Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 15 November 17 November >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of article previously deleted on 2 October 2010‎. Winning a game show tournament of champions is not criteria that meets WP:GNG and does not rebut WP:BLP1E arguments in previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Craig (Jeopardy! contestant)). Being a champion on Jeopardy! is categorized as one event—appearing on more than one episode does not disqualify WP:BLP1E. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references presented in this article to not provide significant coverage that meets WP:GNG requirements.

Sottolacqua (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (Full disclosure - Roger's a good friend of mine). The fact that he won the tournament, after setting the single-day record last year, rebuts the argument that he's notable for only one thing. Raul654 (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said last year in the first AfD, there was a large amount of media coverage of his record on the show, and history indicates that the holders of Jeopardy records continue to receive attention for a long time after their accomplishments (similar to holders of sports records). Indeed, here's a recent article about how intimidating Craig can be. It still seems to me that record winners on Jeopardy should be treated like people who have once held world records in track & field (athletics), who are deemed notable under WP:ATHLETE. Now that Craig has also won big in the Tournament of Champions, an accomplishment that is documented in Esquire (magazine) and a number of local news media sources, I think it's all the more absurd to assert that he is a WP:BLP1E who should not be documented in an article. --Orlady (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—The Sun Times article you presented briefly mentions Craig's record, skill and knowledge base, but this is most certainly not significant coverage of Craig. The article topic is about the reporter's own experience on the show and only mentions him in passing. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are correct that the Sun-Times article is not about Craig. Rather, I presented it as evidence that his fame/notoriety/notability transcends the news coverage of his first Jeopardy appearances and the two Jeopardy records he holds. The way the author writes about him, one year after his first big win, suggests that he is well-known and a subject of awe in the world of Jeopardy fans and contestants: "The one thing I didn’t want was to play ultimate single-game winner Craig in the quarterfinals. His buzzer skills were unbelievable. His knowledge base even more so. Both could keep me from winning or from accruing enough for a wildcard spot." --Orlady (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E - he is only important/well-covered because of his appearances on Jeopardy!. There has been little, if any significant coverage of Craig outside of the Jeopardy! circle. HurricaneFan25 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not part of the Jeapordy circle but came across Roger Craig after reading this article: http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2011/11/16/mind-blown-this-guy-broke-jeopardys-all-time-record-with-an-app/. I think that the fact that he did so well by making a computer program to study is in of itself worthy of keeping this article. 192.5.109.34 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "I think that the fact that he did so well by making a computer program to study is in of itself worthy of keeping this article." seems a bit WP:ILIKEIT-ish. HurricaneFan25 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not a Jeopardy guy either. I just wanted to learn more about his history after reading about the programming application he wrote. In general, I hate it when articles get deleted. What's the point? You are just limiting knowledge transfer. There was an article about a fictional Mario Bros. video game I was going to use in a reference to how internet memes evolved, but apparently it was deleted due WP rules. It's absolutely awful to see knowledge destroyed in this way. — 209.183.253.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment Please stay on topic regarding the argument presented. Philosophical comments about Wikipedia's deletion policy do not belong in this discussion. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, AfD is all about building a consensus about Wikipedia's deletion policy and philosophical asides are totally appropriate, to my way of thinking... Why was this particular article out of 3.8 million challenged in the first place? Why is this particular article being defended now? It's all about the philosophy of WP and how stringently or loosely amorphous general guidelines like "Biography of a Living Person — 1 event" and the requirement for "multiple, substantial, independently published sources dealing with a topic" are to be applied. These are in contradiction here. Why should one of these trump the other? It's all about one's philosophy of the encyclopedia... Carrite (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Book chapter, 4 or 5 articles. Arguing BLP1E is in bad faith - he was not on Jeopardy once! --Gwern (contribs) 23:37 16 November 2011 (GMT)
* Comment: Actually, no — it is not "bad faith" to argue BLP1E here, that's the reason cited for deletion by the closing administrator a year ago. You can argue it doesn't apply in this case, fine, but don't diss those who disagree. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's the current ToC champion and a show record-holder, and there is more than enough coverage in mainstream media Here's a Gawker article that came out today: [1] (it is a short article accompanying the now-everywhere-on-the-bet video, but it is unquestionably an article in a significant publication devoted solely to the article's subject). I don't disagree with the nominator that the references aren't amazing, but I think that they (and others) are sufficient. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 16. Snotbot  t • c »  19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant mainstream coverage is sufficient.--Knulclunk (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Jeopardy! contestants per WP:BLP1E; content and redirect are useful and encyclopedic. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to Sottolacqua: reference 10 (the one to J! archive) is not a reference to a fansite. Rather, Roger Craig's 7th episode is being used as a primary, self-published source (which clearly satisfies WP:SELFPUB); the J! archive link is merely a courtesy link. No content original to the J! archive is being cited, so the fact that the J! archive is a fansite is irrelevant to this discussion. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mainstream media attention not just to ToC win but to CS-inspired study method. ABC News coverage 2 3 Gawker article Craig's accomplishment and method even merited mention on the ABC World News with Diane Sawyer broadcast on 2011-11-17 (I have video captured, if anyone wants it). Robert K S (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have now added this morning's Good Morning America interview and the Final Jeopardy book by Stephen Baker to the references section. There is no deletion rationale at this point anymore. Robert K S (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Disclosure: I don't know Roger Craig or his family, but his father is from my home town.) What is most significant is RC's creation of a method of preparation that has already proven successful to other contestants. This could well alter the nature of the game AND it's contestants. Rico402 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my last comment on this issue:
    • Keep or Userify per Larissa Kelly, Tom Walsh and John Isner. Maybe re-evaluate AfD when someone breaks his single-day record. (Full disclosure: I think Roger Craig is a badass) -- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

-- mitchsurp -- (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Do any "jeopardy guys" ever admit to being such? (Disclosure, I don't know Roger Craig or his family or his father's hometown, but one time I told a girl I liked jeopardy.)--Milowent • hasspoken 06:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Over a year ago I voted for deletion and opined that "Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Game Show Trivia." Since then, I've come around to the idea that it actually is. WP has dual functions — serious encyclopedia and pop culture compendium — and those of us concerned with maintaining and improving the former shouldn't obsess with trying to crush the latter. Rather: embrace the cruft. Is it verifiable? Is it accurate? Is it something that users will care about? In this case: yes, yes, and yes. This seems to meet General Notability Guidelines as well as the fact he was a show record setter garnered media attention. So, there ya go... Carrite (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there clearly is extensive coverage; reasonable people can disagree on whether it's significant. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 23 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of international rivalries[edit]

List of international rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article that directly puts the sporting rivalry between England and Germany into the same category as World War II bears an inherent bias. This list is inherently subjective and clearly not based in a rational analysis of the relative severity and nature of such disparate "rivalries". Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias, as the article is about rivalries between countries, and both the football rivalry between England and Germany (as evidenced by its article), and World War II (as evidenced by the reference following it) have contributed to the overall rivalry. They are in different spheres (sport and industry), but both contribute. Stratman07 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as way too broad. What qualifies as an "international rivalry". A rivalry is usually a term between people or sporting events, not wars as well. Secret account 01:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ABORTION. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely too broad, and also does smell of original research. It might just be me, but I have some doubts that there is any link associated in the minds of Germans or Englishmen between WWII and some soccer matches.--Slon02 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 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 per G11 and G4. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EU Propaganda[edit]

EU Propaganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Personal essay which makes no attempt to give a neutral point of view on the subject. While there are sources, there is no possibility of an article with this title could be balanced. The content of the article is amazingly one-sided and clearly promotes a very specific viewpoint of the subject. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

I am a graduate student, studying International Relations & Foreign Propaganda, and have created this entry for a school project. All of the sources that I have used are documented, and in no way is this wiki entry an attempt to create my own propaganda. I have no axe to grind, and am simply doing school work. I will actually have to present this page in front of my class and the professor for a grade, so it behooves me to be scholarly. I would greatly appreciate if you would not take this site down, but instead, please help me find additional sources to make it as scholarly as possible.

Every state, as my class has learned maintains propaganda operations, or forms of communication that are aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to benefit oneself or one's group, and so this article does not suggest an extreme view or intend to be an attack on the EU. The US, Russia, China, France, Britain, and all states, essentially, do this- promote themselves. Please, help me, therefore, to simply make this entry as well documented and fact worthy as possible.

I appreciate your help and understanding.

Kind regards,

Butterfly2011

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article, if it stays, should be renamed to Propaganda in the European Union or European Union propaganda (meaning propaganda in favor of EU, not just any propaganda inside the EU's borders). Thoughts? I'll try to actually go over the text and references and see if it can be saved. — Jean Calleo (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Comment. While the current contents of the article appears to suffer from the original SYN, my impression is that the topic is notable. Most of the sources, also the ones we normally consider reliable, appear to have a clear point of view (namely looking with disapproval upon pro-EU propaganda campaigns), and it will not be easy to bring this into the required NPOV form.  --Lambiam 16:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I changed my mind) (EDIT: I can't decide). I read through it and, as said above, article suffers from original research and original synthesis — a lot of the references are straight to primary sources, the sources that supposedly produce "propaganda", it is the first editor's interpretation that these things count as propaganda. The editor should find secondary, reliable sources that comment on these things and call them propaganda. But the topic itself is noteworthy and some of the existent material is useful. — Jean Calleo (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The content of this article looks familiar. A previous article had, from memory, begun under the title of "EU Propaganda"; an editor trying to NPOV it renamed it as "Allegations of excessive EU self-promotion" before deciding instead to take it to AfD. So Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of excessive EU self-promotion concluded with a delete on 13 November; this article (substantially the same?) appeared 3 days later and is now itself at AfD. AllyD (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that, but are you sure the content is the same? There's currently no reason to believe that. — Jean Calleo (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the deleted article, so can't be certain, but I recognised various statements and people quoted in this article. Perhaps, in the interests of transparency, Butterfly2011 (who was also notified of the AfD on the previous article, so was presumably also involved in it) can tell us whether this is a re-creation of the previously deleted article? AllyD (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fundamental issue here, as with the earlier AfD, is whether a proper article can be created on this subject, under this or one of the other proposed names. My own view remains that it is a collation of particular facts to form an argument, and it is unlikely that this can give rise to an NPOV encyclopaedic article. So I stick with my previous sggestion that individual documented facts might be appended to the European Union article and its sub-articles, but that the outcome should be deletion of this article. AllyD (talk) 19:12, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Kadry[edit]

Ahmed Kadry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be non-notable, though there is another notable person with the same name who worked for a museum. Tagged for notability since January 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

▪ Delete Such a notable person's biography should include more reliable resources. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 05:48, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yasser Abdel Rahman[edit]

Yasser Abdel Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Exists, but does not appear to meet our notability criteria from what I can see. Lacks sufficient RS coverage. Tagged for notability since January 2010. Epeefleche (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily found significant coverage in reliable sources (largely related to his scoring of several notable films) by...searching on his name in Arabic. The language of his home country, fancy that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notable Egyptian film composer; see Yasser Abdel Rahman at IMDb; article claims an Academy Award winner. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought that was not an RS for purposes of establishing notability ... am I incorrect?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMDb is obviously insufficient as the only source for a living person's biography, but is considered a reliable source for the existence of films, and for lists of cast and crew. That's however a bit besides the point in an AfD where the question is merely whether the subject is able to meet guidelines and policies. My point is that he is; the article obviously needs a lot of work, but that is, as I understand it, not a reason listed at the policy WP:DEL#REASON. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an article needing work is not a reason for deletion. But to meet our notability guidelines, we need -- for example -- under GNG to show appropriate non-trivial coverage in RSs. I don't see IMDB as doing that. While we don't have to improve the article so that the article reflects that RS coverage, we have to identify such non-trivial RS coverage to support a keep !vote. Our notability guideline indicates that IMDB listings do not indicate notability for wp purposes. Mere "existence" of a person is not sufficient to meet our notability standard, and there mere existence as indicated on an IMDB listing is not considered a factor that helps us demonstrate notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:51, 19 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Tien Seng[edit]

Sin Tien Seng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unaddressed notability concern tagged since October 2009. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Gorrad (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

▪ Speedy delete Non-notable, fails the General Notability Guidelines. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 05:53, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarique Salim[edit]

Tarique Salim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find sufficient RS coverage to warrant notability under wp standards of this "famous physiotherapist ". Tagged for notability since July. Epeefleche (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This made me laugh! My family doctor is also world-famous in my area and has written 4 books which 350 people have purchased. I should make an entry for him too! Article clearly violates WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:SPIP and WP:V. Veryhuman (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delte : as aboveJethwarp (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some minor accomplishments, but nothing truly notable. Vincelord (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - His accomplishments are minor, and he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The article also appears to have an issue with NPOV.--Slon02 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

▪ Delete - Needs additional citations, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 05:55, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projectvisitor[edit]

Projectvisitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Video game of questionable notability. Some external links, but largely unreferenced. Reads like a fan page. Using the relevant terms from the article, a Google search on "Project Visitor" "Conundrum Studios" shows only 117 unique results, with little significant coverage from independent reliable sources - a lot of blogs, unreliable, and primary sources, tho. "Project Visitor" Postlinear is just as bad. "Project Visitor" SegaSoft shows only 61 results, none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I guess - I can't find any reliable Ghits, Gbooks, or Gnews about this game. Most MMORPG'S aren't notable, and this one doesn't seem to be a exception. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kostantinos Tsahouridis[edit]

Kostantinos Tsahouridis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN for wp purposes, on its face. Tagged as NN since July.Epeefleche (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fracture (fanzine)[edit]

Fracture (fanzine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted via Prod and restored after post at WP:REFUND. I can not find any reliable sources that discuss this fanzine to establish notability. GB fan 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't find any sources besides Wordpress blogs and forum topics, so delete. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 17 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Santiago[edit]

Jordan Santiago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 by creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:26, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Love[edit]

Sylvia Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced BLP does not have significant or independent references. Dubious claim of notability is not supported by sources. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Gorrad (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - certainly, there's no evidence of the artist having charted in the UK, as she doesn't appear in the national charts archive. Notability is not demonstrated in the article, let alone in the references. Colonel Tom 21:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

▪ Delete No evidence of notability. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 05:58, 24 November 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 deleted (Has been G3'd). The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory[edit]

Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article that cannot be verified by readers and doesn't demonstrate how the subject is notable. Various Google searches fail to show any mention of the theory, which is unexpected if it has been through multiple peer reviewed journals and has become an accepted theory in the field of criminology. Prod removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Countless research has been conducted on the effects cigarette smoke has on lab mice. The research was applied to criminology and it is indeed a valid theory. The fact that it is controversial doesn't make it invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The issue is not whether it is controversial, but whether you can prove it exists by citing sources. I am baffled that there is "countless research", but I cannot find a single reference of any sort via searching on the web. You are obviously familiar with the research. Could you cite some of it, please? Without cited sources, there is no way to verify any of this, so it cannot be included in Wikipedia. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is relatively new research and has recently been the subject to peer review, the amount of content available using search engines is relatively miniscule. Until more is published on the theory, it is better to use a database rather than a search engine. Good luck in exploring this theory further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) — L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

So, can you supply even a single source, or not? If not, the article will likely be deleted. If this is a new theory, then wait until it has been published and sources are available before creating an article about it. Also, if its so new that it hasn't been published yet, how is it an "accepted theory in the field of criminology" as stated in the article? Sparthorse (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated earlier, if you wish to contribute to the article in order to make it more complete, I advise that you use a database for more information. This is exciting new research in the field and will likely be included in most introductory textbooks in the next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Speedy delete (as nominator). Given the exchange with the author of the article L3ssm4n , above, I now believe that there is a very strong likelihood is this is a blatant hoax. Further google searches for the theory itself and the supposed authors turns up nothing at all. The author's username suggests he is probably the "Lester Nessman" mentioned in the article. Sparthorse (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously those who are opting for deletion are not in the field of criminology nor any other kind of academia. "Google searches" are not a reliable way to find scholarly articles. The article just requires people with time to apply the proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Nothing to show this isn't a WP:HOAX. Either that or the creator is just lazy Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not a hoax. Credible research has been conducted on rats using tobacco smoke for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A hoax with no evidence to the contrary. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The claimed propoents of the theory do not appear to exist in academic literature Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Everyone needs to remember that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. We must remain nonobjective when marking articles for deletion, regardless of our feelings about the use of animals in academic research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nice troll. Does nonobjective mean what you think it means? Greglocock (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from attacking people. Read the guidelines before posting anything to Wikipedia. I also think Sparthorse has a strange definition of "baffled." I don't think he knows what that word really means and find it detestable that he feels that way about seeing articles without sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment: Now I'm not taking sides, but I do want to mention that every article on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources in order to remain on this website. To my knowledge there are no exceptions to this rule because notability means that there will be reliable sources to prove this in some context somewhere in the world. Your job is to find those resources and add them to the page. WP:RS Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough reliable sources Could be a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Non-admin closure. ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 00:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rapsody[edit]

Rapsody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A rapper. Has not released any albums. Has released some free mixtapes. Only one given reference maybe independent, reliable and actual goes in depth about her. Unable to find any other references, but her name makes it difficult to search. Prod was contested Bgwhite (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As of this revision (right when you nominated it for deletion) there were 4 different references, three of which look reliable to me. One is even a feature article. I'd say that makes her pass WP:GNG. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You need to read the references. One of the "reliable" references says she showed up to a movie. Another one is an interview and another one is a tour date. Trivial refs do not count towards WP:GNG as it requires "Significant coverage". Bgwhite (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, I have read the references – otherwise I wouldn't have commented on them. The interview is actually the one I won't consider reliable as it appears to be too bloggish. For the rest of the sources, you too may want to look at WP:GNG which says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The current references together add up to a certain of level of notability, hence my intention of keeping the article. De728631 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Vibe source is fine. interviews constitute significant coverage. XXL review, hiphopdx feature. 86.44.39.133 (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The new citations from XXL magazine regarding features from her latest project "For Everything" combined with the aforementioned reputable reference sources amount to considerable coverage, thus the article needs to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticallion89 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 19 November 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. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vrezh[edit]

Vrezh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The reason this article was put up for deletion is because of the fact that most of the information it purports to give details about comes from unreliable or generally vague sources. Most of the sources make it clear that this organization was identified solely by the Azerbaijani government (some of them also have a discernible affiliation with Azerbaijan, such as Charles van der Leeuw, who has been criticized in some circles for writing biased works). Citing the information it and only it has provided, this terror network was allegedly created in 1989 in the Soviet Union as a branch of an Armenian political group (the ARF) that had no presence, legal nor physical, in the country. This group is not cited by any major entity (such as the US Department of State) which registers and follows up on the activity of terrorists organization and, given the tense atmosphere of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan it is quite probable that the latter created this shadowy organization without any real evidence to back it up. Individuals quickly arrested and executed by the Azerbaijani government for a bus bombing in 1991 were said to have belonged to Vrezh but the politically charged climate of the time does not give its decisions too much of an air of credibility.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needless to say, opposing. The article is sourced to reliable sources and is clearly causing discomfort of the filing user. First off, three sources unaffiliated with the Azerbaijani government state the fact about past existence of the organization called Vrezh (see the article). Secondly, it is somewhat unsurprising that Vrezh was possibly affiliated with ARF since ARF has been known to have militant/terrorist wings attacking civilian targets. Please see Operation Nemesis for example, or other related articles ASALA, JCAG, or just research Google Books for affiliation with ARF (see this for instance), or simply for Armenian terrorism. The organization Vrezh was likely created to commit terrorist attacks before the Nagorno-Karabakh War escalated in 1992. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please also note that the user requesting the deletion clearly has insincere intent. For instance, see his remark above where he says "...some of them also have a discernible affiliation with Azerbaijan, such as Charles van der Leeuw..." and then take a look at his other statement "...even the two non-Azerbaijani government affiliated sources, van der Leeuw and Bolukbasi, make use of the word allegedly...". I don't think this "contradiction" says anything other than insincerity and bad faith discrediting of authors when necessary. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note It's true the ARF did have one or two militant parties affiliated to in the 1970s and '80s (the Justice Commandos, for example), but they all operated outside the territory of the USSR - namely in Europe and Middle East. Operation Nemesis was a plan hatched in the early 1920s and its sole objective was to target those individuals who orchestrated the Armenian Genocide and the massacres of Armenians in the Caucasus. It's hard to imagine how such an organization had gained a foothold in such a repressive country as the USSR and even more difficult to determine how the suspects were apprehended so quickly and their guilt and affiliation established so conclusively. The ARF had been vilified for over seventy years in the USSR and its poor showing in the first presidential election in Armenia demonstrated how little support it had at the time - not in the Soviet Union itself, but in Armenia. Its headquarters was in Athens, Greece. All we have to go on is the word of a country that has perhaps one of the poorest human rights records throughout the world. And please be good enough to note that I distinguish the difference between Azerbaijan (the country) and the Azerbaijani government.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, ARF was affiliated with many terrorist activities and cells, be it in Europe, Asia or Americas. I wonder how that was missed in your request for deletion. No need to talk about the last years of USSR where turmoil took hold not only in Caucasus but in some other republics with Islamists in Uzbekistan, Chechens in Northern Caucasus, etc. If journalists like Salatin Askerova were killed along with Soviet servicemen in broad daylight, I have no doubt it was not a problem for a few people to found a secret organization with just a few cells to blow up targets within Azerbaijan. And please, when you even attempt to speak about "poorest human rights", please remember that it was Armenia, where peaceful unarmed protesters were executed by Armenian government troops and where prisoners sleep in Armenian prisons unnoticed by international media.
Back to the sources. All sources in the article are reliable and non-affiliated to Azerbaijan whatsoever, hence no grounds for deletions. Tuscumbia (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I dont think that Marshal's arguments have any ground. And this isnt the first time he mixes personal interpretation with facts. His argument is based on original research as he continues to criticize all-neutral and all-Azerbaijani sources. The fact is this article is well sourced and its an important subject, there is no ground for deletion. Mursel (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MarshalBagramyan's presented arguments without having a constructive material on his hand. This is not first time, he does it. He always fan of making stuff up and I can't believe some admin's do support this kind of moves.--NovaSkola (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Can you guys be a little more specific (and try not to copy what the other is saying) by pointing out where exactly I have mixed my personal interpretation with the so-called facts? My statements appeal to logic and what is well-known about the conditions of the USSR and the status of ARF, which unfortunately the sources are not careful enough to identify or question.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As his arguments is understanding, he must give great facts. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AFD was apparently never included in the daily logs, which I've now corrected, so consider this a "relist." postdlf (talk) 18:25, 16 November 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, —SW— soliloquize 18:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 17 November 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. Jujutacular talk 06:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resilient control systems[edit]

Resilient control systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was apparently originally copied wholesale from a government white paper, Resilient Control Systems: Next Generation Design Research, HSI 2009, Craig G. Rieger, David I. Gertman, Miles A. McQueen, May 2009, apparently by one of the authors. It not only constitutes plagiarism on our part but is primarily original research. Jojalozzo 17:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Since the article's creator added his own article, I think that qualifies as a big conflict of interest. Does copy vio still qualify if it's the author of the piece uploads his own work? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
The content is government public domain I think. It's more a matter of plaiarism than copyright problem. The COI is also an issue but not as critical in my view Jojalozzo 22:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct on the public domain of the transposed content, and as well, I am the original author/representative of said content. It represents a summarization of existing thought in the area, and to this end, I have added a number of additional, independent references to further address the "original research" and "conflict of interest" comments. --Crieger (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content is original. It is a violation of policy to copy in content from another source. All the text copied from your whitepaper needs to be replaced. Adding sources does nothing to fix our plagiarism problem or the COI problem. It may be possible to prevent or delay deletion of the article by moving it to user space where all the content can be replaced but you'd have to be willing to do the work of rewriting it from scratch or maybe writing a short original summary that could be moved back into article space as the basis for a final article to be developed as a collaborative project with other editors. Jojalozzo 03:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have such a policy. If a publication is in the public domain, its text may be freely used, also in Wikipedia articles. See the many articles transcluding attribution templates such as {{1911}}, {{1913}}, {{Bryan}}, {{EncyclopaediaBiblica}}, or {{Watkins}}, which often means the text has been copied over wholesale.  --Lambiam 16:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps the article could use a few more attributions to the cited article to clarify that it's mostly from there? Provided that something's correctly cited, I don't see a problem with getting material from a public-domain source. Allens (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More sources will not change the fact that basically all the content is lifted from other sources. That's a major policy violation that can only be fixed by removing the content. Jojalozzo 23:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show evidence for this being the policy with regard to a properly-referenced, public-domain source. Allens (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is central core policy. I referenced it in the intro above: WP:Plagiarism. Jojalozzo 16:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From there (emphasis mine; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources): 'Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed. Public-domain attribution notices should not be removed from an article or simply replaced with inline citations unless it is verified that all phrasing and information from the public-domain source has been excised. The text may be attributed in the same way as it is for copyrighted material, but the source can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim if it is cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details).' In other words, it simply needs better attribution in the References section... so unless you can show policy that overrides this (it's a content guideline, not policy), that's what needs to happen, not deletion or near-deletion via editing down into a stub. Allens (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are misapplying the policy. It's not intended to apply to a complete article or even major portions of an article. As the policy says we have to attribute the copied text to INL.gov and put it all in quote marks. What's the benefit for Wikipedia (or our readers) in reusing existing content wholesale? Why not just have a summary and a link to the whitepaper? See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Jojalozzo 22:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been totally rewritten and the wikipedia entry updated. The original deletion statement has been left for removal by the individual that applied it.--Crieger (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. That article is a copy/paste from the web site and it is copyrighted. I'll PROD it. At least the author provides links to the copy sources - that makes it easier to check out and is a sign of good faith. Jojalozzo 22:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is an aspect of resilience engineering and there are several books about that such as Resilience Engineering in Practice. The field seems to support regular symposia and scholarly papers. We should encourage further development per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the topic isn't a good one for the project but we cannot use material copied from another source. I think a good resolution would be to replace all the current content with a summary stub if there is someone who will take that on. If not, then we shoudl delete the article until someone is ready to write the article without copying from other sources. Jojalozzo 23:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, PBS. I note that such articles don't use quote marks. Jojalozzo, as an academic (specifically, a professor who's been involved with cracking down on plagiarism... a rather unpleasant business) I do appreciate your desire to avoid plagiarism. But there is a reason to have it on Wikipedia already copied in, instead of just giving a link. It's to enable people to edit it and improve it. Allens (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have to be a little careful with our terminology here copying without acknowledging the copying is plagiarism, when adequate attribution is added the text is no longer plagiarised. With copyrighted material there are other legal concerns, but to give an example if I write the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable without acknowledgement then that is plagiarism, if for example I put it in quotes attribute it in-line "As Oscar Wilde one said 'the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable'." then it is not plagiarism. However it is a breach of WP:V because it is a quote and quotes must carry an inline citation. In the case of PD text or text that is copyright compliment with copying into Wikipedia, the consensus is that the text does not need quotes and providing it carries adequate attribution it is not plagiarism. This then allows the text to be mercilessly edited in the usual Wikipedia way. I think the reason some people object to this approach is the idea that all the text here shoudl originate from Wikiepedia editors. Personally I think that approach is a matter of not seeing the wood for the trees, because as I see it the project's goal is to create a free encyclopaedia not to write a free encyclopaedia (along the lines of the The Cathedral and the Bazaar "Good programmers know what to write. Great ones know what to rewrite (and reuse)." -- PBS (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Is there an assumption that if the government publishes it then it's authoritative and immune to the problems of OR and SYN? If so, is there a similar assumption for all PD (1911) content or are there author/publisher filters we must apply? Jojalozzo 01:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No all text copied in as if it came from another Wikipedia article (so USG and EB1911 has to meet the content policy requirements. WP:PLAGARISM makes this clear:
If the external work is in the public domain, but contains an original idea, or is a primary source, then it may be necessary to alter the wording of the text (for example not including all the text from the original work, or quoting some sections, or specifically attributing to a specific source an opinion included in the text,) to meet the Wikipedia content policies of neutral point of view and Wikipedia:no original research (in particular the restrictions on the use of primary sources).
It is quite common for editors of EB1911 and the DNB etc to express opinions. I came across one recently in the ODNB I particularly liked "A small place in the footnotes of Romantic scholarship gives this pretentious ass a lingering reputation that his collections would never have justified".--PBS (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the benefit of incorporating PD content without quotation marks so we can "improve" it at will. Jojalozzo 01:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the good discussion. However, I went ahead and rewrote the article and updated the wikipedia entry. The original deletion statement has been left for removal by the individual that applied it.--184.155.147.128 (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that some of it is still probably too close a paraphrase to meet the copyright criteria. But I think it best we discuss that on the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to PBS and Allens for the help with policy and to Creiger for great work on the article. I'll let the admins know they can close this. Jojalozzo 01:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the "...article is being considered for deletion..." statement is still on the entry. I had assumed the administrators would take care of removing it?--Crieger (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think they just need time to get to it. Jojalozzo 17:32, 23 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Audiology in Schools Draft[edit]

Audiology in Schools Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested on my talk page. Essay largely based on a single source, that source being an advocacy group. Also, sentences such as "As you can see, an audiologist plays a huge role in the school" reek of soapboxing and advocacy, something Wikipedia was never meant for. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is clearly a soapbox article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 18 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood of the Holy Cross[edit]

The Brotherhood of the Holy Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have my doubts about the sourcing , accuracy and notability of this; it was prodded, but I think it needs wider attention. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There appear to be a variety of Brotherhoods of the Holy Cross mentioned in sources. One's an Anglican group that appears to be identical with the Order of the Holy Cross. There's also a small-o orthodox Roman Catholic version, for which our article is Congregation of Holy Cross. Nothing I see seems to specifically refer to this. Given the nature of the topic, any existing sources may not be in English. Then again, given the nature of the subject, this may be a baroque hoax. The Russian article seems to be tagged for some kind of deletion or review process; I don't read the language. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google Translate indicates that the tag on the Russian article questions the article's notability. I tried to find sources in English on this organization and could not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 15 November 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, v/r - TP 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as it stands, both in EN and RU, the article lacks any inline citations, and just has two Russian websites listed at the end (fails WP:N). The second one goes into complicated details of splitting of churches and defrocking of priests, acc to Google translate, so it seems there is some kind of far-right church in existence, complete with political infighting. The danger for WP given that we have very poor sourcing and limited ability to follow what's going on, is that we're taken for a ride by one of the sides (perhaps there are many fragmentary groups) in the whole complex situation. I propose we delete it, ready to welcome it back if it comes with more evidence next time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My own search for GNews sources on the string "братство Креста Господня" yielded only this source, which a Google translation reveals is not about the same organization. The other organization fails our notability guidelines too, and the article on the Russian Wikipedia is itself tagged for notability concerns. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:42, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Brown[edit]

Sherman Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO. I cannot find significant coverage of this person in multiple reliable sources. I don't know if being a deputy campaign manager would automatically confer notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does fail the criteria of WP:BIO, also possible conflict of interest as creating user is probably the individual or a coworker. Jab843 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Jab. Fails WP:BIO. NickCT (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

▪ Speedy delete No evidence of notability, fails WP:BIO. Should have been tagged {{db-a7}}. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 06:02, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkhill[edit]

Chalkhill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about a soap opera that was broadcast via the internet. I found this article about its casting but no significant coverage about it. Whpq (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with nom. I'm having difficulty finding any RS that refer to this thing. NickCT (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article re casting was all I could find as well. Notability not asserted. Colonel Tom 21:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

▪ Delete No evidence/claim of notability, fails WP:GNG. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 06:04, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Edward Cheney[edit]

George Edward Cheney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable Biography -- seems like copypasta (but I can't figure out from where) -- created by a single-edit account. jheiv talk contribs 06:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is essentially a CV for this professor. No hits on GNews. Cheney appears to be well-cited within communications through a Google Scholar search, but the page would need to drastically rewritten in order to be an appropriate biography on Wikipedia. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit and Keep: Seems to me a clear pass of WP:prof via publications and their citations but clearly needs susbtantial editing. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Additional Comment: A very quick look via the first page on a google scholar search seems to me to indicate he has produced some quite notable work. Eg:
The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication Quarterly Journal of Speech, Cited by 347
On the various and changing meanings of organizational membership: A field study of organizational identification Communications Monographs, 1983 Cited by 306
Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple identities 1991, Cited by 301
Employee participation meets market pressure at Mondragon Cited by 163
Participatory processes/paradoxical practices Cited by 172
Organizational communication in an age of globalization: Issues, reflections, practicesG Cheney Cited by 146
Coming to terms with organizational identification and commitment Cited by 146
I am not sure why this isn't obviously a pass of WP:prof with notability being established by such well cited works. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
A further additional comment: A very quick look via google books (George Cheney in Google Books) seems to list loads of books. These look like important works. Many seem well used. (Library stocking via Worldcat) Also if one goes deeper in to Gbooks and GScholar you find Cheney's work being discussed as an important and notable contribution. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:48, 15 November 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, v/r - TP 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete the article is a CV, checking google nothing significant turns up. Jab843 (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantial change to the article: I have shortend the article massively and added multiple independent reviews to some of his books (Book Reviews in PRJs) and now I think is less problematic. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep I've struck my above support for deletion based on the overwhelming rewrite of the article. Thanks, Msrasnw! I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK item 5 – currently linked from the Main Page ("In the news" section) (non-admin closure) jcgoble3 (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi[edit]

Resignation of Silvio Berlusconi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't need it's own page. Undue weight - many PMs have resigned or been sacked, many under more dramatic circumstances, and don't have a page. Delete or probably better merge into main Berlusconi article. Jw2036 (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - Other "Resignation of" pages do exist (e.g. Resignation of Sarah Palin), though admittedly, not many. The actual resignation appears to garnered a reasonable amount of media attention; so-much-so that merging it all into the Berlusconi article might create size issues. NickCT (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The circumstances surrounding the event are notable but merging them into the main article—a fine idea in principle—would make Silvio Berlusconi an even more cumbersome article than it is already. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep given the circumstances behind the resignation, and create resignation articles on other notable cases where possible. At very worst we would merge so bringing this to AFD is NOT the way it should have been discussed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno. I'm not sure it passes the “will this still deserve its own article in 10 years” test, but this is all sourced, relevant info and the main article on Berlusconi is already big enough without this merged into it. Transwiki to Wikinews or merge somewhere else (e.g. Political career of Silvio Berlusconi) maybe? ― A. di M.​  17:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A summary could be given in Political career of Silvio Berlusconi but I still think its a valid article and notable event in Italian politics.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very reasonable start on an article that has considerable references to reliable sources. Alarbus (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The resignation of Berlusconi in 2011 is a turn point for Italy.User:Lucifero4
    Let's hope it will be! :-) ― A. di M.​  19:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Certainly analogous to Resignation of Richard Nixon. More than just a simple news story. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhere else I definitely think this should be merged with "Political career of Berlusconi", although a link to this section should be included on the Berlusconi page. Vitomontreal (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - Berlusconi is a notable individual globally and most certainly within Italy, so I suggest keeping the article. News for it, though, would only be temporary and if it remains a small article I agree with suggestions to merge it into 'Political Career of Berlusconi'. Comics (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redundant to the main article. The nominator says it all, we are not the news. Resignations happen. Hekerui (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Week keep or Merge - As previously mentioned, we do have a (small) number of articles about resignations of politicians. I suggest keeping the article for now, to see if this winds up being for than just a case of WP:NOTNEWS down the road. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 23:27, 16 November 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 snow delete, with a round of applause for Madison-chan's comment. BencherliteTalk 16:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to be an excellent cna[edit]

How to be an excellent cna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not for posting your homework essay. Had been prod'ed, prod removed by page creator. Syrthiss (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - original research / essay. andy (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original article included a class assignment header including the authors name, course name, and assignment date. Clearly this is a homework assignment. Removal of the assignment header does not address the fact that this is a pure essay, not an encyclopedia article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to post homework assigments, in fact it's one of the WORST places to post homework assigments as other people can edit them and possibly get you a lower grade. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another example of why we need a "blatant WP:NOT violation" CSD criteria. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm beginning to see one root of the problem. The only discursive writing most people do today is for school assignments with assigned page length and word count requirements. This encourages bad habits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete as an obvious violation of WP:NOT. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Jab843 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - with extreme prejudice. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hadouken (software)[edit]

Hadouken (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Restored as a contested prod with an original rationale of "No indication of notability". I looked after restoring and could not find any reliable sources that discuss the software. GB fan 13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only Ghits are people selling the software/having it for download. And also, I don't understand why people are hating me for only contributing to AFDs. Damn Wikipedians. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just another BitTorrent client. Google News knoweth it not. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance for this product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above, no reliable references and no indication of notability. Also, article was created by an SPA, and is likely promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 20:52, 22 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Guy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is very little, if any significant coverage on this person. The cited sources are weak at best with many relying on subject's own United States copyright filing, which anyone who compose any writing/music can file. It also appears that the subject himself is heavily involved in promoting the page from editing pattern. There are two contributors with names that implies close tie with the subject. At least two anonymous editors in same geographical region with same spelling error pattern. Details in article's talk page.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, the only reliable sources I can find are for a mathematitian (sp?) who also happens to named Michael Guy. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable. I was going to suggest a Merge into the article House of Lords, but Guy was only with them for a year (1990 to 1991) and is one of many former members. Guy's other bands (Hurricane, Shark Island) are barely notable, if at all. Nor does he seem to be notable as a songwriter, as very few (two?) of his songs have been recorded. HairyWombat 16:13, 16 November 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 deletionalizitify made-up word. Neutralitytalk 07:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clienting[edit]

Clienting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Neologism that does not appear to have any notability; a Google search indicates that the term has several different meanings, but "customer focus in marketing" does not appear to be a particularly common meaning. bonadea contributions talk 12:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not propose this article should be deleted. It is the direct translation of the published article on the German Wikipedia site. Mr. Geffroy invented the term in the 1980s, and this Wikipedia article has been submitted to allow his American and English Seminar attendees to look up one of his most frequently used words online. Die Wortmarke Clienting des Unternehmensberaters Edgar K. Geffroy beschreibt eine konkrete Form der Managementlehre zur Kundenorientierung im Marketing aus den späten Achtziger Jahren des vergangenen Jahrhunderts. Geffroy vertritt damit eine extreme Ausrichtung des Unternehmens auf die Bedürfnisse des Marktes, insbesondere der Kunden eines Kunden im Vertrieb, somit der Produktpolitik und Unternehmenskultur und der Mitarbeiterführung im Sinne eines heute als Stakeholder bezeichneten Ansatzes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmeschramm (talk • contribs) 12:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a novel, albeit unconvincing, take on WP:VALINFO. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary for attendees of business seminars. If people are unable to understand Edgar Geoffroy without recourse to Wikipedia, that may be a cue to use less buzzwords. Anyway, delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletionalizitify - Made up word. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 18 November 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 as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Service Plus[edit]

Service Plus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD by IP without addressing the issues. Concern = WP:ADVERT. Subject fails criteria at WP:ORG. Written like an advert or a press release, the sources provided are either Primary, or do not fulfill the criteria for extentsive reliable sources. The keywords in the name make Ghits impossible to locate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It seems to be written like an advert. Adder also seems to have re-added the article after it was previously deleted. I don't see where this particular company is notable. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. Highly promotional. Seems non-notable.--Tingo Chu (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment I've closed the duplicate AfD nomination and nominated the AfD page for speedy deletion under G6 Housekeeping. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks. Sorry for my mistake.--Tingo Chu (talk) 11:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely written to advertise, doesn't appear notable, most of the sources cited are from the company's website. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Thank you very much for you attention! We have only russian sources of information, can we use this? Volume of english information is very small. Thats why we had to use information from our website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitry-1983 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 November 2011‎
Note: Dimitry-1983 has a Conflict of Interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched in Russian about your company and didn't find anything in that language. Not much in English. Of course, there are many companies called "Service Plus" so it was hard to find anything about this particular Service Plus, but I'm convinced it's not notable. Sorry. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:25, 16 November 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 only way to get an article kept is to find reliable sources covering the subject in detail. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gori gora gori borovina[edit]

Gori gora gori borovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song; only reference is to a YouTube video. (Procedurally doubtful too - pushed through AfC by article's creator, no-one else involved.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find anything that proves notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete. The song clearly exists but, like Tokyogirl179, I can't unearth evidence of notability. Not in English, anyway. Colonel Tom 09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides a referenced and moderatable and civil platform for a substandard youtube comment based debate on origins. The discussion is invited in the discussion, the author was obviously not an expert but placed it as a topic of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.187.73.214 (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 125.187.73.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP (Struck double vote) The youtube reference is a direct link to a valid and verified cultural organisation, its a valid reference in the context of folk songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.187.73.214 (talk) 10:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 125.187.73.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: Youtube videos are not considered to be reliable sources per Wikipedia standards. [[WP:RS] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Merge to gori borovina, leaving a redirect. Sources do not need to be in English. I think it is clear that there is a folk-song called either "Gori borovina" or "Gori gora gori borovina". Admittedly, the only thing approaching RS that I can find are about a version sung by Mate Bulić; but it's fairly obvious that that is a version adapted from a traditional piece. For example, see this indicates a performance of it by Bulić, and this seems to be a newspaper article about a mayor?politician? quoting from the song. I think this is talking about it in terms of a TV show. (I'm going on auto-translate tools, here). Obviously, the topic could benefit greatly from someone who speaks the language! But, I think the two can be merged, framing it as a folk song which has been performed by the specific artist Bulić, with one forwarding to the other. I'm not sure about the YouTube link - a 'verified cultural organization'? It just says "SrdjanMarkovicNK's Channel"; the copyright status of that link must be clarified, or the link removed (per WP:EL). I don't think we need a separate article for the song and the specific version by Bulić, though.  Chzz  ►  10:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-FROM AUTHOR okay on the you tube, i have found a link direct from the cultural group and replace, that ends the discussion on that criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.39.197.14 (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — 14.39.197.14 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. not a VOTEmore on videos and validity of links. fair criticism of the youtube i had pre-checked the following--The youtube video is also from the cultural org and vice versa, the name of the group is referenced at the top of the video, everybody is acknowledged. not a VOTE-from author-It is a notable folksong and i am not a member of the referenced org in answer to first critique to include for deletion in the first place, but the process of discussion has refined the links so it was valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Protobaltoslav (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Generally ANY Youtube video is not considered to be a reliable source regardless of who posts it. Also, a video of a group singing a song is not considered to be a reliable source because it does not show how notable the song is. It only shows that the song exists and nobody is questioning that. We're questioning how notable the song is. Notability would be shown by proving that the song is notable in the culture by providing sources such as books that mention that the song is particularly noteworthy in the culture, news articles mentioning the cultural value of the song (that aren't vanity pieces), as well as articles put out by noteworthy and reliable groups. Again, providing links to videos does not prove notability unless it's a clip of a news story or program that is giving history about the song in a context that would prove that it is notable. A clip of someone interviewing a member of a group that happens to be performing the song generally isn't considered noteworthy. So far nothing has been given to show notability as far as this song goes. Please read WP:RELIABLE SOURCES to see what would be considered a reliable source. Not every folk song is considered noteworthy. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTETokyo it doesn't need a news article, may I explain the position of these organisations in culture of the region to you. Basically, if the cultural organisation is singing it, it is a folk song. And it is of noteriety because it is a people's asset and or tale, that's why it is sung. In this case the soundtrack is also on youtube, but that does not belittle the track or the position of such a folk song for people (think the history of ring a ring a rosie, for example, may include a sound byte of the song for the historical description of the experience of Bubonic Plague). As for origin, meanings etc (that I invited but cannot fully inform) that takes group input, the goal rather than the substandard youtube debate, from earliest backroom dusty music scores and even older minds. Just as 'ring a ring a rosie,' tells a tale, this one does too, its just that we need experts for that. The organisations themselves may assist. So in short, that should assist with notability. I believe ring a ring a rosie is in multilingual wiki, this song also has a place by same virtue. Does that help understanding in terms of concept and explanation of the function of these organisations? Ring a ring a rosie has some folklore volume references, as thats the way that Anglosaxons (etc in England) recorded their oral histories, in the Balkans it was done and they are to some extent still kept via groups sing songs, the equivalent of a volume on folklore, and likely this song does too, I just couldn't complete them all, it needs collaboration so I thank whomever for including this discussion in the Serbia group. But I don't see that the notability criticism holds given the explanation, others may differ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.53.61 (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC) NoteSince the substandard youtube origin debate included Croatian claims, maybe we should include it in that discussion. I think, I'm not an expert, that the analysis of the song will be the cultural determiner, once the groups contribute the groundwork dates and socio-historics, more so than other current indicators.But you can see that amongst at least two major populations, the song is of note, and worthiness to lay claim to and discuss, by that very discussion.01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)protobaltoslav — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.144.53.61 (talk) [reply]

  • Comment: I'm going to bold the next statement because it's so very important: Everything on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources to prove notability. You can't say that because Group A sings this song that it's proof of notability. You have to have at least some form of reliable documentation to back that up. Even if it's a children's textbook that talks about the history of the song and of other cultural songs, that's something. (It doesn't have to be a news article- I mentioned that because it's just an example of what is considered a reliable source.) You can't put something up on Wikipedia without anything Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source and claim that it doesn't require sources because "it's so well known". It doesn't work that way. At this point all you have to do is find reliable sources and the youtube video isn't going to be considered a reliable source at all, let alone enough to keep the article. I really recommend that you look into finding other sources to prove notability. Even Ring around the Rosie has at least 20 reliable sources to prove notability. You might want to try contacting the cultural group and asking them for resources that can prove notability. They should undoubtedly have books and documents that can be listed on here to prove notability of this song. Again, Youtube videos are never really considered reliable sources because that content is user generated. Anyone can add the videos to Youtube and unless it's a phenomenon that started on Youtube, such as Rebecca Black's Friday, Youtube videos in general aren't really encouraged even as far as external links go. (Because anyone can upload them and if it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia, the video will also be available on a more official site.) The general consensus is that if something is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it will have at least 2-3 reliable sources that are not placed on youtube. As said above, it'd have to be a pretty extreme example for a Youtube video to be considered a reliable source and a video of a cultural group singing a song does not cut it. Even if the video was on the cultural group's website, that does not prove the song's notability because it doesn't give any history of the song. Even if the group posted a video of Madonna singing the song at their cultural festival, that doesn't show us any notability about the song. Now if there was an article where someone were to talk about the song's history, that would be considered notable. Please see WP:NSONGS to see what is needed to prove notability for a song. I have no doubt that the song is probably culturally valuable, but we need proof in the form of reliable sources. We can't go on the say-so of various people unless that say-so is in the form of reliable sources WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Additional: Just to let you know, this isn't about me being stubborn or anything to that extent. This is just about standard Wikipedia requirements. Every article needs reliable sources, no matter what the subject or how obvious the notability might seem to you. We require this of the new songs as well as the old ones.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

reply to additional I get it, in the interim before the group collaboration including the likes of musical score dates or sources, any qualified, ethnologist, anthropologist or unqualified person would accept that FOLK are legitiamate sources for folk songs and that cultural organisations add additional institutional legitimacy to any folk song, saying etc. It does need more work, it has been invited in the discussion. What's there is a valid starting point I think. I don't think you are being stubborn, I just don't think you are an anthropologist in terms of perspective or can see the driving point of the article, to refine the discussion that exists. The existing sources are legit and reliable for a folk song until proven otherwise by another source, scholarly or otherwise. The sources are fine until they are refined with more in terms of a starting point. -Certainly there is room for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.5.122.94 (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — 59.5.122.94 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • This has nothing to do about me being an anthropologist or not and the existing sources are not fine as far as proving notability for Wikipedia standards. What is required or not required in various anthropological is irrelevant. What is important here is what Wikipedia requires as reliable sources and currently none of the sources on the page meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. If you could find even one mention of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source, it'd be a far different story. The problem here is that even though it's clear that the song exists and is of value to at least one group of people, there are no reliable sources to back those claims up. The page cannot exist without those sources. If you would like to sign up for an account and userfy the article until you can find those sources, I have no problem with that. Until then we can't have an article kept on the hopes that eventually someone will find a reliable source and add it. That's just not how Wikipedia works. Tokyogirl79 (talk)tokygirl79

noteadded BLOG POST and some more info and news articles from various sources citing popularity and added geographical description to aid assisting the ethnic origin discussion and analysis-not in English and still looking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.129.25.226 (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Reliable sources not in evidence demonstrating significant coverage independent of the subject as per WP:N, nor specifically "an ample supply of lore, much of it in secondary sources such as music journals and academic articles" as expected for a notable traditional song per WP:MUSIC. DGaw (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note added paper explaining one possible reason for absence of secondary resources in 'google,' 'yahoo,' 'Croatian Journals Online(HRCAK search),' etc. I anticipate that as in the council of Europe paper that in time it will be prioritized to be available online. Someone somewhere probably has some access to more info in hard copy and all contributors to the deletion discussion will be grateful if you come forward...please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.187.73.214 (talk) 07:21, 26 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:05, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Field crumpets[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Field crumpets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was apparently played in parks by some college students in 2006-9 but has the feel of wp:madeup. The external links are dead and I have removed them. A search of the web shows some activity in Anchorage in 2011 but the only verifiable report I found has the feel of "well this is a slow news day we need a 3 minute filler - lets look at those funny college kids" Porturology (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it looks very much like a HOAX, but at the least it's non-notable web content, let's assume good faith. Not encyclopedic. Fails WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even if is a hoax, it's not notable, a shame as this is a very well done article. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please Keep! Whoa, whoa, whoa - this game is NOT a hoax. Please excuse me; I don't know the guidelines of Wikipedia, and it may well be that this page never should have been created, but this is a legitimate game, and it's actually a really good game to play with church youth groups. I attended Cornell University in 2003-2006, which is when the game was introduced there to the Cornell Big Red Marching Band, who still play it today. I brought it back to Montana, and there are still people there who play it. Again, I don't know what would qualify it to be a Wikipedia article, but it does exists and is a really great game for people who like relaxed competition - youth groups, college clubs, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.107.104 (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, you sound totally genuine, and you have declared an interest (Wikipedia calls it a WP:COI but that's not a problem). The way Wikipedia works is that we never take anyone's word for anything, at least we try to! What is needed is independent evidence - not your word, not Wikipedia's, but things written by reliable sources not connected with the subject. That means newspaper or magazine reports, really - and sometimes websites, when these are carefully written. So when people speak of "Notable" and "Verifiable", they mean "Can this article's claims be proven by reference to books, newspapers, magazines, quiet reliable websites?" - I do hope you can find such evidence and I'll reverse my vote. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 23 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Genius[edit]

Rap Genius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website has very little reliable sources such as the article from the Huffington Post; majority of content is self-sourcing such as the content it has, sourcing itself to show its "significance" with artists. Notability has yet to be met. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 07:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was aiming more in possibly finding ways to reduce its content, since it it self-sourced. If there are notable mentionings of the website, then those should replace the content already written in the article. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 17:20, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qiito[edit]

Qiito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:CORP. The sources listed don't seem to meet the depth and variety required, and I found no other sources. Perhaps it will generate more coverage when it launches next month. Delete, for mine, but I'm happy to be told I'm wrong and that this meets notability requirements. Colonel Tom 06:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't find anything suggesting this place is notable. NickCT (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, this article is about a business venture. The place, Quito, certainly is noteable. Cheers & thanks. Colonel Tom 04:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Colonel, yes there are few media coverage ready to report on Qiito In december 2011 and Jan 2012. Funtraveller (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Web-based 2011 startup. Referenced only to routine stories about launch and financing; that sort of coverage does not make a business notable. Advertising: an online travel planning platform ... received its seed funding from an anonymous Japan-based venture capital firm in July 2011..... It positioned itself as a highly visual and intuitive way to build up day-to-day travel itineraries based on location with simple drag-and-drops.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; does not appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 19:11, 21 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

El-Deeb Nobles[edit]

El-Deeb Nobles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced--and original research, it would seem. The is the second year anniversary of this article having been tagged for notability. Epeefleche (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced original research, not notable, on border of BLP.--Yopie (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 November 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 Augite. As has correctly been noted by others below, the content has been merged and keeping the history intact is required for attribution per our various copyright policies. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shajar[edit]

Shajar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced. Tagged for notability for over three years. Orphan as well. Epeefleche (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per links given by User Phil Bridger. I have added in-line citations and references to improve the article. Jethwarp (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my vote after adding ref and citation is keep Jethwarp (talk) 05:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Merge the content to Augite as this has information about them. In fact I think I will go ahead and add the info the the Augites article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That (delete and merge) seems like a thoughtful suggestion. The two articles are each in their own right so short, and this (w/new ref supplied) apparently being a subset of Augite.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. Based on the below discussion, I think that pure "Delete" rather than "Delete and Merge" is the better nomenclature, inasmuch as there is nothing left to "merge". At the same time, I believe a redirect would make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would urge those calling for deletion after merging to read and digest WP:MAD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was focused on the end result, but since from the essay (not a guideline I see, and I've not looked at the guideline it supplements) Phil points to, it would seem that "delete" (Richard's suggestion, and my original suggestion) and "redirect" would entail less work for the closing admin. And nothing important would be lost I would think.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : If article is not kept - it should be Merged and Redirected to Augite for attribution purpose. I feel Richard of Earth has been bold to add whole Shajar article to Augite section - thinking it will be deleted. As far as I have seen most Admins are very strict and generally merge history with the article page for attribution purpose, as per Wiki guidelines.Jethwarp (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard was seeking to save content that, with added refs, is valid content, whether or not it is sufficiently notable to deserve a wp article. I don't think there is any reason to chastise him for that; precisely the opposite. And the "whole" article he added was quite small, of course. As to which approach to take -- merge or redirect -- the essay, at least, seems to present them both as alternatives. I don't see anything especially valuable in the history, so I'm not sure what the value is of saving it. But other than as an intellectual issue, it seems to be a non-issue, of little importance, in this case at least. I can see why in other cases, such as ones with robust talk page discussion on issues that continue, we might have a different view. That isn't the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The value of saving the history is that it is necessary to do so to comply with our copyright licence when any content has been merged. This is a legal requirement, not a matter of opinion as to whether any individual editor sees any value in it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see your point. As the non-guideline essay states, "A vote for delete and recreate as redirect is unrelated, and presents no problems under the licensing requirements. As long as no content is merged, the old article can be safely deleted and a redirect created in its place." At this point, there is nothing more to merge -- all the information we have in the "merge to" article is already created there, in total conformance with our copyright license.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the content in the target article was copied from the one under discussion here, so we need to maintain attribution to the original authors. If we delete this article's history then it will look like Richard-of-Earth wrote the content merged to Augite, when he didn't, but only copied it from Shajar. Pleased don't keep going on about WP:MAD being only an essay. It is firmly based on the fundamental policy requirements of our licence. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to the essay, I'll simply quote -- in full -- what the essay itself says about itself as an essay:

"While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Redirect. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one."

As to what an essay is, I'll quote from the relevant page:

"On Wikipedia, an essay is a page in the project namespace (Wikipedia:) that is written by one or more editors that typically addresses some aspect of working on or with Wikipedia. Such pages are categorized into Category:Wikipedia essays or a related subcategory. Essays may range from personal or minority views, to views that enjoy a wide consensus amongst Wikipedia editors. Essays typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Unlike policies and guidelines, usually no formal attempt to judge the community's support for the essay's content has been made."

As to merging -- as I said, at this point there is no content to merge, upon deletion of the article. But of course if sysops want to do the extra work of adding the history of the article, they are free to do that. Whether there is a legal requirement that they do so it the opinion of Phil, but I personally don't see that in the least. If that were the case, all those who have used wikipedia entries elsewhere based on the (soon-to-be-deleted) article here would be in breach of our copyvio laws ... that would require that anyone who uses wp as a source under our license daily check to see if the material is still undeleted. I don't think there is any legal requirement for that, and I don't think that the world operates that way precisely because there is no such requirement.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. If you're not prepared to learn that a fundamental requirement of our licence is attribution to original authors then please just continue in your ignorance, rather than making silly wikilawyering points about the status of an essay, when I have linked the licence, which, as a legal document, sits above even policy, above. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You raised the essay. Not me. It was in fact your citing of, and linking to, the essay that kicked off this discussion above. I simply clarified what an essay is for wp purposes. Just as the essay itself does. I'm not clear why that would trouble you. This essay, in particular, is interesting in that only half a dozen editors have supplied more than 2 edits to it. Beyond that, as to the law, we're simply discussing your interpretation and application of the license requirements. I indicated why I thought your interpretation and application here -- where material has already been "moved" and there is nothing else to move, is not accurate. But yes, I agree -- accurate interpretation and application of the law, as you say, does sit above policy. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a legal requirement to add the history and names of original creator & other contributors of page to be merged for attribution purpose. User Phil Bridger has been trying to explain that thing again and again, as was also pointed out by me in my earlier comment. In the current situation it looks as if User Richard on Earth has written the Shajar section of Augite article, where as he has just copy and pasted it from the Shajar page. I am sure the Admin who will take this AfD for closure will look in to all this matter before taking his/her decision.Jethwarp (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you're not reading what was written -- there is nothing left "to merge". Richard copied the couple of sentences into the target article already. As he was completely in his rights to do; do you really think he needed an in-line attribution to wikipedia to do it? I'm happy of course for the closing admin to do whatever the closing admin would like to do. If they want to do extra work and add material that the law does not require -- if indeed it does not require it -- then they should of course feel free to do so. I don't want them to be misled however by an essay written primarily by a handful of editors being thought of as anything more that that. And I think the application of the law here is what is primarily at question in any event. I'm simply explaining why Phil's understanding of the law seems to me (with all due deference to him if he is a U.S. lawyer) to be incorrect in its application here. It may be that the two of you are U.S. lawyers, and even U.S. lawyers can disagree on matters of law (though in the U.S. we are generally against non-lawyers tendering opinions on the law), but my understanding is as set forth above. As I said, this is a silly issue, for the obvious reasons. If anyone has serious questions on this point, the closer included, they can of course have it communicated to the wikipedia foundation lawyer who handles such matters. Certainly, getting legal issues of U.S. law into the hands of U.S. lawyers, and out of the hands of the non-U.S.-lawyers, would be likely to yield the best result. Non-lawyers are often inordinately happy to construe the law, but that is a bit like doing brain surgery by consensus of wikipedia editors; it may perhaps not always yield the best result.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard has copied whole article which indicates that contents of article were not worth a delete but a merge. I think sole reason you are getting upset is that you had nominated it for delete and now arguing on behalf of Richard, who has just done big mistake in copy pasting the complete Sahjar page into Augite bcoz he thought the article is going to be deleted. Wow!! That is quiet an argument. Till now, Richard is silent in this matter and you are putting up all arguments becoz u are not aware how seriously Wikipedia takes the attribution for its licensing policy. Now if the the article is worth delete, as per you and Richard, why did then he copy paste it on another page. In fact he himself admits [4] that he is taking a bold step, which as per me is a wrong step to get your name for an attribution. Jethwarp (talk) 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Richard did was sensible. It's done. There is nothing left to merge. Richard kindly found a way to improve the project, by saving from complete deletion material that could be saved by the edits he made. We should take our attribution license very seriously. The only issue here is how to handle the history of the once-deleted article. As I said, I think its a matter that the closing admin can decide, but I gave my opinion as to the views expressed above. BTW, Jeth -- do you think that whenever material is copy-pasted from 1 wp article into another that attribution is required (and if we don't do that, what is the legal risk that wikipedia is incurring)? And do you think that whenever we delete an article at AfD, wp or the closing admin conducts (or is required to conduct) a search for any material that may have been copy-pasted from 1 article into another (and if we don't do that, what is the legal risk that wikipedia is incurring by failing to do such a search)?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question you are raising is separate and not to discussed at AfD. But I think Richard did it on purpose. See his comment, he voted a Delete and at the same time said I will merge the content. Instead he should have just voted or changed his vote to Merge & Redirect. You are in fact saying he did a good job obviously, aware that what he did was not correct. I am sure you are an experienced editor but due to some reasons, willingly saying that what he did was good and changed your vote accordingly to delete. Let us now wait for wisdom of closing Admin for decision. Jethwarp (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You keep on attributing motives to me. But I originally nominated this for deletion of the content. When refs sufficient to save the content as part of another article were added (though not sufficient to warrant its own article), and the content was moved to another article, I applauded that move. A move which resulted in the keeping of the content on wp. Which is the opposite of what I had originally called for.
Let me repeat my 2 questions, because your answers will help me better understand your legal reasoning and analysis of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License insofar as it relates to this AfD. And what you opine, above, is a "legal requirement". 1) Do you think that whenever material is copy-pasted from 1 wp article into another, that attribution is required (and if we don't attribute, what do you believe is the legal risk that wp is incurring)? 2) And do you think that whenever we delete an article at AfD, wp or the closing admin conducts (or is required to conduct) a search for any material that may have been copy-pasted from 1 article into another (and if we don't do that, what is the legal risk that wikipedia is incurring by failing to do such a search)?--Epeefleche (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Yes, certainly. Attribution is a central tenet of our licence, not some minor issue that's open to interpretation. The legal risk is minor, but we do things because they are right, not just to avoid getting sued. 2) Any material copy-pasted to other articles should have been identified in edit summaries, per WP:MERGE, so there should be no need for a deleting admin to conduct such an investigation. Of course, that procedure breaks down if editors refuse to listen when these things are explained to them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your missing a basic point, Phil. Nobody is arguing the importance of the issue. Everyone accepts it. What is under discussion is what the law in fact says. That is an issue of how one construes what the law says. On wikipedia, of course, people enter that conversation whether they are qualified to opine on US law or not; everyone gets to play lawyer, even a 12-year-old would be allowed to. At the end of the day, foundation lawyers will provide input on any issues of importance, as they protect the project from liability, which is also a concern that I share as an editor.
One further clarification: If we copy from page A to page B, and at some future point in time delete page A, an edit summary on page B (which is what Phil focuses on in his above comment) will not be discoverable by the sysop deleting page A. He has no reason to look at page B's edit summaries. And AFAIK, there is no systemic way in which he checks all wp articles for copied text, when deleting an article.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict with the second paragraph above) If you can't understand the basic point that the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (my emphasis) requires attribution then I don't see how I can possibly get you to understand anything. That's not my lay interpretation, but the interpretation that has always been used on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to your further question, please read the instructions for merging that I linked above you will see that "A comment in the edit summary must be made in the pages being merged as to where they are being merged to, and it must be noted in the parent page(s)' edit summary where the content from other pages are being merged from; this is done to preserve attribution under the Creative Commons Share-alike 3.0 license", where the "parent page" is your page A. If no other edits are being made to that page this can be done with a null edit. These issues were all worked out a decade ago, and are documented in places such as WP:MERGE and WP:MAD, with the expectation that editors would use common sense and not reject those documents because they don't have the word "policy" at the top. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I didn't watch this page, so I had no idea you guys were having this looooooong conversation about my action. None of which is needed for this deletion discussion. The closing admin only needs your opinion on the article, not on any editors or their actions. Most of this should be on the talk page. This discussion should be closed and a new one started at a later point that has none of this extra verbage. Or perhaps you guys (it seems to be just 3 of you) can agree to move it all to the talk page. If you do, move this comment as well. If my editing was any problem, it could have been undone in a flash as I intended to do that if the article was kept. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame yourself! Jethwarp and I were trying to make the simple point that if content has been merged elsewhere then this title should be redirected with the history intact in order to maintain the attribution required by our licence. It seems that Epeefleche is unwilling to accept such advice unless it comes from a Wikimedia Foundation lawyer, although it is the way that merges have always been handled on Wikipedia (and we would need to hire many more very expensive lawyers if every copyright issue was referred to the Foundation). It's difficult to say at exactly which point the discussion became irrelevant to this article, so I think we need to leave it intact. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Augite, pretty obviously, as this is a valid search term and we need to maintain the history of the merged content. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elgabri[edit]

Elgabri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. Appears to be original research, as best I can tell, and perhaps it would be synth if there were any refs. Tagged for notability and absence of refs for over three years. Epeefleche (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finger in the Door Productions[edit]

Finger in the Door Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No gnews hits, no gbooks hits, and tagged for notability and lack of reference for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Non-notable production company, only important work is The Vagina Monologues. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shias of Padhrar[edit]

Shias of Padhrar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits, tagged for notability for well over two years. Could perhaps be non-notable, I expect. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Shia is already a prominent sect of Islam. The article is about Shias of one village Padhrar. Such articles cannot be allowed on wikipedia. Jethwarp (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marathi princely states[edit]

Marathi princely states (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a list of Marathi Princely States. There already exists a page List of Indian princely states. There also exists another page List of Indian princely states (alphabetical). No need to have a list of Marathi states. The list is clearly created with POV. If such list are allowed then one may create List of Rajasthani Princely state, List of Gujarati princely state. What I want to convey - List of Princely State of India exists. No need to have regional biased lists. Further, the list has no references and citations.Jethwarp (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : In fact many of the names in the list are not even princely states. People are adding unreferenced names to the list as per their personal whims and wishes.Jethwarp (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jethwarp (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, merging any useful content to List of Indian princely states. Regional Content Fork. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 November 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. Nom has withdrawn their nomination, and all !votes are keep (non-admin closure) First Light (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiracing[edit]

Wikiracing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion proposal tag removed by author, so I will now nominate it. Rotorcowboy (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The author here. The topic, while admittedly navel gazing, is also notable. It was the topic of a three page article in The Philadelphia Inquirer, a two page article in the Star Tribune and was part of a research study by the Semantic Technology Institute International (+others). Links in article. Keep. JORGENEV 05:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously well-referenced and notable. Note that the nominator gives absolutely no reason for deletion, which makes it impossible to respond to their nomination. First Light (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In his favor the article had less references when he nominated it for deletion (although, not in his favor, he did give me two final warning templates for contesting the prod tag). JORGENEV 05:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm amazed that this subject, after being deleted 33 different times from the mainspace under 32 different names, including 22 deletions via AfD, may finally have a chance of passing an AfD. No recommendation on my part yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2 separate referenced news articles and one technical report -- meets notability criteria despite navel gazing -- Samir 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As nominator. Wikipedia already has such an article in the Wikipedia namespace: Wikipedia:Wikirace. (Also, please focus on the content in this discussion. Thank you.) Rotorcowboy (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—Per WP:DISCUSSAFD the nominator is assumed to want to delete, so isn't supposed to !vote. Would you consider striking your delete (although not your comments, of course) to avoid making work for the closing admin? Also, it's absolutely standard to point out that the nominator hasn't provided a deletion rationale if that's the case, as it is here; it's hardly a personal attack. (I assume that that's why you're piping phrases to WP:NPA here. If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance)— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Rotorcowboy, could you please point out where there was a personal attack? That would help others to respond to your accusation/implication. WP:NPA#WHATIS gives some examples of different types of personal attacks, as a way of helping editors understand what is a personal attack. Thanks for giving a reason for your nomination, but an "article" with the same name in Wikipedia space is not a valid reason for deleting an article in mainspace. They serve different purposes and a different audience. WP:Wikirace is part of a WikiProject (Department of Fun Wikiproject) and it's purpose is to humor Wikipedia editors. A Wikipedia reader interesting in finding an article about Wikiracing couldn't be expected to search the Wikipedia space. First Light (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I found the beginning of this discussion to be an "attack" since I felt that they were addressing more me and less the content, as explained on the at the attack page's nutshell. It appears to me that, at this point, a concensus has been reached, so I would like to withdraw my nomination for Wikiracing's deletion. On a side note, this is my first actual dispute on Wikipedia and my first AfD discussion. I obviously need more experience, and I thank you all for your input. Rotorcowboy (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it looks as though this now has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Francis Bond (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Demonstrates notability through the coverage in reliable sources - it's not naval-gazing, as long as we cover it in the same way we would if it were about any other subject  Chzz  ►  10:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Obivously notable game given the amount of reliable sources. As a side note, I have played this game once or twice, and it's quite fun. Once I got from Sonic The Hedgehog to Shyness. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
how many clicks?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Some of the refs are derivative from others or not from sources usually judged WP:RS, and could be removed. Edison (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Reliable sources are available, and in the article, which address the topic in detail: [5], [6], [7]. No specific rationale to delete is present in the nomination. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of sources there. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 16 November 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 Global warming controversy. While the general topic is notable, there are hardly any reliable sources supporting the use of the term "climate change alarmism." There is a significant opinion that this is a POV fork of Global warming controversy, so cautious merge to that article is in order. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change alarmism[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Climate change alarmism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We already have two big articles on the subject - Global warming controversy and Climate change denialism, besides Global warming and a host of others. This article brings nothing whatsoever new to the table, and is pretty much a WP:DICDEF with a little added, but redundant, content.

To give some numbers to show the term is not widely used, 78,800 ghits, 2 news hits, and 29 google scholar. These numbers are not so large that they justify an article on the term itself - and that's presuming they all use the same definition, which is doubtful. All other content beyond the definition (and mentioning it's used to attack people) is either questionably sourced, synthesis, or redundant to the big three articles.

There are secondary issues: this is (arguably) a WP:POVFORK, and the text appears to be WP:SYNTH, mixed in with some dodgy sources.

I'd suggest it be deleted and redirected to global warming controversy. 86.** IP (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A "critical description of a rhetorical style" is hardly a fit subject for an encyclopaedia, even disregarding to issues over forking, synthesis etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Lousy article, real subject, bogus argument those hit numbers are within a factor of 3ish as for climate change denialism(264000, 5, 36), but of course given wikipedia groupthink on the subject I wouldn't dream of nominating that article. Greglocock (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plus 14 books. The article is clearly notable and whilst it isn't going to get nominated for good article any day soon the article is well within Wikipedia's standards for style and coverage. The controversy article mainly deals with dialogue about the science and its implications, when you get to alarmism or denial you're way past dialogue. Dmcq (talk) 09:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - proposers reasons don't add up, POVFORK arguments are wrong (it isn't) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC) [was: comment (leaning towards keep): the proposers reasons don't add up. Also 86 doesn't seem to do much except indulge in long tendentious arguments without much in the way of trying to improve things William M. Connolley (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)][reply]
  • Keep It should be renamed climate alarmism, which gets 301 results on Google News. Kauffner (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE to Global warming controversy and Climate change denialism. This is a blatant POV FORK. It is right the arguments on both sides are aired, but no need for yet more articles on the same content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Global warming controversy (I thought that before seeing Chiswick Chap's !vote). I have found 86.IP to be very helpful and have encouraged him/her to set up an account and carry on editing; in any case we vote on the substance not on the editor behaviour. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) Per Dmcq's comments, it may not be beautiful, and may be only a minor aspect of the the whole controversy, but it is a distinct issue in its own right. 2) Google hits are not appropriate for measuring relative merit. 3) Editor behaviour is an issue where tendentious and disruptive, and tends to have no effect other than generating massive, puerile controversy of no consequence, distracting the rest of us from working on actual improvements. To which I will add 86's attempt to unilaterally redirect the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) 18:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete or Merge This is a blatant POV fork that deals in synthesis and false equivalencies. Any relevant material can be added to global warming controversy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Global warming controversy covers this topic already, anything new in this article should be added there.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erh? Where exactly does GWC cover this? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, synthesis, and essentially a synonym for the other article title (Global Warming Controversy). First Light (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—this reads like an example of populist fear mongering. It adds nothing constructive to the scientific debate, and only appears useful for its observations about human social behavior. I can't support a keep. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its a description of social reactions/attitudes towards the scientific aspects of the topic, just as Climate change denial is such a reaction on the other end of the spectrum. Since when do we only cover hard-science aspects of things? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficiently notabel (350,000 hits for "climate alamism"), more than a DICDEF and has sufficent info for a stand-alsone article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The deletion arguments seem spurious. WP:GOOGLEHITS is not an argument, especially not when several scholarly articles address the topic. There is certainly more than enough to merit WP:GNG. As for the POV-fork argument, i find that equally spurious, since Global warming controversy is already bloated, and has had to be split several times. Denialism is at the other end of the spectrum - so a POV fork from that it certainly isn't either. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, this isn't a test on some general topic - this article is redundant to the main Global warming articles in every way except the potential of the neologism being notable. The google checks show the neologism is not in wide use. Hence, the article is merely a WP:POVFORK. This is not a notable part of the global warming controversy, it's just an ill-defined term used rhetorically by a few writers. 86.** IP (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem with your argument: Neither Global warming and/or Global warming controversy address this topic - using or claiming usage of exaggerations as a policy methodology. Do check. As for rhetorical, please check the very first reference, where it is not used as a rhetorical argument/term. "climate change" is well defined, "alarmism" is well defined, and we have plenty of references that describe and examine the combination. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a well established term and well documented topic of study and discussion in the modern era. LilDabL (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC) Struck: Scibaby sock William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is well written and referenced. Because of its length, it is better kept as a separate article than merged with others. Q Science (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a argument. If the article is a WP:POVFORK, length doesn't matter. 86.** IP (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Edit: most of the arguments for the keep appear to be based around quoting search engine hits which flies in the face of WP:GOOGLEHITS.) It doesn't appear to be notable as a term. Do any of the sources in the article even use the term? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you haven't checked? Not a very good argument is it? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I checked several of them but not every single one, it seems someone went ahead and did that. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick check of the references from the article indicates that the term "Climate Change Alarmist" is not widely used even in the article's sources:
  • [8] - Has a section about alarmism but does not use the term 'climate change alarmism', or 'climate alarmism' anywhere.
  • "Creating a climate for change: communicating climate change and facilitating social change" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism', or even 'alarmism'.
  • "American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • [9] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or even 'alarmism' in the article.
  • [10] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • "Irish Independent Article" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or 'alarmism' in the quoted section
  • "It's curtains for global warming" - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • The National Post quote mentions 'global warming alarmist' and 'ice-age alarmist' but does not use the term 'climate change alarmism/alarmist'
  • [11] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • [12] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or even 'alarm'
  • [13] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism'
  • [14] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • [15] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' or even 'alarm' in the article
  • [16] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article
  • [17] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' in the article or even 'alarm' in the article
  • [18] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' anywhere in the article
but the article is titled "Top hurricane forecaster calls Al Gore a "gross alarmist"" Q Science (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19] - does not use the term 'climate change alarmism' anywhere in the article
but it does discuss "the alarmist camp" Q Science (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The one instance where I could find something similar was here:
  • [20] mentions 'Climate Alarm' twice and 'Climate Alarmism' twice.
'Climate change alarmism' really doesn't seem to be a notable term. Regards,
--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I randomly checked 3 of the articles above. One was behind a paywall, for the other 2, I inserted a comment. It appears that alarmism, and its related derivatives, are used in the articles. What phrase do you think describes this position better than 'climate change alarmism'? Q Science (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article/topic titles do not have to be included in the references for them to be used as references. If you look at the first reference - you will find that it has a section specifically about "alarmism" in the very specific context of "climate change". The whole "neology" argument is a strawman, since that "requirement" implicitely states that all of our articles on Wikipedia have to have a title that you can find in a dictionary. How many of our featured articles would fall on this "requirement?" (randomly chosen featured article example: Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany)
What is the question here is whether or not alarmism is a notable concept in the context of climate change ... and that it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the references do have to deal with the topic but that doesn't mean the exact same term must be used. I checked a couple of references that they said did not mention alarmism. The first said alarmist and the next alarm. I'm fairly happy that is close enough. Dmcq (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dmcq (above). The philosophy of climate change alarmism is clearly a more extreme form of climate change advocacy that deserves its own classification, in much the same way that Stalinism is a more extreme form of Socialism deserving of its own classification. Extreme caution is required whenever one of the belligerents (of either side) in this highly contentious subject proposes censoring terminology/articles/content from Wikipedia. The POV-pushing agenda behind this nomination/censorship could hardly be more obvious. Deterence Talk 12:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to Global warming controversy. When people begin throwing charges of Stalinism at other users, it's clear that political motives have taken over in the discussion. The article is a POV fork, pure and simple. News coverage is not a good indicator of whether it is a POV fork. Let's take an example: If a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy theorists claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, we will not create an article called "The Bombing of Twin Towers by Bush Administration". Instead we will discuss the conspiracy theory in the original article and whether it has merit. By allowing this politically charged topic to exist as an independent article in the first place, we are implicitly acknowledging its validity. This is dangerous and completely unnecessary. JimSukwutput 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Btw. we do have such a 9/11 article - it just has a more sensible name: 9/11 conspiracy theory. (your argument might've had merit if the article was about X's climate change alarmism instead of general coverage, just as the 9/11 one.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, I very much believe that "climate change alarmism" exists and is a serious issue. So if I were to act solely based on my political views, as many commentators here seem to, I would vote for a "keep". But I'm willing to recognize that this is not just a battleground for politics. This is a matter of upholding one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. And I'm not so narcissistic about my personal beliefs that I would wikilawyer my way around basic principles just to get my viewpoint across. JimSukwutput 20:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It has nothing to do with politics.--- Wikipedia has articles on subjects that are notable (which you allow for), and which has reliable sources describing it (again you seem to allow for that). Yours or my political stance towards a particular issue, is 100% irrelevant, in fact, it is antithetical to Wikipedia's NPOV pillar, to even consider this an issue. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe you are putting any effort into trying to comprehend my comments. JimSukwutput 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Either i have grasped what it is that you are trying to say, or you are saying it in a way that is too obtuse for me to comprehend. Our feelings about an article is not an argument for or against deletion. The only relevant thing is whether it is notable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are lots of neologisms on Wikipedia, so let it ride. The term has seen some use, the article is sourced. No reason to be a WP:HATER. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Global warming controversy - what's salvageable can be merged into that as well. Looks to be mostly a POW fork, mixed in with a bit or OR and synthesis. What remains is duplication of whats found elsewhere on Wikipedia. WegianWarrior (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dmcq is right, and you can't delete this and keep Climate change denial. That's clear agenda-pushing. Perhaps merge both of them into something else but that's not the proposal here, now is it? The term absolutely is notable, though honestly "environmental alarmism" is the more common term (and it's more broad). -- Glynth (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clear WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, and is invalid. Look at the one up now, don't make claims about other articles. 86.** IP (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I wouldn't mind nominating Climate change denial for deletion myself once this gets deleted. Both articles are clear POV forking. JimSukwutput 06:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an article to be a WP:POVFORK:
  1. another article must exist that describes the same, just with another POV
  2. the article must not adhere to WP:NPOV.
Now the question i have to ask is: What article would that be? (hint: It is not global warming controversy, since that article doesn't touch upon this subject). And the other question is: What part of the article is in breach of NPOV? The question is still: Is this a notable subject, and does enough material exist to merit an article on the subject. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very educational topic for schoolchildren and researchers of all ages — and thusly encyclopedic for its purposes on Wikipedia — not to mention has received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or selectively merge to Global warming controversy, which is what is the notable topic here, not this (polemic) term for one of several positions in that controversy. I see no real indication that this "alarmism" descriptor is notable apart from being used to describe the controversy, and the article merely rehashes the controversy in a unhelpful "he said, she said" style.  Sandstein  21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Global warming controversy --DGaw (talk) 04:28, 26 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikill Pane[edit]

Mikill Pane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced biographical article that clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on biographical articles. The only claim of notability is that the artist collaborated on one track on an album the reached #47 in the UK charts - this clearly does no meet that standards laid out in WP:BAND. Prod was removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable DJ as of right now. Maybe when he releashes his debut album he will become popular, but I doubt it. --Madison-chan (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Apologies, I feel that the article is only being nominated for deletion as I have not provided enough evidence of Mikill's success - this is my first wiki article and I did not want to list his achievements too extensively for fear of breaching impartiality rules. Within the UK music scene Mikill is gathering momentum and I believe is notable enough for a wiki page. Will add further evidence. --Adamcoltman (talk) 00:33, 17 November 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.
  • Keep He has toured with multiple big artists including Ed Sheeran, Rizzle Kicks and Mac Miller. He is very popular in the British hip-hop scene, and is very highly thought of, and is expected to become huge in the future — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.243.144 (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deolinda Fonseca[edit]

Deolinda Fonseca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly fails our requirements for biographies, as the article lacks sufficient reliable, independent sources. Steven Walling • talk 23:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the concern about lack of sources. The problem is that the main sources are in Portuguese and Danish. There is a blank entry for this artist on the Portuguese Wikipedia, where she is listed as an artist, but a biography has not yet been written. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deolinda_(desambigua%C3%A7%C3%A3o) http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deolinda_Fonseca&action=edit&redlink=1

I have added one more independent source that I could find in English. She is a well-known artist in Denmark and Portugal, but apparently less so in the English-speaking world. I hope that the biography can remain in Wikipedia and we can build on the sources as more become available. Aadelse (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not having in-depth independent third-party coverage. If sources in non-English languages are found, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 14 November 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, v/r - TP 03:20, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

India's Most Desirable[edit]

India's Most Desirable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable TV series. No assertion of notability, no secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG – Richard BB 21:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 8 November 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, v/r - TP 03:19, 16 November 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. Speculation over people's motives and the possibility of the subject becoming notable next year aside, along with the rather poor nomination statement, the only arguments that have been advanced here are in favour of deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Scott[edit]

Lorenzo Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball player who is currently a free-agent. Though he played briefly in 2011, Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and reasonable judgement would suggest that he will likely never reach the major leagues considering his age and minor league performance last season. In addition, being a low-level minor league All-Star doesn't necessarily mean he is notable, either. Alex (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though he played briefly in 2011, Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and reasonable judgement would suggest that he will likely never reach the major leagues considering his age and minor league performance last season." is a statement that contradicts itself. If Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, then why are you in the very same breath predicting that the player in question won't make the majors? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for noticing that. Such a terrible understanding of policy surely belongs at the RfC. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm coming around to the belief that we should create a List of active minor league free agents in baseball or something similar, as a temporary holding tank into which articles like this one could be temporarily merged until we know with which organization the players in question will sign this offseason, and then depopulate the list of any players who haven't signed by the start of the minor league season. Waiting until the offseason to nominate articles on active players for deletion, as Alex is doing, is simply gaming the system. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep As the nominator's rationale is completely contradictory. You try to tell us what WP:CRYSTAL is, and then proceed to whip out a crystal ball of your own. Anyone that knows these guidelines are free to nominate again later. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Note to closing admin: Each editor who has posted so far has extreme, unrelenting and potentially unhealthy issues with myself as an editor and is likely making and basing their opinions about this AfD on the person who started it, myself, rather than on the actual, intrinsic and inherent worthiness of the article. Please take this into consideration when making your final decision. Alex (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I kindly ask editors to discuss the article and avoid personal comments here. Personal concerns, if any, are better handled at other venues such as user talk pages, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.—Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't mind, can you please clarify exactly which "extreme, unrelenting and potentially unhealthy issues" you believe that I have with you? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 23:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline I don't know, while technically he might have a little bit of notability, all the article is is a list of who he played for... not sure that establishes an article that should be kept. I guess I would vote delete. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:01, 12 November 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, v/r - TP 03:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nomination statement aside, Scott really is not notable. Based on what I can find, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 19:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CRYSTAL is about articles. There's no prohibition against speculation in AFDs and I am sure that the closing admin will be able to determine the proper weight to give it. Matchups 03:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the nominator's reason and comments in this discussion, the subject of the article in question is not notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete same reasons as others.--Yankees10 01:56, 21 November 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. No prejudice towards later discussions about a merge or redirect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drop C tuning[edit]

Drop C tuning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't seem to be an "official" tuning. The only sources I could find were unreliable sites like howtotuneaguitar.org or YouTube videos, and the only book hits were false positives or Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And how is that reputable? It's a personal website hosted on cox.net. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to guitar tunings, merging some of the tuning details if appropriate - the long list of bands can be safely discarded due to list creep and lack of verifiability. It does seem like the sort of term somebody might search for though, so a redirect would be useful. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm withholding my decision for now, but I was able to find this and this (they directly mention Drop C tuning and don't seem like false positives to me). Drop C tuning may have more prevalence in other citable guitar lesson books as well. Chris (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And both of them use different definitions, further solidifying that this term is so random and seldom-used that no one can even agree on what it means. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a good idea IMO. That whole section on Dropped X tunings needs a blasting out, since I can't find sources on ANY of the tunings except Dropped D. And clumping a bunch of non-notable tunings together doesn't make them notable after combining, so a merge is out of order IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:49, 15 November 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, v/r - TP 03:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Guitar_tunings#Dropped_tunings. That article is a mess too; however, I'm convinced that "dropped tunings" warrant at least some information - either in that article, or in an article of their own, ie, an appropriately encycopaedic section/article on dropped tuning could be made - but that's not what we're here to consider. There's no sign of enough RS to support an article on "Drop C tuning", but I see no harm in a redirect. I understand TPH's comment, but I feel discussion of our poor coverage of dropped tunings is outside the scope of this specific AfD - and I do believe that 'dropped tuning' itself is notable enough.  Chzz  ►  13:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search on "Drop C tuning" -wikipedia finds 205,000 hits; "Dropped C tuning" -wikipedia another 52,000. They are primarily discussion forums, blogs, guitar tab sites, and the like, so almost none are worth citing individually for notability purposes. Collectively, however, I think they make the case that the term is in common parlance in the guitar world, at least in hard rock/heavy metal. There are also WP:RS sources, ten of which I've added to the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I agree most of the Google stuff seems unreliable, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. For example, I know for sure that the "Colle" violin bow technique exists, it's just that it lacks WP:RS to support its existence, and if I created it, I would need RS, not WP:OR (my own knowledge). HurricaneFan25 15:07, 24 November 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 consensus would appear to be that all coverage that isn't a passing mention is from local sources, and thus the consensus is to delete. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Center Studios[edit]

Detroit Center Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable Company Bronsons-Ghost (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Bronsons-Ghost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Also possible candidate for Speedy Delete. The studio's official website is no longer existent and a search of Google and Yahoo shows nearly zilch with regard to any information about the company itself, In fact the only hits that come up are about the proposed studio and sale of the MGM Grand temporary casino to the owners of the Detroit Center Studios and nothing more and as I posted in the article earlier the project ended up being scrapped and abandoned anyway, following which the property where the studio was to be located was later sold to the City of Detroit. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While not questioning the good faith of someone who created an account soley to nominate this article for deletion[21] and whose knowledge of what to do and where absolutely quacks of sock or puppet, the topic does appear to be immintantly sourcable,[22][23] and the topic meets WP:N. It does not matter that the deal fell through. What does matter is that the topic received persistant and in-depth coverage over an extended period of time... enough to be worthy of note, and such notabilty is not temporary. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Are you accusing me of being a sock puppet? because sir I take offense to that unfounded accusation. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear so—it appears that he is suggesting that the nominator may be one. Bongomatic 02:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup... not TheGoofyGolfer at all. If he would look at the 3-lifetime-edit history of the nominator, he might beter understand my comment. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here. Bongomatic 02:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also up above in the contribs link after the SPA tag. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MQS found the only non-local sources for this. One is a passing mention, one appears to be a reprocessed press release distributed by AP. Other mentions are in very local sources. Bongomatic 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My sincere apologizes to you Schmidt I obviously misunderstood your comments. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Since we've reached the 7 day time limit I'll like to formally request that this AfD be relisted so that we can try and get a better consensus and input from more Wikipedians. I would like to point out that while I whole heartedly support the deletion of this article I think it should be done fairly and balanced and unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case as of right now due to the current votes being far and few. I'd feel a lot better if more users would give their input before any final action is taken. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur. Please relist for extended discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unfortunately there does not seem to exist enough coverage for this subject to pass our notability guidelines. With thanks to all the participants, Drmies (talk) 20:00, 15 November 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, v/r - TP 03:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A failed production studio shouldn't have it's own article IMO. It should be merged into the Motown Motion Picture Studios article, because that studio is directly related to this one. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a sourced connection between the two is available, then a redirect and merge is sensible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure At this time I would like to request that Wikipedians refrain from any further votes as the voting period has now expired and request that an admin close and provide an official tally of the votes herein. By my count the unofficial final tally is 4 for Deletion (Bronsons-Ghost, TheGoofyGolfer, Bongomatic and Drmies) , 1 for Keep (Schmidt) and 2 for merger to Motown Motion Picture Studios (Stuartyeates and Madison-chan). Therefore the vote is to DELETE this article accordingly. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedians may continue to comment as long as the discussion remains open. I hasten to remind you that AFD is NOT simply a count of heads. A closure is based upon review of the weaknesses and strengths of various arguments, upon proper application, or not, of policy and guideline in those arguments, and upon what ultimately serves to improve the project. And to offer a further consideration to my "keep" above, a Merge seems a reasonable alternative if not kept, as maintaining sourced information for out readers in a location that makes sense serves the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:33, 24 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Elbaum[edit]

Yosef Elbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rabbi. Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Chesdovi (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most non-notable rabbis I have ever come across on wikipedia. This is not a stub becasue I could not find a thing, zero, ziltch, about him. Chesdovi (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - My hyperbole alarm went off with respect to a comment above. It seems impossible that this is "one of the most non-notable rabbis..." since Elbaum is referred to in THIS PIECE from Haaretz.com, which is listed in the footnotes, which refers to him as the "head" of something called "Movement for the Preparation of the Temple" and a main speaker at a demonstration organized by that group. So let's take a good look here, because this looks to me at a quick glance like a public figure in Israel. Carrite (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that "Movement for the Preparation of the Temple" is a topic under the heading "Third Temple Movement" in Rubenberg's Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh. Just cause he's mentioned as the "head" in one newspaper article - thats makes him "keep" here? Should we also have an article on Yehuda Etzion, head of the Chai Vekayam - also mentioned in that article? (ok, there are pages on Moshe Feiglin and Yisrael Ariel) but there is nothing about this person. If there is, it belongs in the organisation page - his only claim to fame. Delete. Chesdovi (talk) 19:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chesdovi: Not sure what you are getting so hot under the collar about. If the person is mentioned in mainstream media and reliable sources, that should clinch it. Unless you have some sort of personal dislike of what he stands for that would violate WP:NPOV. Kindly also remember that WP:NOTPAPER and we are building an encyclopedia here and not remonstrating our likes and dislikes in violation of of WP:LIKE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If the person is [merely] mentioned in mainstream media and [not in] reliable sources, that should clinch it". What twaddle. Delete. Chesdovi (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umm Chesdovi, take a look: WP:NEWSORG = WP:RS, can't believe you don't know that. P.S. Please stop obsessively typing "delete" in bold type yet it can be very misleading. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am BOLDLY unbolding all but the first Delete by the nominator as unhelpful to the closing administrator in judging actual sentiment among the discussants here. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 15 November 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, v/r - TP 03:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found only one mention in a reliable source, and that mention isn't even about him, really - it's about Temple Mount controversy. WP:1E at best. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment - there is not enough info about this rabbi out there to warrant a page about him. Chesdovi (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chesdovi: This is now the THIRD time that you have typed "delete". Kindly note that relisting does not mean you have to keep on re-voting because the earlier discussions are not "annulled" rather it is an extension of time for the AfD see WP:RELIST: "The intent of the deletion process is to attempt to determine consensus on whether an article should be deleted. However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator)...relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus" and NOT as you are doing re-voting and stating "delete" obsessively when in any case you are the one that has nominated this article for deletion in the first place. If you persist in this obsessive pattern of misleading "voting" instead of engaging in bona fide DISCUSSIONS a formal complaint may be filed against you. Thank you. IZAK (talk) 11:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Ches. I would suggest that you change your header above, of "Delete", to "Comment". Otherwise, though of course this is not your intention, readers can be misled and read your one !vote as 2 !votes. It is convention for the nom not to -- in addition to his nomination, which already counts as a Delete !vote -- also place a "Delete-headed" comment. I imagine any editor might edit that for clarity, but expect it would be best for all concerned if you were to simply make the change yourself. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am BOLDLY striking the re-vote by the nominator as unhelpful to the closing administrator in judging actual sentiment among the discussants here. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moving article from Yosef Elbaum (American pronunciation) to more accurate and google friendly Yosef Elboim. Known rabbi, on one hand, the Israeli mass media could not care less for him, on the other hand, he is also not too admired within his own Haredi community and villified. This blog piece from Hillel Weiss describes him, but cannot be used as a source in the article obviously. I'll add some more info from Hebrew sources, and newly 'discovered' English sources. --Shuki (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shuki. GBooks also turns up quite a number of references to him as a significant figure. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Roper[edit]

Christopher Roper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be merged from Christopher roper (caps diff), also up for AFD . Non notable, self published references. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about him although I can confirm his role as editor [24]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable journalistCurb Chain (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable South African journalist, editor of the Mail & Guardian Online,[25] considered one of South Africa's "top online managers",[26] recognized as an expert on press ethics and social media,[27] winner of two PICA industry awards for his work, including South African Columnist of the Year,[28][29] and one Mondi silver Features Award.[30] Also received a grant from the U.S. State Department as part of the selected US State Dept. Foreign Press contingent. Viriditas (talk) 04:05, 8 November 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, m.o.p 18:39, 8 November 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:12, 16 November 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, v/r - TP 03:15, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Q2 Dual DJ[edit]

Q2 Dual DJ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain There needs to be a search for substantial product reviews. Unfortunately this isn't a subject where I'm qualified to look. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, if you can't find info surely it isn't notable??  ;-) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 November 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Scott[edit]

Olivia Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable and there is disagreement to who the person really is. Fails WP:GNG Dontforgetthisone (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there discussion about that disagreement? I can't find it, and the talk page is a redlink. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Picasa search for similar images of the subject matter found the blog what-makes-us-human.tumblr.com, which in turn turns up a facebook account. Login is necessary, but there is clear evidence of an assumed identity: the account at fb.com/owindward reveals an Olivia Windward, who looks just like one of the links! Clever girl! If only shed covered up her tracks better! Southcalgal (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Several of the sources listed as external links don't talk about the subject. One such, as an example, linked to reviews of a play that she happened to be in. It does confirm that she was in the play, which is good as far as it goes, but does not actually discuss her performance. Usual Caveats apply, as always. She is in the early days of her career, and it's possible - even likely - that she'll have notable roles in the future. When that happens, an article may be appropriate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Article was not listed in a log. I've now listed it in today's log.--v/r - TP 03:03, 16 November 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, —SW— prattle 03:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the sources provide evidence that this person exists, they don't provide enough evidence to show that she passes the basic notability test: only one of them gives her more coverage than a passing mention. She doesn't appear to be notable at this time. Robofish (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 November 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 Clothing in ancient Greece. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greek clothing[edit]

Greek clothing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page offers no information at all. Furthermore, there is no other article like this. JDDJS (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. In fairness, when this article was created, it was not as devoid of information as it is now. See this edit; another editor removed the actual content, which admittedly was not great, but was better than nothing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clothing in ancient Greece, as the appeared to be the creators intention. Notable topic but we already have an article. JORGENEV 04:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jorgenev. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jorgenev. JIP | Talk 07:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Jorgenev. HurricaneFan25 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 November 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 due to failing to meet notability requirements. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwood DNX-5120[edit]

Kenwood DNX-5120 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge some of the content to an article about Kenwood car receivers. The actual articles is wildly excessive and inappropriate detail, and I doubt whether the individual model is worth an article by itself. (unless there are multiple substantial reviews), but this can be handled under the alternatives to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article about Kenwood in-car audio is not an article that should be included in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 16 November 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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenwood DNX520VBT[edit]

Kenwood DNX520VBT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mostly a manual, and possible copyright violation as I've suggested on the page. YumOooze (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge some of the content to an article about Kenwood car receivers. The actual articles is wildly excessive and inappropriate detail, and I doubt whether the individual model is worth an article by itself. (unless there are multiple substantial reviews), but this can be handled under the alternatives to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But would an article about Kenwood car receivers be notable?? No! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is very little useful information in the article anyways; it's mostly just advertising. YumOooze (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog. Excessive listing of features, lack of refs to multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage makes me doubt satisfaction of notability. Edison (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 16 November 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 for deletion. Discussion on what to include in the list (as far as a cutoff for inclusion) should continue on the talk page of the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of power outages[edit]

List of power outages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Broad endless list with an unclear criteria of inclusion 1,000 people??. Unplanned power outages are a very often occurrence, especially when it's weather related. Better off as an category Delete Secret account 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab, and create sub-pages such as List of non-weather power outages with more than 1 million customers. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may support a list a notable (non-weather) blackouts but obviously there would be a problem with a dab, as many of those power outages are just normal weather related outages plus arbitrary inclusion/disclusion concerns. Secret account 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI would not exclude weather so casually. Extreme heat (in summer-peaking) or cold (in winter-peaking) utilities has led to overloads which led to large, and long-lasting outages which had societal effects such as restructuring of electric company management or major infrastructure improvements. Edison (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because having any sort of amount of people included would lead to arguments about arbitrary cutoff. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as power outages aren't inherently notable unless they get coverage from multiple sources. If it's a big enough blackout, it will get a name and coverage; listing every time the lights blink due to a snow storm will be an endless task, better handled by the authorities like NERC who get paid to track such statistics. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category is good enough for any truly notable, regionwide power outage. 1,000 people, or even 1 million people, is a pretty low bar. Calwatch (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does get a lot of traffic, though, doesn't it? And what was going on Halloween when 1400 page views occured? I'm always curious when I see a big spike like that. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is sort of interesting. (Wait, there's a policy against that isn't there?) Anyway I think that 1,000,000 would be a better cut-off to define a major power outage than 1,000. BigJim707 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit to notable power outages which have or which could have their own articles. A notable outage will have more than "news story" coverage; a few major blackouts have had enduring effects, hearings by national legislatures, and restructuring of how electricity is transmitted and controlled, along with books and TV shows long after. Remove random outages affecting small numbers of customers or large numbers for short times which are not in themselves notable, and remove ones based on original research by Wikipedia editors guessing how many customers were affected based on the geographic areas to calculate an arbitrary "customer hours" cutoff. A better filter based on some industry standard might be useful, though. And by the way, notable outages did not begin in 1965. There were blackouts in the US that affected the largest cities for hours, or which spread across multiple smaller cities, in earlier decades as well, larger than some outages listed in the article. The challenge in such a list as this is to keep out every trivial instance mentioned in a newspaper as a news event. Edison (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab-ify (e.g. List of power outages that affected Manhattan) and only include power outages that affected a large number of people, or somehow involved or disrupted major events. HurricaneFan25 18:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN — see Problems on the Power Grid for an example of a source which lists major incidents of this kind. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an parent article on the topic, Power outage which the notable blackouts can be merged, again I don't see a stand alone list as discriminate. Secret account 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 November 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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer RT-909[edit]

Pioneer RT-909 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - shedload of non-notable products on here (cars are the best example). Add some more citations. Jw2036 (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am interested in some examples. I would have thought cars are generally notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Other stuff exists" is not a good reason to keep an article. No evidence so far it satisfies notability. Significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources is needed. Wikipedia is not a catalog of every product ever offered for sale. Edison (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 16 November 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 / snow delete (take your pick). BencherliteTalk 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Overbeek[edit]

Aaron Overbeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence that Overbeek played an NFL match (searched NFL.com, pro-football-reference.com, etc.), so he fails the relevant sport-specific notability guideline and I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so he doesn't pass the general notability guideline either. Jenks24 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a hoax. The article makes claims to having played college football for the University of Michigan and pro football for two NFL teams. A search of Michigan's historical roster database here shows the first claim to be false. Also, no record of him ever being affiliated with an NFL team. The article was created two weeks ago (on Halloween) by a user (Iknowitall1979) who has never made another edit. Bogus sources were then added by a user (Overbeek1010) who also has never made another edit. A third newly-created account (Simonsays48836) then showed up to further embellish the article. I suspect that all three of these users are the same jokester. Facebook has a page for Mr. Overbeek who appears to be a Michigan football and professional wrestling fan. Can this be speedy deleted? Cbl62 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. The notable football elements of this article are fictitious. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - I love the master black belt in continuous process improvement, nice touch. HOAX. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, per Cbl62, it does look like SOCKPUPPET with 3 SPAs all used only on this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 16 November 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 due to the work done improving the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Vision for Men[edit]

Christian Vision for Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deproded, but concern still not addressed. I have been unable to locate significant reliable source content to establish notability. The links that have been added are a mixture of social media, non-reliable sources, and passing mentions. I have been unable to turn up any significant reliable coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a UK Christian man I might support this organisation if I came across it (which I haven't), but I fully agree that there is a total lack of sources meeting WP:IRS. I found a Telegraph article and a pay-only Times article that refer to CVM, but they seem to be about the issue of men leaving church rather than the organisation itself. – Fayenatic (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The link that has been added to the Baptist Times just provides a passing reference for the organization. The link provided to Scripture Union is broken. DaveMedia, it would be helpful if you could locate some reliable source independent third party coverage which focuses on the organization. Barring that, it seems the notability is just not there. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although current notability is currently low CVmen in the UK has a growing presence in the Evangelical Christian scene and my belief is that its notability index so to speak is rising. I think back to the early days of Soul Survivor (charity) and how it has grown. Cosnahang (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very promotional article, but if references existed to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability standard, that problem could be fixed by editing to get rid of the promotional tone. The Baptist Times article is about their survey more than it is about the organization, but it provides some support for notability. The ref to Scripture Union is a dead link. The rest of the articles and references are to blogs which might not satisfy "independent and reliable sources," including a number of "partner" organizations or activites of the subject organization. Edison (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The link provided to Scripture Union is correct, but doesn't work when the page is saved ... the link has been added in text form and can be copied and pasted successfully. DaveMedia (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now corrected, error was misunderstanding of how links are constructed in Wikipedea Cosnahang (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The best claim to notability I can find is a BBC News article talking about a gender divide in the church that mentions teh research done by CVN. There may also be a case with the number of churches affiliated to CVM. The big problem with this article, however, is that it's so heavily promotional that even if notability was established, you'd probably have to delete the whole lot and start again to meet WP:NPOV. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please see the upgraded article as of 15 Nov 11. Cosnahang (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Weak Keep. Claim to notability still not great, but the work done on the article to make it more encyclopaedic and less promotional, together with the number of organisations affiliated to the group, is just about enough to rescue it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As a para-church organisation with 2000 members churches, it ought to be significant. What surprises me is that the equivalent women's organisation, which I thought was more significant, should only have a redlink. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both this organization and the bio of its head, Carl Beech, are simultaneously up for deletion, which gets my IDONTLIKEIT sensory glands tingling. Nearly 24,000 53,900 Google hits for the exact name of the organization plus the name "Beech," which would seem to constitute a big enough iceberg from which to carve a few reliable sources snowcones. Take, for instance, THIS PIECE from The Telegraph, entitled "Churches to lure men back into pews by showing World Cup matches," which constitutes substantial, independently published coverage of the organization. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And HERE is a BBC piece entitled "Southport Conference Examines Role of Men in Church" documenting a June conference held by Christian Vision for men. This strikes me as the UK equivalent of the American fundamentalist group Promise Keepers. It is an encyclopedic topic, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 19:19, 23 November 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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shijiazhuang lightning incident[edit]

Shijiazhuang lightning incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a news story. It belongs to Wikinews, not here. In the grand scheme of things the notability of the event is questionable, even locally to Shijiazhuang. Colipon+(Talk) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The text doesn't explain why this event is in any way notable. References to news media is not enough to prove notability, since all news are referenced in news media. I'm not aware of any broader social issue that could make this event a symbol of something bigger. If it turns out there is such a social issue (perhaps the low quality of Chinese building projects, but that's not clearly explained here), then this "lightning incident" should be mentioned in a wiki about that issue. Madalibi (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article provides no refs to show that the incident was more than a news story, though a number of lives were lost. Edison (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 November 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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Mallet[edit]

Monica Mallet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not very experienced with this (pardon me if I'm mistaken), but I believe this article doesn't properly assert the notability of the subject per WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm forced to concur. The content of the article doesn't really indicate very much of a career yet. Maybe in a few years? DS (talk) 01:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being in a film or two doesn't bestow notability, not even if there was an actor with notability in said films. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Oddly enough, there's a few awards that she's won that the article creator didn't include, instead opting to go the "acted with famous people" route. Neither of the awards seem to be major enough to count and one seems to be from a group that I'm not sure is really all that notable, unfortunately. (An award from Urbanworld for a short film and an award through AFI that she won with a group of other people.) The rest of the links on the page are more "this film exists" type of links that don't prove notability for the actress. She's just not notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
  • Delete - All the films she starred in are not notable or important, and none of the awards she won are prestigious. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Good luck in her career but as of this point, it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 18 November 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. After reading this discussion, it seems to be mainly a content dispute (and even that is disputed). Discussion and debate should be continued on the talk page of the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ratimir of Serbia[edit]

Ratimir of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is probably fictional and pseudo-historic, as well as his "predecessor" Vladin. The only source that mentions that is Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (a South Slavic version of story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table). It claims that Serbian rulers is descendants of Goths who established their kingdom on western Balkan that flourished for many years. In fact, (Ostro)Gothic kingdom was annihilated in time of eastern roman emperor Justinian. Further, Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja contradicts to De Administrando Imperio, written by emperor Constantine VII. Ratimir is not mentioned in DAI. But Wikipedia teaches us that thi Ratimir (mentioned in CPD, but not mentioned in DAI) is predecessor to Višeslav of Serbia, first Serbian prince mentioned by name mentioned in DAI (and not mentioned in CPD).  Bojan  Talk  03:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google Books search for Ratimir + Viseslav yield a number of hits about Balkan rulers in the eight and ninth centuries named Ratimir, and some would appear to confirm this.[31] There's also a Ratimir of Pannonian Croatia that may or may not be related. He may be legendary, but the legend is not a hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That article makes a definite statement that the was the ruler of Serbia for a certain time. If this is not reliable information then WP should not say it. If he is notable as a semi-legendary figure (like Arthur) then have an article about that. BigJim707 (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there is a published source, even an ancient one, then that would meet our need for notability. If there is a reasonable claim that he's a non-existent mythical figure, then that's a reason to re-write the article to maintain WP:NPOV, but not one to delete it. After all, we'd keep King Arthur. Even if this is one of those semi-mythical figures that has become a more of a political figurehead than anything else, all the more reason to provide a balanced encyclopedic article on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing much to say about Ratimir/Ratomir. The only document that mentions him (which contradicts to other sources) dedicates to him only one passage (out of 47). But it does NOT tell that he was member of House of Vlastimirović, doesn't indicate that he lived around 700-730 and doesn't say that his successor was Višeslav. This article is not even an original research... -- Bojan  Talk  03:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have a simple rule of thumb. People who lived before movable type are notable if their names were written down. If there's a manuscript chronicle or source out there that says that he was a king and the father of a king, he's an encyclopedia subject even if he never really existed and the chronology he appears in makes no sense. This seems to me to be about a content dispute. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is manuscript - Chronicle of Priest of Doklea - that mentions it , but historical value of 2/3 of the manuscript is dubious in best case. It clashes with accepted history, professional scholar discarded it as serious source at the end of 19th century. It is like somebody uses books of Moses to write history of Jews before king David. Comparison with Bible, king Arthur is inadequate: unlike Arthur, Holly Grail and Knights of the Round table that are popular motives since Middle Ages, Ratimir & Co. are unknown. 3/4 of this ultra-stub is original research. The chronicler only wrote that Ratimir persecuted Christians and that was son of equally fictional Vladin and had four sons. I think it is not worth even a stub. Only reason why this article exists are revisionists (ignorant and aggressive like creationists in USA). -- Bojan  Talk  09:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has something to do with Balkan ethnic politics, then? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Article in current state doesn't tell much on controversy ("Gothic" origin of Croats and Serbs, Red Croatia, "Serbian autochtonic school". You need to see its talk page for more details. -- Bojan  Talk  14:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only document that mentions him (which contradicts to other sources)
It takes two sources to make a contradiction, not an "only document". A source doesn't become a contradiction, 'wrong' or an unreliable source, just because its reader disagrees with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It contradicts not only to other Byzantine and Papal sources, but to itself. All scientist who studied concluded that its few parts (that talks on events before 9th century) are worthless, and others should be dealt with caution. Another example of contradiction is presenting Moravian ruler Svatopluk I as ruler of Balkan Slavs. Just read article on CPD and its talk page, you'll understand what I'm talking about. -- Bojan  Talk  22:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a content dispute. All seem to agree that this person and his alleged descendants are in fact discussed in a historical primary source whose credibility is doubted by the nominator. Non-English sources are discussing the names Ratimir and Viseslav together, with dates that correspond to the subject. I cannot tell whose side they are on, and as such can't be much help to improve the article. Apparently this fellow and the claims now being ventured in his name are being used as some kind of ethno-political McGuffin. I won't have the interest or patience to grasp the real controversy here, but the involvement of Balkan ethnic politics will test the assumption of good faith from all concerned. He's a real figure in history or legend, appearing in a primary source, discussed in secondary sources: that should settle it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT content dispute. This stub has two sentences, and both are original research (in best case). What do you think, why Serbian Wikipedia, a medium size wikipedia, doesn't have articles on this Serbian ruler, while in the same tame, has articles on every other Serbian prince, princess, king, queen, emperor and empress? Because people who profesionalyy studied CPD for more than one century concluded that leading chapters of the chronicle are plain fiction -- Bojan  Talk  07:19, 23 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_November_16&oldid=1142637026"