIO 1, I'll change my vote, but otherwise, I don't see any valid reason for this article to fail notability. Bstbll (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from recent AFD/DRV discussions:

The DRV has the most detailed reasoning. The Kitten AFD (in 2009) was likely the one that first established that the award wasn't sufficient to establish notability, and it was initiated by one of the more active members of the relevant Wikiproject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per those references, I've changed my vote to delete, as consensus clearly dictates that her award is not notable. Bstbll (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply not notable. Why, because she performs ""interracial" scenes"?Curb Chain (talk) 12:50, 12 June 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. WP:CRYSTAL is applicable. This is purely a speculative proposal with no independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Boulevard Central Park[edit]

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

There are no third-party reliable sources that support this project's notability. Singularity42 (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 June 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) 01:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Major Tom[edit]

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

Pretty much orphaned, unsourced BLP that has been here since 2006 without any sourcing. His supposed 'controversial' status does not appear to have resulted in any significant coverage. I did find coverage of another Canadian DJ called Major Tom, but nothing of substance about this one. Michig (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 6 June 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) 01:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems he's a DJ on a Canadian station, does that automatically mean all on-air personalities deserve Wikipedia pages? No. I searched Yahoo! and didn't find anything solid. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched Google and couldn't find anything other than trivial mentions in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:39, 15 June 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 and redirect. The consensus was to delete and this judgement was backed up by a lack of reliable independent sources in the article. A myriad of GHits counts for nought; it is the quality of the hits that count. Finally, I am not convinced that a redirect would be confusing. 'Adult Swim Video' is the brand name for the video on demand service and a targeted redirect there would assist searchers. TerriersFan (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Swim Video[edit]

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

Clearly, this article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly, you forgot to do a Google search: http://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Adult+Swim+Video%22&num=50. What's all that, then? Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 19:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists. JJ98 (Talk) 06:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 7 June 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) 01:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Lack of sources (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) isn't a reason for an article to be deleted unless honest attempts to find the sources have failed. It just needs to be cleaned up and have someone do the grunt work. Bstbll (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. JJ98 (Talk) 06:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, I think that this article fails WP:GNG, and have changed my vote to reflect this. That being said, if your reason for the AfD nom was that the article was not notable, maybe you should have mentioned this in the nomination, rather than only mentioning the lack of sources? I still stand by my previous statement that lack of sources alone isn't a valid reason to delete an article, it's a reason to clean up an article. Lack of notability, not lack of sources, is the reason I think this article should be deleted, despite the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the nomination. On a related note, posting nothing more than a link to WP policy in response to a good-faith comment seems a little bitey, but then it might just be me. Bstbll (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adult Swim. I don't think that Adult Swim Video has any notability beyond that of Adult Swim, but this seems like an appropriate redirect in case someone tries to search for Adult Swim Video. The Google search that Island Monkey linked to above doesn't seem to provide any sources that are independant, reliable, and have significant coverage of the topic. However, I agree with Bstbll that having no sources in the article isn't a reason for deletion. Instead, the nominator should have looked for sources (per WP:BEFORE), and should have given a deletion rational that is an actual reason for deletion (such as that the subject is not notable). Furthermore, the nominator has been replying to comments with links to essays that have no relation to the comments he replied to, which is just baffling. No one here has made any sort of arguement for keeping the article that is in any way related to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:NOTINHERITED. JJ98, I really have no idea what you were thinking with those links, but please try to respond to people with actual comments, not just links, and please try to refer to policies/guidelines/essays that actually relate to the situation at hand. Calathan (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adult Swim Video fails the general notability guideline. A redirect would not be useful because anyone typing "Adult Swim Video" into the search bar will be presented with "Adult Swim" in the drop down menu before finishing typing; to add the additional option of "Adult Swim Video" creates unnecessary confusion while also facilitating the recreation of the article. Neelix (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brothersoft.com[edit]

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

No notability -- fails WP:GNG, in particular WP:WEB. I cannot find additional significant secondary reliable coverage beyond directory entries, rankings, visitor stats. Only review I found is borderline-reliable TopTenReviews. Other hits are either blog entries and unreliable or seem promotional in nature and give no info on history/impact/reception/awards, which is what WP:WEB is about. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I was hoping to find some articles about this site because it comes up so often when doing google searches. However any search for "brothersoft" just gives hundreds of links from the site itself. I would be surprised if no one had ever covered it. I do think it is a malware risk, but without any citable sources we can't just say that. My preference is to cover the site and the risks, but barring that deletion is the only acceptable route. Colincbn (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [52] to search excluding their own domain. 11:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Wikipedia:N. The site received no media coverage and has to certainly be malware considering all the pages have a route to that website. It doesn't help that all the site advetises is "Free MAC download" and requires the customer to enter their former email account. Wikipedia is certainly NOT a place for advertisement SwisterTwister (talk) 06:30, 9 June 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) 01:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:42, 14 June 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. Clear consensus for deletion and, also, the article lacks the sources to meet WP:BIO. TerriersFan (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Hammer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable glamour model/not-quite-hardcore porn performer, failing WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO, and the GNG; caught up in the recent Playmate bulk AFD despite not being a Playmate, kept for procedural reasons despite a preponderance of !delete votes. No significant coverage; all GBooks hits are spurious or trivial, as are all the GNews hits except a hometown newspaper profile with very little information about her but a great deal of kvetching about how poorly Playboy pays. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On general principal that an AFD that was a keep 3 weeks ago should not be here again unless something has changed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin specifically said the article could be immediately relisted. At the time of the close, procedural votes aside, there were 3 delete !votes, one keep !vote, and one redirect/merge !vote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete O.K. I will go back to my original opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 June 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) 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appeared in magazines, but that's what lots of entertainers do, so she is not notable because she hasn't done anything "special"Curb Chain (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator Subject is on List of Playboy NSS models, and it says "See individual entry". If you delete the entry, please move the pertinent information, because it would be stupid to refer to an entry that no longer exists.SPNic (talk) 12:28, 13 June 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 Art Clokey. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premavision[edit]

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

An animation studio. Admittedly long-established. But the author seems to think that he is somehow exempt from providing evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. RJH (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An animation studio is notable for the same reason a film studio would be, based on the success of its work. The article already list several notable creations of them. Dream Focus 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—This company is more notable for it's previous title, "Clokey Productions", for which there are numerous results. I've added some cites.—RJH (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Art Clokey or delete. This company appears to be simply a vehicle for Clokey, and has no notability independent of him. Of the three sources in the article, one is a PR blurb (neither independent, nor particularly reliable), one appears to make no mention of the studio itself (only Clokey himself) and the third make a couple of bare mentions (both as "Clokey's Premavision Studio[s]" -- indicating that it is noteworthy only in connection to Clokey). Google News/Books gives little indication of further non-trivial coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't work because the company is associated with both Art and his son, each of whom have articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted below, the son has no notability that is not WP:INHERITED from his father, and has in fact just been WP:SPEEDY deleted for that reason. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:11, 20 June 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) 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Art Clokey as this article seems to lifted from the later. While the company does appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH the references cited are not independent. Mariepr (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Art Clokey as above -- insufficient sourcing for a separate article. Thanks, Rangoondispenser (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient cites for notability to be established. Merger not appropriate because company is associated with two men, father and son, and might well continue after son. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the son is running the company is unsourced (as is most of the information in this article). In any case the son does not appear to have any notability beyond that WP:INHERITED from his father. Any sourced information that does arise, on the son's continuation of the father's projects, could therefore easily be included in the father's article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing simply doesn't meet the standards required by WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Johnson (musician)[edit]

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

BLP that has been unsourced since it was created two years ago. I was unable to find any coverage of the subject. May have contributed to some noteworthy recordings but none of the awards listed appear to be directly awarded to him. Michig (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find sourcing to meet WP:V and WP:N.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines, just because he has a MySpace doesn't mean it covers the sustenance for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roxxter[edit]

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

This seems to be a page which would generate little interest and seems to be unnecessary on Wikipedia Bailo26 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Radio-controlled helicopter. Could not finding sourcing to establish independent notability of this product.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EnKoDeur-Mixer[edit]

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

Unremarkable open source software. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Searches on proper title (EnKoDeur-Mixer) produce primary sources. Searches the acronym (e.g. EKD video) bring up the expected list of file download sites. Not clear how this might meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but i don't understand why this article is proposed to be deleted. Yesterday's evening, i've completed it to help people use free software for audio/video editing... What's wrong, the title ? To download the software, you have to go to the official website. Erasing this article should be a large error. Laurent Bellegarde 09:36 6 june 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a place to help people use free software for audio/video editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as RadioFan explained, all articles must satisfy the criteria described in the Notability guideline. In particular, a topic can have its own article only if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article currently does not meet the requirement, the sources are either primary sources (the product home page) or self-published sources (wikis). As the "reliable sources" guideline says, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable".—J. M. (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Ok, I understand yours arguments,and as I'm teacher and using wikipedia with my students I understand that wikipedia is not a place to make any kind of advertissement. Still there is a question, why other software, as cinelerra or openshot video editor are in the encyclopedia ? Theses softwares aren't covered by any books, only press magasines as my articles in linux-pratique, or in my book "free audio/video edtion" published in eyrolles edition in french language. In This book, i've written a complete chapter on encoding and main information is based on EKD. I'm not the one who create the stub, i've just beleive that it was possible to complete and improve information to a large public to know that editing video freely was possible on any plateform with EKD. 06:46, 7 june 2011,UTC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 (talk • contribs)

First, "other stuff exists" is one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, while for example the OpenShot article indeed lacks reliable sources, a quick Google search reveals that they can be easily added, as it has received significant coverage in reliable sources with editorial review (e.g. [53], [54]). The same with Cinelerra ([55], [56], [57]). I can't find anything like this for EKD. All I can see is download sites, blogs, wikis and similar weak, unacceptable sources. Third, self-published books are mentioned as unacceptable sources in the official Wikipedia guideline, too (see the quoted text above). And again, letting people know "that editing video freely is possible on any platform with EKD" is not the goal of Wikipedia.—J. M. (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

Is one theses links could help to give this article more credibility ?

http://www.libellules.ch/dotclear/index.php?post/2010/10/27/EKD-EnKoDeur-Mixeur
http://www.programmez.com/actualites.php?titre_actu=Retouchez-vos-videos-avec-EKD-14-5&id_actu=4882
http://www.linuxpedia.fr/doku.php/multimedia/ekd
http://coagul.org/drupal/node/500/
http://atelier-multimedia.bm-limoges.fr/blog/2009/12/10/ekd-post-production-image-et-video/
http://www.ohloh.net/p/ekd

Also, there a mention to ekd in the french wikipedia here :

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Video_Codec_High_Definition

I have a talk with the main author of EKD, he doesn't understand why, in the french wikipedia it is possible to add info about this software and not in the english one. I'm agree that there is a lot of clumsiness in this stub, but if there is a chance to edit/modified it in the good policy of wikipedia, I could do my best to avoid deletion.

About my book, as i'm not the author of EKD, i contribute only in functionnality and testing, I could not understand what you call an self-published book, I am an author independant of any software, published by one of the most famous book editor in France, eyrolles, here is the link to the book :

http://www.eyrolles.com/Audiovisuel/Livre/montage-video-et-audio-libre-9782212121483

it is now a reference about free audio-video editing software, and of course, if the chapter dedicated to ekd in it could not help to give more creditibility to ekd's wikipedia article, I think there is no solution to avoid deletion.

Hope it helps.

Laurent Bellegarde — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurentb64 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the EKD article exists on the French Wikipedia, as I do not read the French Wikipedia. Anyway, as I explained, "other stuff exists" is not an argument here—French Wikipedia is not as frequently visited as the English version, so it is possible that people just haven't noticed. Nobody monitors all articles everywhere, especially if they're not prominent, popular articles. There are articles that exist only because nobody has noticed yet.

For the sources—English sources are generally preferred on English Wikipedia. Anyway, the first source appears to be a blog. As I explained before, blogs are generally not acceptable sources. The second source is nothing else than just a brief announcement. The third source is a wiki. As I explained, wikis are not acceptable sources. The fourth source—I am not sure about that. The fifth source is a blog, and all it says is that EKD exists. Which is not useful. And the sixth source is nothing else than an autogenerated analysis page.

So no, I still cannot see anything that would justify the inclusion of EKD on the English Wikipedia.

P.S. Please sign your posts using the four tildes or the signature button.—J. M. (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a game of find the software mentioned on the internet somewhere. Content in the article must be verifiable and use sources which meet reliability standards. It sounds daunting for someone new to Wikipedia but it really isn't. Slow down, read the links mentioned in this discussion and ask questions if you need to. You dont need to panic this discussion will go on for at least a week before any decision might be made. All that being said, I'm not seeing how you are going to be able to meet these guidelines with this particular software. It might meet notability guidelines some day, but that doesn't appear to be today.--RadioFan (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment the debate hasn't elicited any sources to support WP:Notability TEDickey (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet the threshold of significant coverage in reliable 3rd-party sources, therefore notability not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you would expect a new software to get at least something in mainstream news. nothing in gnews [58]. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notability. You would think that at least one newspaper or reliable magazine would mention it. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:06, 14 June 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. WP:CSD#G4 - already twice deleted at AfD JohnCD (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gregoire Akcelrod[edit]

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

Reason Kombouaré (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Greg Akcelrod is a somebody who has a long history of creating fake article on his alledgedly professional football career. Just type his name and the word fake on google and you'll find out. If he really wants a wikipedia article, he should be refered as a professional swindler rather than a professional footballer. He also says he's an actor and a member of a charity, but it's also fake.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG (due to lack of "significant coverage") and WP:NFOOTBALL (as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league). Giant Snowman 01:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Akcelrod (who does possess a certain skill at self-promotion) enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame for having spoofed CKSA Sofia into giving him a tryout. Other than that there is nothing to distinguish him (and even the coverage of that one event was limited and passing). JohnInDC (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Gregoire Akcelrod's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregoire_Akcelrod is a copy of Greg Akcelrod already deleted 3 times ! : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Akcelrod&action=edit&redlink=1 Mikeku (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, let's see if we can get this speedied instead. (I see you tried, Mike - maybe that's still possible.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 12 June 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. v/r - T P 00:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suckers (CSI)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, fails to summarise the plot, instead the article is a full synopsis of the episode. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:57am • 23:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable episode, no reliable sources indicate notability independent of the series. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless there is some impact out side of the plot line, there is no reason to keep this article. This goes with all the other CSI episodes and probably any other show.Curb Chain (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per de-facto organization of content used for every season starting with Season 4. Any removal of this article should only be done as part of a general plan as to the series' coverage in general.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:52, 14 June 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. v/r - T P 02:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massakory Airport[edit]

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

no such airport. not found in google search. article for the town is now corrected to say that there is no airport, only a tarmac road. so no sign of ongoing airport construction. may be trivially recreated if construction ever starts. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No location, no coordinates, nothing to indicate an actual facility exists. It may be nothing more than a road used by humanitarian relief planes. Mariepr (talk) 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple sources state that the airport exists [59], [60], [61]. These even give detailed information such as the runway length and elevation, which should put the question of the airport's existence at rest. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose. Harmless. There is a 1km dirt runway, maybe not much else. A plausible search term, boring article. Is there a guideline for inherent notability of minor airports? Perhaps the Dangana or Kuori Kalé people could provide more information about this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment While these new references (good research) seem to show its existence, im not sure they show enough notability. an unpaved airstrip with no aviation codes? do we really list each of these on WP? its not like its a permanent human habitation, most of which get automatic notability if proved to have existed. This type of listing for a business would easily fail notability standards (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies#Depth of coverage) I note that this afd is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation. if anyone who works there can show me the projects guidelines for notability, say, an agreed upon size for which an airstrip gets mentioned, and show that this makes the grade, i will withdraw my nomination.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

based on the information provided below, ill stand by my request for deletion, but i suppose it can remain on the List of airports in Chad, though not redlinked. i copied the references for this article over to that list. The list, and template, while obviously useful in theory, also show a number of other airstrips that may not be notable enough. I have nothing against Chad personally (im sure he's a great guy:) ), but many of these may have to go through AFD as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The main Wikiproject covering airports is WP:AIRPORTS. Their essay on notability of airports can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports/Notability. If the airport in question has scheduled flights then it meets the notability criteria. Past scheduled flights give weight to the case for notability. Currently, there is no demonstration in the article that it meets the notability criteria set out in the relevant essay. Should this situation change, then my !vote would change accordingly. Mjroots (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Changed my mind based on Mjroots comment and reading WP:AIRPORTS. Proof of existence and runway length is not enough. Evidence of scheduled flights would be, but is very unlikely given the poverty and small population of the town. Other discussion of the airport in good sources could be too. But I can't find anything in French or English apart from a few casual mentions of the 1km dirt runway. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:47, 18 June 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) 02:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Fabiano[edit]

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

self promotion Nerupm (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Self-promotion (even if this is established) is not a valid reason for deleting an article if the subject is notable. See his press coverage and reviews (including an interview with Reuters). He has sung leading roles at La Scala, English National Opera, and elsewhere and won three major competitions, including the Grand Prize at the Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions and the Julián Gayarre Competition The article needs copy-editing for better style and more references added. Again, needing improvement is grounds to improve an article not delete it. I'm also a little concerned that the nominator's first and only edit to Wikipedia was to nominate an article for deletion, clearly without having done any prior research on the subject. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've copyedited the article for encyclopedic style and tone and added two more references. Voceditenore (talk)

Note: This debate has been notfied to Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera. – Voceditenore (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion given. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Subject clearly meet's wikipedia's notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pogba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pogba still hasn't made a first-team appearance for a fully professional club. He's been on the bench for Man Utd, but according to WP:FOOTY's notability criteria, that's not enough. Any other coverage of this individual is merely speculative regarding his future playing prospects. Many, many footballers have been lauded in their youth without making a professional appearance, and Pogba may be no different. To assume that he will have a notable professional career is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - sigh, this article has been deleted by CSD, PROD and AfD many, many times before. He has done nothing of note, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Any coverage he has received fails WP:NTEMP, and can be arguably traced back to WP:BLP1E - none of which allow for this fellow to have an article! Giant Snowman 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player is highly regarded in the amateur leagues and frequently in the news. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Subjects do not have to meet the notability guideline that closely matches their career choice. In this case, the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. However, we have another guideline to judge by: WP:GNG. Per GNG, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article clearly lists six reliable sources that are independent of the subject and independent of each other. These each have significant coverage of the subject. Infact, this source itself says that "notable players ... include Paul Pogba". The previous AfD was almost two years ago, much has changed and evolved since then. In addition, most of the CSDs were G12s which we based off that two year old AfD. Again, clearly meets WP:GNG.--v/r - T P 00:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the coverage "significant"? - to me only one piece, by the Mail, is. Giant Snowman 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That source, isn't a Wikipedia guideline for notability. --Jimbo^[online] 12:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note my rationale for first honoring the WP:CSD#G4 and then restoring. The article is substantially improved. Content and sourcing are different from before. Much has changed in the two years since the last AFD. The question is now whether or not the subject meets the WP:GNG. It would be wise to consider what reliable sourcing is available but not yet in the article before deleting. I would certainly not salt the article. This is the second AfD. It would have been more prudent to wait for the subject to meet WP:Athlete before recreating. The issue would not be murky. Salting while the possibility of the subject meeting WP:GNG or WP:Athlete remains would only cause more drama later. Should the subject not yet prove notable, userfication would be preferential to deletion so that when/if notability is met, the article will have been kept up to date and ready to roll back to article space. Dlohcierekim 01:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Circumstances really haven't changed that much since the article was first deleted. The only thing that has happened is that Pogba has stepped up from the United academy to the reserve team (still not noteworthy). He's still getting similar plaudits about his talent as he was 2 years ago. – Pee Jay 01:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NFOOTY is an inclusive guideline, so if a soccer player meets WP:GNG, but not NSPORTS, they still meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. As is abundantly clear from simply clicking the google news archive link above, Pogba has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and therefore meets GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP match reports and routine news items. --Jimbo^[online] 12:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As he has not played for United, he fails WP:NSPORT, and the coverage he has received is routine meaning he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:10, 19 June 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.

^ "Gender Studies: Religion and Sex Integration".

[Classesof1-1] "Gender Studies: Religion and Sex Integration".

[1]